U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) at the 2015 Rising Tide Summit in Cedar Rapids, IA.Photo credit: Dave Davidson (Prezography.com)
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) at the 2015 Rising Tide Summit in Cedar Rapids, IA.
Photo credit: Dave Davidson (Prezography.com)

As editor of Caffeinated Thoughts, I believe one of our strengths is having multiple contributors who have different experiences and perspectives. This, of course, is within of the confines of a conservative Christian worldview. It will mean that we will have disagreements from time to time about candidates and issues. Today, David Shedlock wrote a piece that contrasted the records of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  David favors Huckabee and is not a fan of Cruz, and I have no interest in censoring what he writes.  He disagrees with Cruz’s position on marriage. I understand why, and I get there is legitimate disagreement on how to proceed on this issue at the federal level so I don’t really want to address that in this post.

I do want to discuss what David wrote about Cruz’s record on life.  I regret not having a discussion with David about this prior to publication, but since his remarks have been public on the website all day I believe a clarification is in order.

He wrote:

The Cruz position is actually a step backwards for the pro-life movement, as well. Morally, abortion is a national sin.  Cruz can say he has done all he can to stop abortion. But Ron Paul’s pro-abortion supporters knew that his position would not stop abortions at all. He could brag all he wanted about proposing laws that would outlaw abortion nationally, but he knew they would never see the light of day,

Huckabee should hammer this home during the remainder of the presidential primary season. 2015 is the time to make this clear, not 2016.  Cruz position is pro-choice,  Huckabee is the pro-life alternative.

David is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts. Just because a candidate takes a federalist position on marriage does not mean he will automatically apply it to the life issue.  I’ve never heard Cruz express that abortion should be an issue left to the states (and I have been to a number of Cruz events along with other candidate events). I believe based on the 5th and 14th Amendments one can make an argument for federal involvement in the issue so a federalist argument is pretty weak anyway.

Here are the facts about Cruz’s pro-life position that I think out of fairness to the candidate needs to be clarified.

Cruz has never been adverse to pro-life legislation so, unfortunately, David’s criticism is not backed up by facts. I believe we should hold all candidates to account, but we shouldn’t distort a candidate’s record in order to lift up our candidate of choice.

12 comments
  1. Thank you. I am fine with differing views also, if they are based upon facts. To call Ted Cruz “pro-abortion” is an outright distortion. It is good to point out distinctions between candidates, but such labeling is wholly disingenuous. I appreciate this follow-up article.

  2. I believe there is room for disagreement with out vitriol on how to proceed to defend the institution of marriage; but Georgia Right to life is one of the most principled groups in the country. I am sure there person-hood (the strategy I favor) pledge leaves no room for equivocation.

  3. There has been some heated debate over this article and whether or not there is a difference between Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz when it comes to the issue of abortion, and in my opinion there is.

    In August of 2015 Mike Huckabee said he would use the Department of Justice under the 5th and 14th Amendments to criminally prosecute Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. He believes that there is compelling scientific and DNA evidence that the child in the womb is already a human being and that abortion violates the rights of the unborn child as a human being.

    In August of 2015 Ted Cruz said that he supported a personhood amendment to the Constitution. He also supported defunding of Planned Parenthood, but didn’t talk about criminal prosecution.

    In my opinion, and perhaps not yours, these were two very different approaches, and views, to the issue of abortion. Huck sees it through the lens of morality that the baby in the womb is a human being, created by God and deserving of life. Cruz sees it through the lens of the law that requires legislation in order to resolve the issue.

    So, the question is, if the Constitutional Amendment failed, would Cruz be OK with abortions under Roe vs. Wade?

  4. Thank you for clarifying. It’s also worth noting that Ron Paul, a former OBGYN doctor, and his son are strongly pro-life. Ron’s son has continued in his father’s footsteps and introduced Life at Conception Act which would overturn Roe vs. Wade nationally. He has also voted against funding for Planned Parenthood and receives fantastic ratings from NRTL and NPLA.

    ” Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the “right” to extinguish individual life.

    Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating…

    We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable. ” – Ron Paul, Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty (1981).

  5. The fate of Don Quixote Cruz is to charge the windmills in the sky, not to become President of the United States.

  6. Huckabee is pulling your chain. He is knowingly misleading people by saying that he could just prosecute people with no constitutional amendment. The SCOTUS would be on that in a minute and stop him immediately. Sad, but true, and Huckabee knows it.

