By, Alexander J. Madison - August 27, 2007


Mitt Romney

* “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 Romney, 1994.

* “I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice.” – Mitt Romney, 2001 – letter to the Salt Lake Tribune.

* “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s.” – Mitt Romney, 2002

* “I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life.” – Mitt Romney, August 2007

* “My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level ‘one size fits all for the whole nation’ and instead I would let states make their choice….I’d let states make their own decision in this regard. My view of course is that I’m a pro-life individual and it’s the position that I support. But I would let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it”. - Mitt Romney, August 2007


Fred Thompson

*Fred Thompson Senate Archives Show Pro-Life,
Pro-Abortion Position Papers Washington, DC (LifeNews.com)

--Likely Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is making his first trip to Iowa today in what could be a precursor to announcing an official candidacy. However, the Thompson camp is confronting a new report showing two sets of position papers on abortion in his Senate archives.

ABC News combed through the archives of papers Thompson made available to the University of Tennessee after representing the state in the U.S. Senate.

It found two one-page papers from 1996 discussing Thompson's abortion position that appear to paint the senator in the best light when his record is described to either side of the abortion debate.

The pro-life version includes a presentation of Thompson's pro-life voting record and details seven votes against taxpayer-funded abortions and one supporting the ban on partial-birth abortions.

The pro-abortion version contains nearly identical language, but omits the list of pro-life votes and the language concerning his "pro-life voting record." -LifeNews, August 18, 2007


* Thompson said he supports the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. – Interview, Memphis Commercial Appeal, July 1993.

* “The Supreme Court has attempted to delineate the constitutionally appropriate roles for individual and governmental decision-making on the issue of abortion. Beyond that, I believe that the federal government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area”. – Fred Thompson, 1996 Tennesseans for Choice Questionnaire.

* "I have read these accounts and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them. Although I don't remember it, I must have said something to someone as I was getting my campaign started that led to a story. Apparently, another story was based upon that story, and then another was based upon that, concluding I was pro-choice." – Fred Thompson to the Weekly Standard, 2007.

* Mr. Thompson, who has formed a "testing the waters" committee and is likely to make an official announcement of his candidacy soon, has long taken a federalist approach to abortion, saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that states should decide the issue for themselves. He opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion, his spokesman, Mark Corallo, said yesterday. – June 2007, NY Sun


* Voted YES on a Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997) – On the Issues, Fred Thompson



*Bill Number: S J Res 21
Issue: Congressional Affairs
Date: 04/23/1996
Sponsor: Sen Thompson, Fred [TN]

Official Title of Legislation: S J Res 21: A joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

* “I am unabashedly pro-life”. – Fred Thompson, August 2007, Iowa


Rudy Giuliani

* “There MUST be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion”. – Rudy Giuliani, November 1989

* "(abortion) might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices.” – Rudy Giuliani, address to NARAL, 2001.

* "I'm against abortion. I hate it. I wish there never was an abortion, and I would counsel a woman to have an adoption instead of an abortion”. – Rudy Giuliani, April 2007

* “Will the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?” asked moderator Chris Matthews of all 10 Contenders.

“It’d be OK. It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision…the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it.” – Rudy Giuliani, GOP debate, 2007.

Ron Paul

* ”Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid”. – Ron Paul, January 2006 LewRockwell.com

* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) – On the Issues, Ron Paul

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000) – On the Issues, Ron Paul

* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) – On the Issues, Ron Paul

* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) – On the Issues, Ron Paul

* “In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.” -Ron Paul, August 2007.


Duncan Hunter

*“I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.” – Duncan Hunter, 2007

*“If a judicial candidate can look at a sonogram picture of an unborn child and not see a human being worthy of protection, I will not give him an appointment to the court. I will, however, get him an appointment with an optometrist for a set of eye glasses”. – Duncan Hunter, 2006


*CHRISTIAN LOBBY FINDS FEW SAINTS IN ANNUAL SCORING OF LAWMAKERS
…Nine California Republicans scored 100. They include Carlos Moorhead of Glendale; David Dreier of Claremont; Jerry Lewis of San Bernardino; Robert Badham of Newport Beach; Ron Packard of Carlsbad; Duncan Hunter of Coronado. – Sacramento Bee, February 1985.


*H.R.555
Title: A bill entitled, the "Preborn Children's Civil Rights Act of 1985". Sponsor: Rep Dornan, Robert K [CA-38] (introduced 1/22/1985) Cosponsors (67) (Original Cosponsor – Duncan Hunter)

SUMMARY AS OF 1/22/1985—Introduced: Preborn Children's Civil Rights Act of 1985 - Prohibits Federal involvement in the performance of abortions, except that Federal funds may be used for medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother or the preborn child.


*H.R.1729 Title: A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered, and to prohibit the provision under title X of the Public Health Service Act of Federal family planning funds to organizations that perform or refer for abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (introduced 3/19/1987) Cosponsors (141) (Original Cosponsor – Duncan Hunter)

*H.R.641 Title: To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person from the moment of fertilization. Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 2/6/1997) Cosponsors (43) Latest Major Action: 3/5/1997 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

SUMMARY AS OF 2/6/1997—Introduced: Right to Life Act of 1997 - States that the Congress declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at fertilization.


