Cliff Kincaid’s piece in the National Ledger asks some important questions regarding an issue of importance to social conservatives. It’s another of the issues that requires a big gulp of Fred koolaid in order to be able to forget it. But, forget it is what NRLC, along with several of their state chapters have done.

“Pro-life” apparently doesn’t mean pro-life. Fred Thompson has received the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee even though he doesn’t favor a human life amendment to the Constitution, didn’t favor Terri Schiavo’s right to life during his November 4 NBC “Meet the Press” appearance, and once lobbied for a pro-abortion group.

One conservative news service claims that Thompson has a 100 percent pro-life voting record. In fact, he got only 86 percent in the 105th Congress.

Even more significant, Thompson has now flip-flopped on one of the most important issues of our time?whether disabled people should have the right to life.

At a November 13 news conference at which the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) announced its endorsement of Thompson for president, NRLC executive director David N. O’Steen said, in response to my questions, that Thompson had provided “some clarifications” of his controversial “Meet the Press” remarks and that he now favors the right to life of disabled people like Terri Schiavo.

Even if Thompson somehow manages to explain this flip-flop to the satisfaction of pro-life voters, he still has some other matters involving life and death that cry out for explanation. …

This is quite a flip-flop. He went from calling it a private end-of-life family matter (which it was not, since Terri Schiavo did not have a terminal illness, was not hooked up to any life-supporting machines, and her parents wanted her to live and to take care of her) to affirming her right to life. But why didn’t Thompson come down on the side of life to begin with?

Why? C’mon, Cliff. You know why. It’s the same reason that Hillary Clinton will not allow her papers and records to be released. It would not be politically expedient. Just like Thompson who was a Pro-choice skirt chaser (you know, he had to preserve his options), but then settled down (allegedly), became a family man and decided it was safe to be pro-life instead. If there is one thing the consistent conservative understands it is a politically expedient flip-flop.

There’s more you need to read from Kincaid. Here is the LINK.