25 Nov
The Christian News Wire notes two different statements that Huckabee has made in the past concerning his Federalist approach to abortion. One is below:
“The issue divides strongly committed pro-life and pro-choice Republicans but is not a central issue to most other Republicans. A possible platform revision long under discussion would say the Republican Party, ‘unlike the Democratic Party, does not stand for abortion on demand and is basically a pro-life party.’ In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. ‘That’s exactly what we have looked for, and if it’s left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,’ Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after appearing on a conference panel yesterday.” (Ralph Z. Hallow, “Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion,”
Washington Times, 2/12/95).
I agree with Huckabee on this. The chances of the Federal Government passing an outright ban on abortion is a pipe dream and there are a lot of people in the pro-life community who need to come to that realization. The best approach is that being advocated by Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson, to overturn Roe and return the decision to the states. From there pro-life advocates can begin to lobby for bans on a state by state basis and actually make some progress instead of following the all or nothing approach.
6 Responses for "Huckabee Has Federalist View on Abortion"
I like the idea of changing the platform to drop the “Human Life Amendment” because it is unrealistic and an abatross on the party with little realistic purpose.
In its place, place language calling for the states to have the right to decide preferably through some form of popular consultation.
OR–some liberal state have abortion on demand and we watch young teen girls head there to have abortions.
Or stay at home and use a coat hanger.
As usual, you’re totally blind to the class implications here. Spoiled rich white kids like you are going to continue to take your girlfriends somewhere safe to have an abortion — wouldn’t that be a shocker at the next cocktail hour at the country club otherwise! All the while, poor women are forced to have their children (continuing the positive feedback loop of poverty that you so vehemently deny exists) or slice themselves up with coat hangers.
I think abortion would remain legal in most jurisdictions at least in the first trimester. The defeat of the anti-abortion law in South Dakota showed that even in a socially conservative state, most people still support some form of choice. 5-10 states might enact bans that only have life of the mother exemptions, but I doubt they would represent more than 5 percent of the population as no large state would implement a ban.
Publius I love how you bring up class like the good little Marxist you are.
Of course he brings up class rhetoric, that’s all he has to “debate” with.
Nevermind the fact that today, with Roe v. Wade, it is still poorer families that have more babies- with abortion available!
What needs to be done is open up more incentives for these families - common cultural values about what it takes to raise a family, low taxes to reduce the burden on all families (regardless of class, imagine that!), and in general realizing that lower taxes, less regulation, and a more pro-growth economy does far more for families of lower income than populist rhetoric.
Leave a reply