*H.R.618
Title: To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 1/22/2007) Rep Hunter, Duncan (81)

SUMMARY AS OF 1/22/2007—Introduced: Right to Life Act - Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Defines "human being" to encompass all stages of life, including but not limited to the moment of fertilization or cloning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reading through the quotes and citations above, one thing becomes glaringly obvious. Only one of these men has been consistent and straightforward during his time in public office: Duncan Hunter. But there is more to the story than just these quotes and citations. Hunter's 2008 primary opponents Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul not only lack consistency in their “pro-life” positions, they apparently lack logic. This lack of logic and consistency can be attributed to the fact that the pro-life position is not a core value to these 4 gentlemen. Rather, it is a political posture, and the pro-life movement and the unborn themselves can ill-afford posers. They cannot be trusted to place primacy on putting forward or defending a pro-life agenda. If suddenly there is a media-driven ‘pro-choice’ spike of sentiment across the country, they will fold like a cheap Chinese tent in a windstorm.

By now, most everyone is familiar with the Mitt Romney 'story'. He was adamantly ‘pro-choice’ from a policy standpoint from the time his mother ran for office in 1970 as an abortion rights candidate, apparently due to a back alley abortion gone bad. Yet, he maintains that he's always been 'personally' pro-life. For starters, people that worked on Lenore Romney’s campaign don’t recall her ever publicly campaigning for abortion rights. And second, what good is being a male who was ‘personally opposed’ to abortion, yet did not fight for its abolition in the public square? Unless Mitt is carrying around more female hormones than even John Edwards, the chances of Romney having to make a decision to abort or carry a pregnancy to term are fairly slim.

Romney’s supporters now claim that pro-lifers should welcome Mitt’s 2004 change of heart on the subject (brought on by his meticulous study of the stem cell issue). Well, yes, we do welcome any politician that comes to his senses and joins the righteous cause to support life. Indeed, Mr. Romney has been doing his level best to brandish his new-found bona fides on the subject, declaring unambiguous support for protecting the unborn these last few months. Yet, only a week ago, he reverted to the ‘federalist’ argument, that states should be able to make their own decisions regarding abortion laws. His opposition to Roe versus Wade is (now) based upon the notion that “one size fits all” is a bad thing in a republic of free states. While that certainly has merit when it comes to issues of education, environmental law, and taxation, for example, it is less than useless for protecting human life. Either an unborn child is a human being, or it is not. Alas, Mitt is just being Mitt, saying whatever he thinks will be the most appealing to the audience. How can one be in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (another Romney flip) yet think federalism is an acceptable course for the fate of the unborn? Confused? Yes. Or in Romney’s case, opportunistic; the defining characteristic of flipper’s public life, making him eminently unqualified to be President.


Fred Thompson, as usual, is a bit more nuanced than Romney. While Mitt’s flip flops have been demonstrably obvious, Thompson has tread a more careful path on the subject of abortion. The best way to describe Fred Thompson’s career in the Senate on this issue is that Fred was a pro-choice republican from a pro-life state. He was keen not to offend, and since he did indeed have federalist leanings, was able to couch the debate in those terms with reasonable effectiveness. Unfortunately for Fred, both he and his supporters (affectionately known as Fredheads) are now claiming that he has always been pro-life. It’s a preposterous claim and it will sink his candidacy, unless he is able to come up with a better than Romney-esqe explanation for such chicanery. I speculate that this is one of the reasons for his delayed entry into the race; to afford him the time necessary to conjure up a believable narrative. Though it is only speculation regarding the delay, it is not speculation that he will have to address his pro-choice history once he does enter. Mitt, Rudy, McCain, and others will insist upon it.

Fred’s biggest mistake was not ‘fessing’ up to his previous pro-choice sentiment right out of the gate. His campaign claims that this sentiment was misreported in 1994 and then repeated so often in the media it became an urban legend of sorts. He either has a very inept campaign or they believe they can obfuscate the issue well enough to fend off his rivals’ coming attacks. A simple review of Fred’s own answers to a couple of 1996 surveys regarding abortion should have been enough for them to approach the issue differently. Instead, Fred makes claims that he was supported by the National Right to Life organization. While true, he fails to mention that they supported him because of his opposition to federal funding and the so called ‘Freedom of Choice’ Act, and NOT because they deemed him to be a genuine pro-lifer. Many democrats oppose federal funding, even though they support the ‘right to choose’. In fact, Fred wrote to a constituent in 1997: "I believe that government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area." That statement is consistent with several others he has made, and is consistent with him demanding that the GOP drop its platform for the 1996 elections, calling abortion “a distracting issue”. This sleight of hand does nothing to inspire confidence in either Fred’s memory or his truthfulness. And his poor handling of the abortion lobbying kerfuffle this summer made it even worse. As Ramesh Ponnuru from the National Review wrote earlier this year:

"There's no question that Thompson has moved on abortion. He wasn't pro-life at the start of his political career - and he is doing himself no favors by failing to acknowledge it."

