In the wake of the political demise of National Right to Life's first endorsed presidential candidate, Fred Thompson, it issued a statement Monday saying what it should have said in the first place: We love every pro-life candidate.
Someone close to the situation has told me Darla St. Martin of NRLC admitted to him/her that NRLC endorsed too soon.
I appreciate NRLC's attempt to consolidate votes around one pro-life candidate, so our votes wouldn't be split and Giuliani walk away with the nomination.
But Thompson was problematic because he opposed a human life amendment to the Constitution and supported states having the right to impose euthanasia.
One revelation in all this was that the NRLC apparently abandoned support of a human life amendment to the Constitution long ago, which is troubling.
I bet Romney would mess up his hair for that endorsement. Or even eat chicken skin!Posted by: PeachPit at January 30, 2008 5:06 PM
National Right to Life DOES support a HLA. They just believe that it has to be done with the right timing, otherwise we might further entrench Roe into American stare decisis.Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at January 30, 2008 5:10 PM
Clarification: they may not outright say they want a Human Life Amendment, but my point is that, if we could just whip one up, they would be for it. Their point is that, at this time, we can't just pass a Human Life Amendment.Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at January 30, 2008 5:11 PM
Nathan, it was learned through this process that NRLC removed the question from questionnaires as to whether candidates would support the HLA. Even though the HLA is not feasible now, pro-lifers should not give the impression it's no longer important, and they do so by disregarding it.Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 30, 2008 5:32 PM
Well, why should they ask a candidate if it is no longer a major concern for the organization? Isn't that their right? They are obviously focusing on a "defeat Roe, ban abortion state-by-state" approach at this time.
When did they remove it? If they just removed it, it would make sense given their endorsement of Thompson, whom I also ended up supporting despite his reluctance to support an amendment.Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at January 30, 2008 5:54 PM
FYI: Huckabee is still our only 100% pro-life candidate on National Right to Life candidate comparison:http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/allcandidatescomparison.pdf McCain and Romney are both for Embryonic Stem cell research.Posted by: GG at January 30, 2008 8:29 PM
Mike Huckabee was endorsed by Georgia Right to Life in December. He spoke at the state capitol for Together for Life to 5,000 on January 22nd. To view video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8LNZtP35KAPosted by: Nancy at January 30, 2008 9:29 PM
Thompson's problem wasn't that he wasn't pro-life enough, but that he didn't convince anyone that he really, really wanted to be president.Posted by: Brian at January 30, 2008 10:02 PM
I love how everytime Colbert references Romney the clip of the muppet game show host comes up. HILARIOUSPosted by: prettyinpink at January 30, 2008 11:36 PM
The NRLC should have a litmus test for presidential candidates, would they place Supreme Court place who would uphold the Constitution. I have heard recent Democratic candidates (Kerry last year) come right out and say they would "disqualify a Supreme Court judge from nomination if they thought the judge would vote to overturn RoeVWade. Kind of scary a presidential candidate like Kerry with that much disregard for the constitution they swear to uphold.Posted by: Truthseeker at January 30, 2008 11:44 PM
Truthseeker, Janet and Sandy...
Novena time. I don't have your emails, so if you would email me I'll fill you in...
Samantha T., just for kicks you are welcome to join us too...let me know.Posted by: mk at January 31, 2008 6:22 AM
Nathan, there's the rub, that the HLA is "no longer a major concern for the organization."
It is certainly NRLC's right to remove the HLA question from its candidate questionnaires. But doing so deemphasizes it. Doing so allowed candidates to forget about it, to think we no longer want it, to allow candidates to come to forefront - like Thompson - who don't agree with it, when it is our ultimate goal, isn't it?Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 31, 2008 6:41 AM
Jill, you got it wrong. NRLC has NEVER backtracked on the human life amendment and will push for it immediately after the SC reverses Roe. You should issue a retraction immediately.Posted by: Steven Ertelt at February 1, 2008 11:19 AM