Posted on 11/05/2007 8:52:54 AM PST by Reagan Man
This week-end, Fred Thompson did Meet the Press and unlike Hillary, he bore up well under Russert's questioning. However, there was one thing that Thompson said that raised a few eyebrows. Here's the passage in question,
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
...
MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But...
MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling—going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.
Two things.
#1) Unfortunately, a lot of people who are serious about Federalism tend to oppose very reasonable Constitutional Amendments because they think it will take power away from the states. Although it's a very common argument, I've never thought it held any water. After all, 38 states have to approve for a Constitutional Amendment to become law, so it's not as if the states aren't being fairly represented in the process.
#2) Anyone who has ever read RWN knows that I am adamantly pro-life. It's a very big issue for me and I have to admit that I would not mind seeing a Constitutional Amendment passed that banned abortion except in the case of the mother's life being endangered.
However, as I've written before, that's simply not going to happen,
...Republicans can't ban abortion outright because of Roe v. Wade. We could try for a constitutional amendment to get around that, but it would be futile, because they couldn't get enough support for it. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned (and we'd need to replace at least one more judge after Alito gets on the court to do it), we're stuck.
That's why I don't find Thompson's position on this issue to be troubling. To the contrary, it's actually a little reassuring in a roundabout way (Pay close attention to this next paragraph or you'll get confused).
Let me tell you why: since we can't get a constitutional ban on abortion passed, we lose nothing if Thompson gets elected and doesn't support it. That being said, it would have been politically advantageous for him, with social conservatives, to say that he supports the Amendment. The fact that he isn't supporting it is another strong indication that he means what he says about Federalism. That's great news for people who are pro-life, because it means he will likely keep his promise to appoint an originalist judge who respects the Federalist principles in the Constitution and any such judge would certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Granted, if Thompson said he supported the Constitutional Amendment, it would also be another indicator he was going to appoint a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade, but still -- any candidate who really believes in Federalism will move the ball forward for those of us who are conservatives -- and not just on pro-life issues.
Thompson is being pragmatic. Abortion is more easily defeated on a state by state scale than on the national scale that a constitutional amendment requires.
I would prefer to see abortion outlawed in any number of states than for it to be allowed in all states.
Wrong. The fetus would only have to be declared a “person” to be guaranteed the right to life. They don’t need to be made citizens. Even illegal aliens have the right to live. Some people just don’t want American babies to have as many rights as illegal aliens
I agree. A Human Life amendment may seem like an impossibility, but it is the only solution that shows a commitment to protect the unborn.
With abortion it has to be an all or nothing thing. Allowing some states to make abortion legal, effectively allows all people to have legal abortions. They just need to travel to obtain one. One who truly believes that abortion is the taking of innocent life has to find this solution unacceptable. We do not allow states to make murder legal. Abortion is murder, and should fall under the same legal and constitutional framework.
If you are referring to the judiciary declaring a fetus as protected or not, then yes, but that’s exactly what we already have. Congress can and should decide the law of the land, they just don’t want to. In the absence of that, the states’ legislatures could constitutionally do what the feds won’t, but I maintain that the responsibility for this, where it should reside, is with the national lawmakers.
From 1970 to 2005 Massachusetts Mitt supported the liberal position on abortion. For 35 years Romney publicly supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land and believed abortion on demand was a woman's Constitutional right.
In 2005 Romney decided to run for POTUS in the next general election cycle. Romney realized his pro-Roe/pro-choice position would be a problem. So he told the world he had a political epiphany and was now pro-life. How convenient. Sounds more like Mitt decided to engage in some political expediency that would paper over his long time pro-abortion position.
Fred Thompson`s position has always been consistent and in line with his support for federalism. Fred's always been a pro-life conservative. He's always opposed Roe v Wade and abortion on demand. Fred wants to see RvW overturned and the issue sent back to the purview of the states. Where is resided for 200 years. Fred also believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life.
Btw, John Hawkins is a Duncan Hunter supporter and worked for several months on the Hunter campaign. Hawkins also wrote that fine article on Rudy Giuliani from August 2006, The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani. Hawkins is a good conservative and his right about this issue.
