The Candidates
Featured Archives
After all the grief given to Fred Thompson by those about his views on abortion. After how we heard time after time that since Fred Thompson said that he wouldn’t throw “young girls in prison” on MTP he wasn’t a true pro life candidate, and Mike Huckabee was the only pure candidate because abortion is murder, I hope those people tuned into Meet the Press this morning.
Pro-Huckabee bloggers were in an absolute tizzy. He (insert Thompson, Romney) doesn’t want to throw the young girls or their doctors in jail. They think abortion is not murder. They petitioned the NRTL to withhold their support of the group for endorsing Thompson, linking to the MTP transcript.
Now, I am not criticizing Governor Huckabee on this. At the same time, when voters project their own beliefs on an unknown quantity, you can look foolish. I should know. Having worked with the Thompson campaign, i’ve dealt with many who made Thompson out to be in their own image, and that is not always the case.
This morning on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: And what would happen to doctors or women who participated in abortion?
GOV. HUCKABEE: It’s always the, the point of trying to say, “Are you going to criminalize it?” That’s not the issue.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, if it, if it’s illegal, it would be.
GOV. HUCKABEE: It would be. And I think you don’t punish the woman, first of all, because it’s not about–I consider her a victim, not a, not a criminal.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would punish the doctor.
GOV. HUCKABEE: I think if a doctor knowingly took the life of an unborn child for money, and that’s why he was doing it, yeah, I think you would, you would find some way to sanction that doctor. I don’t know that you’d put him in prison, but there’s something to me untoward about a person who has committed himself to healing people and to making people alive who would take money to take an innocent life and to make that life dead.
Now, Huckabee went out of his way in explaining why very eloquently, unlike Thompson, who came off rough without explaining his full opinion on the subject. Thompson said in the youtube debate that the law pertains that state should turn to the doctor performing the abortion. Romney said the same thing in a November interview.
While Thompson and Romney talk about the law in this case, Huckabee talks about the morality. None of the answers given is really incorrect, and they are definitely not pro choice positions.
I think Huckabee handled himself fairly well this morning on Meet the Press. I don’t think he did as well as Gamecock seems to, but I don’t think he did anything to really hurt himself. I even admired the way he was able to explain his position concerning abortion in human terms.
However, I think it is time to retire the “This candidate (insert Thompson, Romney) doesn’t think abortion is murder” line. Huckabee is pro-life, and the most consistent candidate in that regard, since there is no question that he has always believed that way, but he basically holds the same position as Romney, and even Thompson, on the question of “is abortion murder.”
December 30th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Huckabee was horrible!
December 30th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I’m pro-life, so I’m not arguing from a pro-choice position here, but from a political one. Can you imagine Huck in the general election campaign telling women voters that not only can they not have the choice to have an abortion, they’d be considered victims for choosing to do so anyway, the implication being that they did not or could not make the decision out of their own intelligent thought processes and beliefs. Yeah, that ought to help attract all those middle-of-the-road suburban female voters.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I think that in the case of rape or incest, the woman is a victim. But in the case of where a girl goes to a club, gets drunk, sleeps with a guy, and then gets pregnant. How is that a “victim”?? That is called, shirking the consequences of a bad choice, and committing murder in the process. In that case the only victim is the murdered child in my opinion.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Huck was implying that a woman who has an abortion is somehow a victim for having the abortion. That’s a cop-out answer if I ever heard one, and quite insulting to women. Cocaine is illegal. If I sell you cocaine, and you buy the cocaine from me, you aren’t a victim for buying the cocaine. You broke the law – you’re a criminal just like I am. If Huck wants to outlaw abortion, he has to be prepared to punish everyone connected with the “crime” of having one.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Jared,
Yup, Huckabee just put himself to the left of me on abortion. Which is perfectly fine by me. I’m willing to accept Rudy Giuliani’s abortion position, despite my feeling that he’s dead wrong. And I understand why Huck and others balk from punishing the women who have abortions. Politically, it’s simply not a viable position. But, it’s more then a little disappointing that the patron saint innocent children, the man who’s built his candidacy on his communion with God, and his firmness on the issue of life, might be willing to place “sanctions” on doctors who perform abortions. Romney’s Meet the Press answer sounded a tick more pro-life (though less eloquent).
