National Right to Life Gets a Second Chance
Now that NRL's first endorsement Fred Thompson has failed to pan out, it's time for the anti-abortion crowd to give some serious consideration to what it is they look for in a Presidential Candidate.
Earlier this week, Norma McCorvey (aka "Jane Roe," the one-time abortion advocate turned spokeswoman for the pro-life movement) endorsed Dr. Ron Paul, saying, "after taking all of the presidential candidates into consideration, it is obvious that Ron Paul is the only one that doesn’t just talk the talk." The OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies was the only candidate to speak at this year's March for Life in Washington D.C. He said, among other things, "the debate over when life begins shouldn't be a debate. Let me assure you, all life begins at conception!" Some folks find a candidate acceptable when he at least appears to have a "clean record" on this issue; Dr. Paul, on the other hand, has a stellar record. He's naturally the resident expert on reproductive health, he's a genuine leader when it comes to introduction and sponsorship of pro-life legislation in Congress, and, as is the case with the rest of his political views, he's never changed his story and never fails to represent his consistently pro-life position.
So he's obviously the natural choice for NRL's renewed endorsement, right? I would certainly like to hope so! And if I had any influence whatsoever, I'd certainly like to make that case to them. But I'm afraid it may not be a foregone conclusion. Consider this quote from Ms. Gloria Vear, member of the Hillsdale, MI local Right to Life group: “He’s an outstanding man... If he were not such an isolationist, I’d support him. A lot of pro–life people here feel the same way.”
Even without going into the fact that there's literally a world of difference between non-interventionism and isolationism, the simple question arises: what does "isolationism" have to do with abortion?? I of course grant the right of individual voters to prioritize for themselves, for instance, whether foreign policy or abortion is the more important consideration in picking a candidate for President. But doesn't it seem that the endorsement of the National Right to Life should be based pretty much exclusively on a candidate's position on abortion?? Don't people look to them as a barometer of a candidate's record of performance on that one specific issue? And isn't it disingenuous to withhold an endorsement, from an otherwise perfectly-qualified candidate, based on issues completely unrelated to their particular mission?
Lest I come across as making a mountain out of a molehill, let me say that I understand this is only one person speaking on behalf of one group in a town in Michigan. To my knowledge, the National Right to Life organization has made no such statements. This is simply my commentary in response to this kind of statement, in case this rationale causes the clearly worthy Dr. Paul to be ultimately rejected nationally for the NRL endorsement. I sure hope that doesn't happen. In fact, let me be optimistic here - I'm hoping they take this new opportunity to endorse the most pro-life candidate we've seen in years, Dr. Ron Paul!
Earlier this week, Norma McCorvey (aka "Jane Roe," the one-time abortion advocate turned spokeswoman for the pro-life movement) endorsed Dr. Ron Paul, saying, "after taking all of the presidential candidates into consideration, it is obvious that Ron Paul is the only one that doesn’t just talk the talk." The OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies was the only candidate to speak at this year's March for Life in Washington D.C. He said, among other things, "the debate over when life begins shouldn't be a debate. Let me assure you, all life begins at conception!" Some folks find a candidate acceptable when he at least appears to have a "clean record" on this issue; Dr. Paul, on the other hand, has a stellar record. He's naturally the resident expert on reproductive health, he's a genuine leader when it comes to introduction and sponsorship of pro-life legislation in Congress, and, as is the case with the rest of his political views, he's never changed his story and never fails to represent his consistently pro-life position.
So he's obviously the natural choice for NRL's renewed endorsement, right? I would certainly like to hope so! And if I had any influence whatsoever, I'd certainly like to make that case to them. But I'm afraid it may not be a foregone conclusion. Consider this quote from Ms. Gloria Vear, member of the Hillsdale, MI local Right to Life group: “He’s an outstanding man... If he were not such an isolationist, I’d support him. A lot of pro–life people here feel the same way.”
Even without going into the fact that there's literally a world of difference between non-interventionism and isolationism, the simple question arises: what does "isolationism" have to do with abortion?? I of course grant the right of individual voters to prioritize for themselves, for instance, whether foreign policy or abortion is the more important consideration in picking a candidate for President. But doesn't it seem that the endorsement of the National Right to Life should be based pretty much exclusively on a candidate's position on abortion?? Don't people look to them as a barometer of a candidate's record of performance on that one specific issue? And isn't it disingenuous to withhold an endorsement, from an otherwise perfectly-qualified candidate, based on issues completely unrelated to their particular mission?
Lest I come across as making a mountain out of a molehill, let me say that I understand this is only one person speaking on behalf of one group in a town in Michigan. To my knowledge, the National Right to Life organization has made no such statements. This is simply my commentary in response to this kind of statement, in case this rationale causes the clearly worthy Dr. Paul to be ultimately rejected nationally for the NRL endorsement. I sure hope that doesn't happen. In fact, let me be optimistic here - I'm hoping they take this new opportunity to endorse the most pro-life candidate we've seen in years, Dr. Ron Paul!
Etiquetas: Keep
posted by Peter G at 11:05 a. m.
7 comments