Fred Thompson made his tenth appearance on Meet the Press this Sunday, his first since being an official candidate for President of the United States.
Fred is one of the few candidates in the GOP bold enough to sit face to face with Tim Russet and answer some of the most difficult questions in politics today.
Fred’s appearance on Meet the Press demonstrated he has the stature to lead this nation and the conservative principles to ensure its success into the future.
The interview was very substantive both on foreign and domestic policy issues and showed Fred’s depth of knowledge about the serious threat we face in America from radical Islamic terrorists.
Since he first announced his candidacy, Fred has demonstrated repeatedly that he is the one true consistent conservative in this campaign, and his interview with Tim Russert provided further evidence that he is the only candidate committed to limited government and returning power back to state and local governments.
I prefer to leave abortion up to God. Since He creates people knowing who is going to have an abortion, then it must be OK with Him, otherwise, no one would ever have one.
Which God though ? What if you weren’t born to parents who happened to practice the correct religion out of the thousands of religions in the world ?
Oh...well that explains why he voted FOR a federal law banning Partial Birth Abortion and now is against a federal amendment which would affect the legality of abortion - because he is "consistent" in his federalism stance.
Hmmm...I wonder where Thompson would have stood on the issue of slavery. Should that be decided on a state-by-state basis? If it is OK for some states to allow the slaughter of one class of human life (those that have yet to be born) then it would stand to reason that it would also be OK for them to allow the enslavement of one class of human life too. Right?
Let's stretch that logic to extremes, shall we? Under your definition of "federalism" (and Thompson's and Hawkins') then it would be OK, on a state-by-state basis, for those unwanted human lives to instead of being aborted, to be enslaved after they are born. You've defined a class of human life to not be protected by laws protecting life, freedom, etc. Why not pay the mothers for their unwanted children and then enslave the children after they are born - on a state-by-state basis, of course? Would that be OK with you, Thompson, and Hawkins to allow to be implemented state-by-state?
I believe there is only one God, and, since they are all man-made, no correct religion.
He also knows who is going to murder someone and who is going to be murdered, using your logic. So, then, do you believe that murder is OK with Him? I mean, otherwise, no one would ever murder anyone. Right?
Hey, wait. Abortion IS a form of murder, or like unto it. Interesting thing, that.
"Thou shalt not kill..." - God
Yes, I believe He does know who is going to commit murder, yet He still creates that person. I don’t believe murder, or for that matter, anything we do here on earth, is of any consequence to God since He put us here, knowing what we are going to do.
So, using your logic, then Murder should be legal too?
Not everybody is Ron "Just Say No" Paul -- pragmatism knowing that the current system has the federal government already involved in abortion, and therefore taking action to put a reasonable restriction on it does not conflict with wanting to get the federal government out of regulating abortion in the first place.
In the Roe v. Wade world, the federal government essentially has total control over abortion law. While that is true, one can work both to do what is best under that model as well as change the model without being inconsistent or a hypocrite.
Or, one can sign promises to Planned Parenthood supporting the substance of Roe v. Wade and supporting taxpayer funding of abortions.
I'm voting for the former, not the latter.
“So much for the idea that Thompson was the answer for true Conservatives.”
I consider myself a true conservative, and voting for Fred.
He is pro-life. And more inportantly, he is for following our constitution. When RvW is overt;urned and becomes a State’s issue there will be very few abortions, if any. I really believe that most every state will vote to ban abortions except perhaps for saving the life of a mother, rape, or incest.
Personally no, but different societies throughout history, have had different laws. The acceptance of murder is relative to the situation. For example, wars have murdered millions of innocents throughout history, yet it is legal.
So, you don't believe in right or wrong? Good or evil? Using the logic that you've stated in this thread, murder is good because God allows it.
I believe God put into each of us an individual sense of right and wrong. I did not say anything was good or bad. We still have to obey the laws, or suffer the consequences. I just happen to believe that the consequences begin and end here on earth.
“Well Tim, just because you believe that withholding of M&M’s is ‘torture’ doesn’t make it so.
I agree with this analysis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.