Thompson’s National Right to Life endorsement has been major news in the pro-life world this week, following other major endorsements (Robertson of Giuliani, Brownback of McCain). Today NRLC issued another statement on their endorsement after getting a chilly and sometimes hostile response from the pro-life community. One of the major criticisms is that Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment, to which NRL responded:

The Republican Party’s platform calls for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. An HLA is one tool to win protection for unborn babies. But it would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate and the House and ratification by 3/4ths of the states, a formidable task.

Between 25 and 30 senators would need to be replaced to reach that 2/3rds figure, not something that is likely to take place for some time. And if an HLA were to be passed out of Congress and ratified by 3/4rds of the states, unborn babies would not automatically be protected. Protective legislation would have to be passed in each state. Ratification of an HLA is a long-term NRLC goal.

But babies are dying in the here and now. NRLC’s emphasis, like Thompson’s, is on what the next President can accomplish. Thompson has made clear that the only way Roe v. Wade is likely to be overturned in the foreseeable future is by the confirmation of justices who do not believe there are parts of the Constitution written in invisible ink—where Blackmun discovered the “right” to abortion. Thompson says he would nominate justices who interpret the Constitution according to its actual text.

Whatever. Sadly this endorsement, like all the others, doesn’t impress me or have any impact on me whatsoever. It’s not that I question the judgment of NRL or oppose Thompson for any particular reason. I just don’t care. I have not been able to muster up enthusiasm for any of the candidates and I don’t see that changing over the course of the next year.