December 30th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“After all the grief given to Fred Thompson by those about his views on abortion…”
I can’t speak for other pro-lifers, but I give Thompson grief on abortion because he thinks killing children is a states’ rights issue.
On some days, Romney has the same belief.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
#5 – I agree. I was disappointed in his answer, and blanket use of the word “victim”.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Alaska,
“Huck was implying that a woman who has an abortion is somehow a victim for having the abortion. ”
As one pro-lifer to another, I have to say that sometimes they are. Not always, but sometimes. Often they are teenage girls who are pressured into it (or forced) by their boyfriends or parents. Abortuaries often ignore the law by not reporting statutory rape. That’s because they don’t care about women, only killing children and making money.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Huckabee says one thing, the facts say another:
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2007/12/30/research-briefing-gov-mike-huckabee-meet-the-press-fact-check/
–
MWS – thats not true. Romney wants a national ban on most abortions, but recognizes that that will take a long time – he supports sending it to the states until we can build up enough support to end it nationally. Thompson, on the other hand, wants to send it back to the states for good, and apparently has no problem with states allowing abortions.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
MWS,
Uhh, Huckabee doesn’t think abortion is killing children either, in the criminal law since. Promoting sanctions against doctors is not murder. I’m not even criticizing Huckabee here, I’m criticizing some who have neglected to look into their own candidates beliefs and just assumed that is the case. Supporters of all candidates have some who are guilty
December 30th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Balking at answering the tough questions because the answers aren’t politically viable is not a virtue. You can’t be radically pro-life but weak on enforcing the laws you hope to enact.
Thompson’s state-rights answer is fine as far as it goes based on his strong belief in Federalism, but I still haven’t heard what he’d do in his state if it were up to him.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
#8 MWS. . .I agree with regards to underage women being victims. But I think he was speaking in the general sense of the issue. Most women who have abortions are over the age of consent.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
These women who are pressured into abortions- not their boyfriends or parents- will often live with the guilt and grief the rest of their lives. I know one such woman. She was told as a young college aged women that she just had to have an abortion. She was Unitarian then- a group that celebrates abortion- so it never really occurred to her that she had a living person with a soul inside her. She terribly regrets it now.
I would consider her both culpable and a victim.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
ACT,
this has nothing to do with the HLA, and don’t go off topic. It doesn’t make Romney Mr. Pro Life, which is not the point of this article. I really don’t want to argue that point over again because then we get into the whole flip flopping charges again.
Let’s discuss the issue as it applies to this topic.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Alaska,
“Thompson’s state-rights answer is fine as far as it goes based on his strong belief in Federalism”
The strength of his convictions on federalism has nothing to do with it. George Wallace was not justified in his defense of segregation by his “strong belief in federalism,” nor was Calhoun in his defense of slavery as a states’ rights issue.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
The whole victim thing in this case, can be illustrated by this analogy:
If I am overwieght (I am a little pudgy
), and I wake up in the morning and drive-thru McDonald’s and get 2 Bacon Biscuits and a drink, then for lunch get a super-size double hamburger meal, then for dinner visit the same McDonalds and get the super-size combo meal as well, and add an ice cream cone for dessert. All the while claiming I am too busy to work out and fight off the unwanted calories. Then I try and claim that I am a victim of McDonalds mean and vicious advertising, and that my excess weight is their fault, so they should pay for the liposuction it will take to get my body back to the way it was pre-victim status. Then I claim we should fine McDonalds for providing an avenue for people who lack self-discipline, to gain unhealthy weight. . . .