    Cruz is simply being truthful and faithful to the rule of law. He’s telling us the painful reality, not a feel-good fantasy. Cruz knows what is actually possible, and I have no doubt he will use every legal means possible to thwart as many murders of unborn children as he can.

  7. SCOTUS is a problem, as mentioned by another commenter, but not justifiably so as the the Court has grown beyond the bounds intended by the Founders. It was never intended, nor expected or even dreamed, that the Court could or would ever grow to assume it was empowered to Legislate from their Bench, so much as disseminating new Human Laws, let alone have the power to rule on redefining matters of Natural Law. The only thing SCOTUS was ever intended to do was rule on compliance with the U.S. Constitution, not seek out and distort vague comments like ‘separation of church and state’ and twist the Constitution by piling one ‘precedence’ on top of another until the true Constitution wears so many masks, one over the other, that if a Founder were to reappear on the scene he would suspect that we probably had at some point completely scrapped their prayerful aspiration for a new pact with the Devil. And we very nearly have, though it happened gradually, rather than at any point overnight.

    If the choice is between the product of the Harvard Law milieu, or the product of seminaries from America’s heartland (Ouachita Baptist & Southwestern Baptist Theological) I’ll take what I’m getting from the agrarian worldview every time, over what comes out of such humanist ‘think’ tanks as Harvard. The one thinks he can rise to be master of everything… the other knows the True Master, and only desires to discern His will. So give me Huckabee!

    Huckabee promises to tame Washington by rallying the states to an ‘Article V’ convention that applies term limits to not only DC legislators, but to federal judges (including the Supremes) as well. Huckabee has also promised to deliver a balanced-budget amendment over the heads of congress, by the same means. Huckabee, as the executive, will restore the Constitutional balance-of-powers by employing the states, as was intended for just such a case as we have today with our bloated federal bureaucracy, as the Founders expected we might someday confront when they first devised that aforementioned ‘Article V’.

    Huckabee will do more… but back to Cruz for a minute.
    Something is still wrong with Cruz if he thinks it’s OK to use the ‘pro-choice’ methodology for ‘solving’ the ‘issue’ henceforth (we’re nuts for even entertaining the conversation) of the nature of marriage and of what defines a basic family within our culture. This is an area where we are meant to discern the Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God… not to find humanist ways to usurp Natural Law and to enhance one’s own political clout by splitting hairs in an attempt to keep both sides happy for as long as possible. Cruz needs to figure out what he stands for…
    folks… if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything! Personally, I stand for marriage and family as revealed to us in Natural Law… I won’t be falling for Ted Cruz.

    I’ve had my differences with David Shedlock and the theories he espouses in his book (such as staying home and avoiding voting altogether, if the the perfect candidate isn’t one of the options in that election), but I’ll be standing with Shedlock, in this case. Ted Cruz is not the genuine choice. Cruz grandstands, and he postures, and he talks about having a record… which is predominately one of only grandstanding and posturing ..? Cruz tries to play both sides against the middle… lawyer tip-toeing. Don’t even get me started on the major donor sources to his campaign, corrupt crony-capitalists, the lot of them. No… not for me… you can have Ted Cruz.

    My top 3 were Huckabee, Jindal, & Santorum (in that order). Now I only have Huckabee & Santorum… beyond them I’m not sure where I’ll go. Voting for Romney was worse than voting for McCain… and Cruz will be even worse, for me, than holding my nose and pulling the lever was for either one of them. If Cruz gets the nomination I foresee Shedlock, and a most of his ‘friends’, staying home for the 3rd consecutive presidential election. Just the prescription you’re looking for if you’re a supporter of Hillary!

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Can Mike Huckabee Beat Ted Cruz?

Adam Graham: Mike Huckabee (R-AR) has built a solid organization in Iowa and has hope to close strong. He has a shot at beating Ted Cruz.

Steve King Is Making an Iowa Caucus Announcement

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) will be making a major Iowa Caucus announcement on Monday morning which is most likely an endorsement of Ted Cruz.

Christie Takes a Pass; A Palin Decision Forthcoming

It looks like we’re down to one possible late entry into the…

A Blueprint for Destroying the Republican Party

History has demonstrated that when the Republican Party and candidates alienate the base they lose. Embracing same-sex marriage will accomplish the same.