Thompson’s other mistake is that he is still trying to stick with a federalist argument. Roe v. Wade was certainly a poorly reasoned decision, but it was not only bad because it usurped states rights. It had a far worse effect on the HUMAN rights of the unborn, God’s natural law. Fred does not support a constitutional amendment to overturn this abomination. Apparently he has reverence for our founding documents, or so it would seem. Yet, if you look at the above citations, it is obvious that he was more than willing to amend the constitution for things our Founding Fathers never envisioned: Term limits and a mandatory balanced budget. A man who is willing to change the constitution to tell states they must limit the terms of their representatives, yet who won’t contemplate it for something that the founders clearly would have included had it been an issue at the time – protection of the unborn – is thoroughly confused. Or in Fred’s case, thoroughly phony.


Rudy Giuliani is perhaps the easiest of Hunter’s opponents to dismiss. Though he tried mightily to explain away and obfuscate his appalling record early in the campaign, he finally realized after taking so many incoming torpedoes that he would have to own up to his pro-choice past. But his floundering around was something to behold. Actually, floundering is putting it mildly; lying is more accurate. For example, when asked in April if he agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion, Rudy responded “they reached the right conclusion”. However, he previously told NBC’s Tim Russert, “no, I have not supported that (PBA ban), and I don't see my position on that changing."

For months, Mr. Giuliani also touted his pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges, in an attempt to woo skeptical conservatives. His surrogates in the media, including Sean Hannity and National Review’s Deroy Murdock, spent vast quantities of airtime and ink arguing that Rudy was a great choice for pro-lifers because of this commitment. Well, lo and behold, during the May 3 GOP debate we find out that Rudy’s definition of a strict constructionist court could easily find merit in keeping Roe v. Wade on the books. I guess we should have known when he previously sang the praises of ultra liberal, feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And having been a guest speaker at two NARAL events, even going so far as applauding the eugenics enthusiast Margaret Sanger, Rudy has less than zero credibility on pro-life issues. In fact, there is not a presidential candidate out there, democrat or republican, who has such a despicable record on abortion.


Ron Paul, on the other hand, has a long track record of opposing abortion, at least in rhetoric. He has argued passionately about the sanctity of human life. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is about as consistent and straightforward on abortion as he is on the defense of our nation. In other words, he’s either a fraud or a confused old man, or both. And one does not have to dig deep to find the evidence. His 2006 article for Lewrockwell.com (itself a big clue) contains the following:

“Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court. Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.”

Music to a libertarian’s ears, no doubt. However, once again, claiming that federalism applies to abortion is the height of ignorance, and lumping the life of the unborn in with “social issues” such as gay marriage or gambling is the height of un-seriousness.

From the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

From Amendment XIV: nor shall any state deprive any person of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

If one does not believe an unborn child is a person, due the same right to life as a child who has exited the womb, than a federalist argument makes sense. But for those who are serious about saving the unborn from murder, the constitution already provides the necessary protections. It was the courts along with their liberal allies in government that have erased that protection. For Paul to claim that a Supreme Court decision codifying the illegality and immorality of abortion would be equally offensive to our constitution as the decision legalizing it is outrageous.

In addition, Dr. Paul is wholly inconsistent. He claims the feds have no business dealing with the issue, at all. Yet he voted with the majority on the PBA ban, knowing full well that his constituents demanded it. On the flip side, he voted twice against criminalizing the transport of a minor over state lines to get an abortion, and he voted against banning human cloning for research purposes. And on the flop side, he voted yes for federal funding of health care providers who refuse to provide information about abortions. And then Mr. Consistency voted no on making it a crime to harm a fetus while committing another crime. And just as egregious this year, he is touting his bill, HR 1094, the Sanctity of Life Act, that seeks to define life as beginning at conception. Well, he could have cosponsored Mr. Hunter’s bill, HR 618, introduced two months prior, that seeks to do just that. In fact he could have cosponsored Bob Dornan’s similar bills in the 1980s, but chose not to. Now with a presidential run on the line, Paul has cynically brought forth his own version to snooker the pro-life base.

The bottom line is this. If Americans want a leader who does not attempt to hide behind the skirt of federalism, does not have to explain why he flipped and flopped like a beached cutthroat trout, and who has always understood that the unalienable right to life comes from our creator and not state politicians or courts, then Duncan Hunter is the only choice. As he stated so eloquently yet directly this year in his request to get his legislation a floor hearing:

“We are writing today regarding an issue of great importance to us and millions of Americans. As you are aware, approximately 1.5 million innocent babies are intentionally killed every year as a result of abortion. This represents 4,000 times a day that an unborn child is taken from its mother’s womb prematurely and denied the opportunity to live.

It is for this reason that we have reintroduced a very important piece of legislation, the Right to Life Act. This legislation will do what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognize the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Specifically, the Right to Life Act will declare that the right to life is vested in each human being at conception.”