Do you see my point?? I think that while there are definitely victims of heinous acts, who are in fact victims, that there are quite a few women who fall into the category I described above as irresponsible, and lacking self-discipline, and abortion is their way of not owning up to the consequences of their bad choices. The latter is more a victim of bad judgement rather than the victim of any crime.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
MWS in 13,
That’s fine and very true. But it doesn’t make up for the fact that a lot of people have been touting Huckabeee as the only “abortion is murder” candidate (at least since Brownback quit). That’s the issue.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
MWS I just can’t subscribe to that theory. Maybe it’s because I’m tired of what’s become accepted practice in our society – to claim victimhood rather than take responsibility for one’s actions and accept the consequenses. And now, we have Huck telling women they don’t have to be conscious of their actions when having an abortion, because they are simply victims of the criminal doctors.
Please, give me a break.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I was very disappointed in how Russert played softball with the huckster on MTP. Unfortunately, for that reason the huckster did not come off as poorly as he really is as a candidate and as a Republican.
The best moment for me was when the huckster was asked whether the Pakistanis were predominantly sunni or shiite and he looked down, closed his eyes and then guessed and through divine intervention he guessed correctly.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Act,
” he supports sending it to the states until we can build up enough support to end it nationally. ”
What other issues will Romney fold on until more people agree with him? Taxes? War and Peace? National Security?
Using such an excuse for neglecting the defense of innocent life is pure cowardice.
Bush is guilty of saying the same mealy-mouthed crap.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
#15. . .Hence the phrase “as far as it goes.” My point being that his opinions and statements conform to his beliefs in Federalism, but they can’t end there. He needs to explain himself further rather than use Federalism as a way to avoid the issues.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
#21,
I understand now. But to my mind, if Thompson’s position on protecting innocent life terminates as a states’ rights issue, then I cannot consider him pro-life. He is fetishizing the Constitution over both divine and natural law.
Innocent life needs to be protected. Period. If somehow the Constitution contradicts that (which it does not), then I say to hell with the Constitution.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Let’s stay on topic, #20
December 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
As a pastor, and not just a lawmaker, I think Huckabee brings a unique perspective to the field on this issue. There is no doubt that he has consoled and counseled some women who were in fact victims of abortions, as well as others who were fully responsible, and yet also suffered terribly for their decision later.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
#17 – I agree Tommy. I think Huck, until this, was seen by many as the ONLY candidate that took the stance that abortion is murder. Now he seems to be shifting more to, ALL women are victims, and it’s those mean nasty doctors who are to blame for this evil. The moment of choice occurs for most women, when they decide to take that first drink, or sleep with their boyfriend to show her love for him, or whatever other BS excuse is made. The CHOICE is made when sex takes place. The CONSEQUENCE is that she runs the risk of pregnancy. When a woman willingly, or drunkenly/stupidly, makes the CHOICE to have sex with a guy, she has accepted the risk/consequences of her choice. To say she is a victim of anything other than poor judgement is a lie.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
If a woman gets pregnant when she is drunk, then that legally qualifies as rape. Now, if she doesn’t, then it’s her, and the male’s, responsibility. Don’t forget that the man does hold an equal amount of the responsibility when he doesn’t think or use protection, although it is the woman’s responsibility to make sure that he does use a condum.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
The Huckabee discussion seems to have been moved here so I’ll cut and paste my message to Matthew Miller here…
Matthew Miller,
You and your candidate of choice are very impressive, but given the fact that you gloss yourself a conservative purist and it is on those grounds that you attack Huckabee, your credibility is in serious doubt. The fact that you’re willing to give Governor Romney a pass on so many issues (fees vs taxes, commutations vs $50 abortion co-pays) while disemboweling Huckabee for his conservative short-comings is remarkably duplicitous.
