National Right to Life Endorses Senator Fred Thompson for President

Editor’s note. Please send me your thoughts at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

“The most prominent anti-abortion advocacy group in the country has picked a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. It’s Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee.”   

Linda Wertheimer, NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“This endorsement by the [National] Right to Life Committee is huge. …It matters a great deal. It could be just the kind of boost that could give Fred Thompson the kind of organizational credibility he’s been seeking.”

Carl Cameron, Fox News.

Judging by the waves of emails and flood of phone calls coming into National Right to Life, the good news was out even before NRLC held a press conference this morning: NRLC has endorsed former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

It is not tooting our own horn to observe that NRLC’s endorsement of Sen. Thompson is of major significance as the race for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination gets going in earnest. This is largely a consensus opinion.

To cite just four examples, NBC’s Matt Lauer describes this as “a key endorsement,” radio talk host Laura Ingraham called it a “huge boost,” CBN’s David Brody labeled the endorsement a “big prize, a very big prize,” while the Boston Globe wrote that it’s “Thompson's biggest endorsement since his late entry into the race in September.”

NRLC announced its decision this morning at a well-attended National Press Club press conference. David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., NRLC’s executive director, immediately explained to reporters how this endorsement is different in size and scope from other recent endorsements.

“Every candidate has received endorsements from some individuals, and that’s to be expected,” Dr. O’Steen said. “But this is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major, grassroots, pro-life organization.”

He amplified the distinction by noting, “When National Right to Life speaks, we’re not speaking as a Washington group,” alluding to NRLC’s 50 state organizations and about 3,000 local chapters.

For his part, Sen. Thompson released a statement, which read,

"I'm deeply appreciative for the past support by the National Right to Life Committee-PAC in my Senate campaigns, and today I am blessed and grateful to have received their endorsement for President of the United States. In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow."

Dr. O’Steen used the press conference to explain the basis on which the board of NRLC overwhelmingly voted in favor of endorsing Thompson. The tri-part criteria, he explained, was (1) the position of candidates on the life issues, (2) their records on the life issues, and (3) and their ability to win. 

Thompson had what Dr. O’Steen described as a “strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career.” To put this in perspective, it was not only that Thompson opposes abortion and has repeatedly stated that he believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and must be reversed. 

Nor was it only that during his eight years in the United States Senate, he always opposed using tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported many pro-life measures such as parental notice and consent. 

Nor was it only Thompson’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research—the ethically bankrupt practice of lethally harvesting stem cells from human embryos—and his embrace of ethically acceptable adult stem cell research. All of these pro-life actions were and are important. But there is something else.

In their remarks Dr. O’Steen and Co-Executive Director Darla St. Martin highlighted another characteristic of Thompson which is absolutely pivotal in the fight to pass life-affirming legislation and which played a major role in the decision.

The votes of some senators and congressmen can be an almost day-to-day question. Not so with Thompson.

His commitment to voting pro-life was never in doubt. As a organization which places a very high premium on enacting good legislation and defeating bad bills, this unwavering support for NRLC’s position on abortion was enormously important in deciding on Thompson.

When it came to the issue of electability, a couple of reporters asked about recent polls taken in early caucus and primary states. This was answered in two ways.

First, Thompson entered the race in September and his organization continues to grow, both in the early states and those that come later in January and the first week of February.

Second, as Dr. O’Steen observed, because there is a de facto national primary February 5, the early states may not shape the dynamics of the nomination process the way they have in the past. A look at the overwhelming majority of the national polls taken since Thompson announced his candidacy reveals that Thompson has run second only to pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani for the Republican nomination.

Commitment, record, and the ability to win underlie NRLC’s decision to endorse Thompson. But the endorsement does not occur in a vacuum.

Whoever is the Democratic presidential nominee, he or she will be joined at the hip to NARAL, EMILY’s List, and Planned Parenthood. The nominee will dutifully espouse “moderation” during the campaign and then, should they be elected president, march in lockstep with the most radical pro-abortion organizations.

On the Republican side, there is the undeniable fact that at this point in time pro-abortion Rudy Giuliani is the leader among Republicans. But as I have argued many times here and in National Right to Life News, the case made for Republicans to nominate the former mayor of New York is remarkable unpersuasive, and, in fact, has everything backwards.

Giuliani proponents raise the specter of having to run against Sen. Hillary Clinton. Giuliani is by far the most likely to defeat Sen. Clinton, we’re told. Really?

While she remains the frontrunner, Sen. Clinton’s nomination is by no means inevitable. And even if she is the standard bearer for Democrats, in head-to-head matchups polls show Fred Thompson doing well against Sen. Clinton. Lady.

And regardless of which pro-abortionist Democrats choose, should Republicans themselves nominate a pro-abortionist, potentially it would have at least two decisively negative impacts.

First, the linchpin of the coalition that has powered the Republicans to victory in five of the last seven presidential elections—opposition to abortion—would be unloosened. Goodbye to millions of “Reagan Democrats.”

Second, a number of Southern states would be in play for the first time in recent memory. Sen. Clinton is, after all, the former First Lady of Arkansas and is working assiduously at cultivating her image as a “moderate.” My friends from south of the Mason-Dixon line just roll their eyes when asked what would happen if someone like Giuliani was the GOP nominee.

In that vein Ron Elving, the senior Washington editor for NPR News, observed this morning, “So you take a savvy outfit like the National Right to Life Committee, pretty much the General Motors of the right to life movement, and what they are worried about is preserving the … coalition…which has pretty much won five of the last seven presidential elections, including the last two.”

Exactly.

In the months to come NRLC’s endorsement of Thompson may well come to be seen as the decisive action which shook up the race for the Republican presidential nomination. It is a simple statement of historical fact that millions and millions of pro-life Americans look to NRLC for guidance on these crucial questions which is the reason why presidential candidates who are pro-life have always enjoyed an advantage among the voters for whom abortion is the single most important issue.

And NRLC’s advice to its supporters—and to all pro-lifers of good will—is to unite behind Fred Thompson.

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.