Please forward & distribute the following message to every pro-life minded voter you can. The right to life and the presidency are too important for us to stand idle while our leaders make such a colossal mistake.
–
—
–
To the Leadership of the National Right to Life Committee,
–
As a longtime pro-life activist, I read with great concern reports that the National Right to Life Committee intends to endorse Sen. Fred Thompson for the Republican presidential nomination (PDF link). With all due respect, this decision is utterly maddening.
–
As a lobbyist, Thompson lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood, and his campaign denied it until faced with the proof. He was a major proponent of so-called campaign finance reform, which has been a major impediment to the pro-life movement. He has suggested that he would not vote to ban abortion at the state level (indeed, on the campaign trail he says state authorities “can do whatever they want” about abortionists, distancing himself from the debate—and in both of these stories, he raises the specter of pregnant women thrown in jail, a common pro-abortion scare tactic). Most recently, he told Tim Russert that he opposes the Federal Human Life Amendment, because “people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about.”
–
Clearly, when Thompson says he will use “the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life,” he doesn’t have any sort of meaningful legal protection for the unborn in mind. One has to wonder, then, why the NRLC would throw its support behind a man whose rhetoric doesn’t match his promises.
–
Is it because he opposes Roe v. Wade, and promises to appoint judicial originalists to the Supreme Court? So do Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain. Is it because of doubts about Romney’s sincerity? It can’t be—Thompson was once pro-choice as well, and it isn’t clear that his current position is significantly different. Or is it because simply, as their endorsement says, they think Thompson “can win”? If such a (premature) calculation is their reason, then it’s truly depressing to see the NRLC put politics over principle.
–
There is a reasonable pro-life case to be made for Thompson, should he be our sole alternative to Sen. Hillary Clinton. But we are in the primary, not the general election, and the pro-life goal should be the candidate who will be the best advocate for unborn rights. As NRLC co-founder Dr. John Willke has recognized, that someone is Mitt Romney, who, in addition to pro-life stances on Roe, judges, taxpayer funding, and partial-birth abortion, also expresses support for nationwide legal protection for the unborn—including the Human Life Amendment.
–
The NRLC’s own “Open Petition to the Republican Party” (PDF file), which demands a pro-life presidential candidate, cites the GOP platform’s declaration that “Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Based on his own words, Fred Thompson is not an advocate of legislative protection for the right to life, and therefore fails your own standard. Why are you settling for the lesser of America’s pro-life options, and why are you doing so at this stage in the race?
–
In endorsing Thompson, you are setting a precedent that actually threatens the future success of the pro-life movement. If you decide Thompson’s weak stand on abortion is now enough to make someone our movement’s standard-bearer—especially when there is still a stronger viable alternative—you are, in effect, saying that pro-life doesn’t mean as much as it once did. You are defining the term down. Out with “certain unalienable rights” and in with the right to decide in favor of abortion as “what freedom is all about.”
–
For the sake of the one million unborn babies per year who will be murdered by abortion, I beg you to reconsider this endorsement. If you do not, however, you can be sure that many pro-lifers like me will remember this incident, and find other organizations and paths with which to defend life—if need be, even from actions of the NRLC.
–
Calvin Freiburger
http://rightcal.blogspot.com
–
As a longtime pro-life activist, I read with great concern reports that the National Right to Life Committee intends to endorse Sen. Fred Thompson for the Republican presidential nomination (PDF link). With all due respect, this decision is utterly maddening.
–
As a lobbyist, Thompson lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood, and his campaign denied it until faced with the proof. He was a major proponent of so-called campaign finance reform, which has been a major impediment to the pro-life movement. He has suggested that he would not vote to ban abortion at the state level (indeed, on the campaign trail he says state authorities “can do whatever they want” about abortionists, distancing himself from the debate—and in both of these stories, he raises the specter of pregnant women thrown in jail, a common pro-abortion scare tactic). Most recently, he told Tim Russert that he opposes the Federal Human Life Amendment, because “people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about.”
–
Clearly, when Thompson says he will use “the Presidency to encourage policies that promote a culture of life,” he doesn’t have any sort of meaningful legal protection for the unborn in mind. One has to wonder, then, why the NRLC would throw its support behind a man whose rhetoric doesn’t match his promises.
–
Is it because he opposes Roe v. Wade, and promises to appoint judicial originalists to the Supreme Court? So do Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain. Is it because of doubts about Romney’s sincerity? It can’t be—Thompson was once pro-choice as well, and it isn’t clear that his current position is significantly different. Or is it because simply, as their endorsement says, they think Thompson “can win”? If such a (premature) calculation is their reason, then it’s truly depressing to see the NRLC put politics over principle.
–
There is a reasonable pro-life case to be made for Thompson, should he be our sole alternative to Sen. Hillary Clinton. But we are in the primary, not the general election, and the pro-life goal should be the candidate who will be the best advocate for unborn rights. As NRLC co-founder Dr. John Willke has recognized, that someone is Mitt Romney, who, in addition to pro-life stances on Roe, judges, taxpayer funding, and partial-birth abortion, also expresses support for nationwide legal protection for the unborn—including the Human Life Amendment.
–
The NRLC’s own “Open Petition to the Republican Party” (PDF file), which demands a pro-life presidential candidate, cites the GOP platform’s declaration that “Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Based on his own words, Fred Thompson is not an advocate of legislative protection for the right to life, and therefore fails your own standard. Why are you settling for the lesser of America’s pro-life options, and why are you doing so at this stage in the race?
–
In endorsing Thompson, you are setting a precedent that actually threatens the future success of the pro-life movement. If you decide Thompson’s weak stand on abortion is now enough to make someone our movement’s standard-bearer—especially when there is still a stronger viable alternative—you are, in effect, saying that pro-life doesn’t mean as much as it once did. You are defining the term down. Out with “certain unalienable rights” and in with the right to decide in favor of abortion as “what freedom is all about.”
–
For the sake of the one million unborn babies per year who will be murdered by abortion, I beg you to reconsider this endorsement. If you do not, however, you can be sure that many pro-lifers like me will remember this incident, and find other organizations and paths with which to defend life—if need be, even from actions of the NRLC.
–
Calvin Freiburger
http://rightcal.blogspot.com
Conservative Standards 
Romney? You’ve got to be kidding. Exactly where do you get your information from. Unlike Mr. Flip-Flop Fred is consistent and is the only true conservative in this race. BTW, it’s not that Fred isn’t a legislative advocate for the right to life, he believes that is something that the states not the feds should decide. That is how it should be.
LikeLike
Hi Orv,Sorry for taking so long to publish your comment. I somehow missed it in the inbox.Your defense of Fred would hold water if you tried to refute the evidence I gave – like this:http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=6230Since you bring up flip-flops, did you know Fred also supported a path to citizenship for illegals, using the same talking points as the amnesty crowd? Here’s the video:http://youtube.com/watch?v=IkN2fYnMTBsI’m glad that Fred has moved to the right in his bid for the Presidency. But make no mistake: it is a change from where he’s been.Bottom line, though: if you genuinely believe in the right to life, if you truly understand that we are all equal, then you have to support enshrining that basic right for all of us at the same level: in the Constitution.
LikeLike