I think I’ve seen you criticize Huckabee for engaging in class warfare, but if I were to guess, your support for Romney and loathing of Huckabee has quite a bit more to do with class than conservative purity.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Tommy,
Your credibility remains solid, not only because your support for Fred has been consistent, but because your support for him is based solidly in your Federalist ideology. That said, I think your attacks on Huckabee have been over the top the last couple days.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
#26 – But let me ask then regarding when a woman gets pregnant after drunken sex, when was the choice made?? When she took that 1st drink? The 2nd drink? Maybe the real focus isn’t abortion, but prohibition?? (I am playing devil’s advocate) I don’t know the accuracy of your claim that when alcohol is involved, and the woman is drunk, it is rape, but whether that is how the courts view it or not, I think that is wrong. The fact is she made the choice to make herself vulnerable to getting pregnant when she decided to get drunk, or avoid getting drunk in the first place.
Like if I choose not to wear a seat-belt, and am then paralyzed in an accident. Legally, is it the other drivers fault for my paralysis when I could have done something to prevent paralysis? This is where you get into all the individual circumstances that make this such a difficult issue for so many people. As far as responsibility, I agree that it is a shared responsibility between the man and the woman. But the ultimate CHOICE of getting an abortion or not, lies with the woman. I am sure there are some men who have wanted to have the baby, and the woman has chosen to abort the baby despite the father’s wishes.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
mac,
Thanks, but this isn’t an attack on Huckabee at all. I have no problems that I can think of with his meet the press appearence. I am ‘attacking’ those who went after us because of comments Thompson made on Meet the Press earlier last month.
I’m talking about some in Huckabee blogosphere that petitioned the NRLC because Thompson ‘didn’t believe abortion was murder’ since he wouldn’t throw them in jail. I’m not even criticizing those who petitioned the group because of the HLA (even though I do think it is juvenile to threaten an organization because you don’t agree with their criteria for endorsing). I am criticizing a certain group of people, some of whom read and link to this blog regularly..
December 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
29- But the ultimate CHOICE of getting an abortion or not, lies with the woman. I am sure there are some men who have wanted to have the baby, and the woman has chosen to abort the baby despite the father’s wishes.
Yes, you are very correct. I didn’t mean to come across as sounding critical of you. I agree with you for the most part.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
To stay on topic though, I agree that those who attacked Thompson and Romney for not being more harsh regarding the “abortion is murder” thing, and showing themselves to be total hypocrites in this case if they don’t come out and say the same thing against Huckabee on this one.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Tommy,
I understand that this particular post is not a direct attack on Huckabee, but in light of Huck’s solid MTP performance and well received (and yes, prophetic) speech at CSIS speech earlier this fall, I think the anti-abortion Huck bloggers could just as easily call you out as a hypocrite for your Uncle Remus foreign policy blasts against Huck.
December 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
mac,
“You and your candidate of choice are very impressive, but given the fact that you gloss yourself a conservative purist and it is on those grounds that you attack Huckabee, your credibility is in serious doubt. The fact that you’re willing to give Governor Romney a pass on so many issues (fees vs taxes, commutations vs $50 abortion co-pays) while disemboweling Huckabee for his conservative short-comings is remarkably duplicitous.
I think I’ve seen you criticize Huckabee for engaging in class warfare, but if I were to guess, your support for Romney and loathing of Huckabee has quite a bit more to do with class than conservative purity.”
I don’t give Romney a pass on anything, and I certainly don’t claim conservative purity. At various points I’ve leaned towards Romney, McCain, Rudy, and Fred. I’m a pragmatist, but there’s a certain level of sheer divergence from the cause of conservatism that I can’t accept. Huckabee is beyond this level. And I don’t think much of the suggestion that I support Romney for class reasons. My mother makes 40k a year and we pay nearly 2k per month for rent. I have no health care, due to our monetary limits, and we’re currently having serious trouble finding the money to send me back to college (I’ve taken time off for various reasons). Oh, and I’m a minority. I’m exactly the sort of person Huckabee is, presumably, warring for, but I’m nonetheless horrified by his rhetoric.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
mac,
I’ve read the CSIS speech, and I wasn’t impressed with it either. Too much “Golden Rule” policy. If you go back and read my three articles (two of which were a direct response to a challenge from a member of the Huckabee campaign), I don’t remember criticizing him in depth over Pakistan in particular, though I could be wrong. I may have criticized what he said the country should do in the future about Pakistan, but most of my comments were usually directed towards Iraq and Iran, his flip flop on the Cuba Embargo, and the way he completely mangled an essay that he spent over a month working on.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Matthew,
When I’m wrong, I’m wrong. My apologies and I hope you’re able to return to college soon because you are a remarkably talented man.
