NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE PAC STATEMENT
ON PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

WASHINGTON – The following statement has been issued by the National Right to Life PAC, the nation’s largest pro-life political action committee:

National Right to Life PAC urges all pro-life Americans to do what is necessary to see that a pro-life president is elected in 2008. National Right to Life PAC does not want any of the pro-abortion Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards – elected president. Nor does National Right to Life PAC want Rudy Giuliani to become the Republican nominee for president.

National Right to Life is grateful for the strong pro-life record established by Mike Huckabee as governor of Arkansas, and recognizes that Governor Huckabee has taken the strongest pro-life position on all of the life issues of any of the remaining candidates for president.

National Right to Life is also grateful for the strong pro-life voting record on abortion of Senator John McCain, and appreciates the pro-life position he has taken in his Senate campaigns and in this presidential campaign.

National Right to Life also appreciates the pro-life position taken in this presidential campaign by former governor Mitt Romney.

National Right to Life urges pro-lifers in the individual states to do what is best in their particular state primary to help see that the Republican Party nominates a pro-life candidate.

National Right to Life will always be grateful for the strong pro-life record on all of the life issues Fred Thompson established as a U.S. senator, and for the strong pro-life position he has taken throughout his political career. Fred Thompson conducted his campaign with integrity and honor, and we know that America will be well served by him in any future public role he is called upon to fill.

PRESIDENTIAL COMPARISON PIECE

Where do the Republicans and Democrats stand on life?

GONZALES v. CARHART – A LITMUS TEST FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

By Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

—Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), 4/18/2007

"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.  As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient.  I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

—Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), 4/18/2007

"I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake—starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose."

—Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), 4/18/2007