As to Huckabee’s rhetoric, I believe it is the only rhetoric that will result in a Republican in the Oval Office in Jan. 2009 and, assuming that Gov. Romney is the nominee, I suspect that much of his rhetoric will be Huckabesque next fall.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I agree that women seeking abortions due to consensual sex are not victims!
December 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Tommy,
You seem to be unwilling to give Huck any credit or wiggle room on matters of foreign policy yet seem to expect the pro-life Huckites to give your man leeway on abortion. Guess that means we have a caucus in a couple days;)!
December 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Gamecock – it’s good to have you making comments on here once again. You have been missed.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
What exactly did he say about Pakistan that made him prophetic? I missed that reference.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Any staunchly pro-life GOP candidate will assuredly go down in flames unless he shows a willingness to flip-flop towards the center, laws of God or Man notwithstanding.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
mac,
If I seemed unwilling to give Huckabee any wiggle room, then I would’ve criticized the little problems I had this morning, but I held my tongue because they weren’t really important in the overall context of things. I’m tough on Huckabee, but he has to prove to me that he deserves my vote if my candidate fails.
Note: We didn’t start the Huckabee bash. These folks have been going after us for months. The table was turned during the last month, and now its their turn to have their feet held to the fire.
And there’s a difference… Foreign policy and the War on Terror are not just another issue. Whoever wins the nomination must be the best equipped to handle what they will inherit from Bush.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
40
Here’s the link, beauty (and prophecy) are in the eye of the beholder:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/070928_huckabee.pdf
December 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Y’all are not coming to grips with the core hypocrisy of the pro-life movement.
All those who claim that a fertilized egg is “a human life”, which leads to the “abortion is murder’ stance, are absolute hypocrites if they do not follow that up with advocacy that women and the doctor be tried as muderers and sentenced to life in prison, or execution.
Everyone can see through the silly dodge of “we dont intend to throw women in jail”. Well, why not?
Murder is murder. Using the rhetoric of the pro-lifers, the punishment for killing this most innocent and dfenseless of all life should, if anything, be even harsher than killing a born person. Certainly not any less so.
Either you back off this rhetoric and accept that a fetus is not a person under the laws, or you seem obliged to hold the position that the woman and the doctor be punished like any other murderer.
Of course, such a position would be political suicide, and would grievously hurt the anti-abortion movement as well, as people came to realize the consequences of holding such a position.
That doesnt justify holding a hypocritical set of positions though.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Tommy,
Agreed, the GWOT is crucial and Huck does need to earn our vote, but I think he went quite a way in earning it this morning. Those complaining that Russert just threw Huck softballs are way off base, at least give the man credit for having the stones to face Russert the Sunday before the caucus.
Huckabee may be no Reagan but I’m old enough to have clear memory of Reagan. Huckabee is a Mensa candidate compared to Reagan. Give Huckabee a VP like Powell and a Sec. of Defense like Patreaus or Duncan Hunter, problem solved.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Thanks #39
December 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
#44 This is called growth and nuance, not hypocrisy!
December 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
#44 Can you say Homicide: Murder One, Two, Voluntary manslaughter, Involuntary, etc?
One can offer different penalties based on the circumstance that the victim is inside someone else.
No inconsistency.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Mac,
I agree. Huckabee/Hunter would be a dream ticket.
I guarantee there would be no Harriet Miers nominated to SCOTUS, and the Oval Office would be the bane of the ACLU. They would drive the libs absolutely insane.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
MWS,
I can say the same about Romney……
“As a pastor (lds bishop), and not just a lawmaker, I think Huckabee (Romney) brings a unique perspective to the field on this issue. There is no doubt that he has consoled and counseled some women who were in fact victims of abortions, as well as others who were fully responsible, and yet also suffered terribly for their decision later.”
What do you think…..
December 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Abe,
Was Romney pro-life or pro-abortion then?
December 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Personally Pro-life….of course…as he always has been….
December 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Abe,
Let me rephrase the question. Who was Romney’s target audience? That will answer #51 if there is any doubt.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
He has admitted his mistake of taking a public pro-choice position…
December 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Abe,
“Personally Pro-life….of course…as he always has been….”
So his position was that he knew abortion is murder, but supported legally protecting it?
That’s the most loathsome position a person can take. I can at least see the consistency of people who treat unborn children like tumors. But to acknowledge that abortion is murder, and then to protect it for political gain is unconscionable.
December 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Abe, heh?
Mitt Romney’s abortion position is at issue as he weighs whether to run for president. He said recently that he is in a ”different place” than he was in 1994, when during a run for US Senate in Massachusetts he said abortion should be ‘’safe and legal” and cited his mother’s views.
He also said during the 1994 campaign that his view was shaped by the abortion-related death of a relative in the 1960s.
[ . . . ]
In an October 1994 debate with US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, Romney said: ”I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”
Mitt’s got loads of wiggle room between now and the general election. Or between now and midnight, for that matter…
December 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Gamecock,
Could you explain WHY the fact that one life is inside another should mitigate a sentence?
And if you dont advocate life in prison, or execution, then what should be the appropriate penalty?
December 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“# Abe Says:
December 30th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
He has admitted his mistake of taking a public pro-choice position…”
…because he is pro-life or because it is politically expedient?
How do we know he won’t make similar “mistakes” in the future? There’s that little trust factor that I’m having a problem with.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
#57 Because the person inside compromises the person outside. Penalties are different for crimes in the heat of passion. Having a baby inside produces passion. It is not the same as plotting to kill one’s husband.
Now, I would not, personally rule out penalties for pregnant women but I understand political realities.
I wouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the better.
December 30th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Sorry Gamecock, that is pretty lame.
By any legal understanding of “heat of passion”, a woman, choosing to go have an abortion, does not qualify.
In the pre-Roe days, a time when incarceration was, in general, far less common, there were plenty of women in prison for having abortions. That is the consequence.
If any abortion ban is to work, it must be enforced. You cannot enforce it against doctors and not the woman. That would be a blatantly unequal application of the law.
If abortion is murder, you are stuck with upholding the severe punishemnt of all involved.
I am not saying that you cant find some way to enforce a ban with lesser sanctions. All I am saying is that that would require backing off the “abortion is murder” rhetoric – and the whole “life begins at conception” underpinning of that.
I think the pro-life movement has been driven by its fundamentalists – driven right into a dead end.
December 30th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
The fact is Murder under different conditions have different penalities. The condition of the mother killing a child when it does not yet have consciousness and when the child is a burden on the mother would lead the mother to be more likely to kill the child, thus it makes sense for the penality to be less. That doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be a penality.
December 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Huckabee obviously can never again call abortion murder, and get by with it. If he thought it was murder, he would have been wanting to charge the Mother, and doctor, either as murder or accomplices to murder. That being the case, I’m sure Huckabee thinks that a murderer deserves more that some little fine or sanction, and in the case of the mother, a pass. So don’t you ever let me hear you try to tell me again that your candidate believes it to be murder.
Mitt and Huckabuck both have the same position, first to appoint judges that would overturn Roe vs Wade, then when the attitude of Congress and the nation is right, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it illegal.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
#60 We disagree. Plenty of states did not punish the woman pre-roe but did punish the abortionist. States can pass any law they wish.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
#61 Good point.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
#61
Dear John Mark,
So if a baby is asleep, the mother can kill it?
Consciousness is not a marker. The question is “Is a baby innocent human life?”
Go sell crazy somewhere else, Huck sold out kiddies and whatever principles he has left to keep himself safe for the general election. And yes, he’s change his position on this from when he was governor of Arkansas. He said they should be prosecuted. I heard him.