Posted on 03/27/2007 1:40:16 PM PDT by RepublicanPOTUSin08
Let’s settle this once and for all...
Having done actual research on this subject to get to the truth, I’ve concluded that Sen. Thompson a) is, and has always been, opposed to the notion of a constitutional right to an abortion; b) is, and has always been, in favor of banning partial-birth abortion; c) is, and has always been, in favor of restrictions on most later-term abortions (post-first trimester); and d) is now across-the-board pro-life, but in the 1990s, was in favor of earlier-term abortions (first-trimester) remaining legal...
If you pick up the 1994 post-election edition of National Right to Life news, you’ll see a list of pro-life Senators elected in the class of ‘94. Thomspon was on the list, with a cross by it.
The cross stood for Thompson’s support for legal 1st Trimester abortion. He was generally pro-life, but supported abortion during the 1st trimester...
As such, Thompson’s voting record is consistent with his 1994 position: he’s pro-life on everything other than making first-trimester abortions illegal...
What seems to be clear is that Thompson has never supported the constitutional right to an abortion, has never supported partial-birth abortion, and has never been opposed to restrictions on post-first-trimester abortions. Further, Thompson’s opposition to Roe means that he’d have no problem with states prohibiting or regulating first-trimester abortions. Thompson has only parted with pro-lifers on first-trimester abortions, a stance that a) may have since changed over the past decade and that b) is moot for all practical purposes, as sufficient political support for banning these abortions at the federal level just doesn’t exist regardless of what the Supreme Court does.
(Excerpt) Read more at race42008.com ...
If this statement is true.. you'll notice through this thread that there are many challenges to this statement as well as the legitimacy of the source.. this 'first trimester' statement may simply be a way of splitting the base and may not be an accurate representation of Thompson's views. (it does contradict his voting record which is soundly pro-life.)
Whoops - sorry. I was reading two threads at once. Eyes are crossing after a long day.
Sorry, what's RILOM?
>He's all but renounced McCain-Feingold.<
Right! He was for it before he was against it! I don't trust people who want to be all things to all people, and will say anything to achieve that status. I have more respect for someone who will stick with his convictions, even if I think they are wrong.
He is still the most conservative candidate that we are fielding who actually can win the election. You cannot please everyone, but our best bet without selling our souls (RINO Rudy) would be Mr. Thompson, IMO.
I think he's fully pro-life now. Said so on Fox News.
I think this author is stating Fred's positions during his Senate runs in the '90s.
There are a few things Bush does that I do not find acceptable. And I wouldn't vote for him again, even if he could run for a third term.
Me too, but I was referring to abortion specifically.
Maybe, but I doubt his feelings on abortion will be what brings him down, at least according to polls which reflect what Americans consider important.
Rape
Incest
Life-Of-Mother
Meaning he believes in those exceptions or at least somewhat.
55 million abortions worldwide last year - or roughly the number of civilians killed by Hitler during WWII.
But it's not a big deal.
Trying to correct the link from the last post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1798412/posts
I think his reasoning for both supporting it and later being against it was perfectly reasonable.
Apparently, you're one of those 'my way or the highway' types that are NEVER satisfied with a candidate.
Gays, guns and abortion are top 10 issues of many Republicans. Those are tough to overcome in the primaries.
I don't think this is a make or brake issue for most people. You have people on both sides that are more than vocal but the majority just aren't all worked up over this issue.
For the Democrats it's religion along with gay marriage. For the GOP it's a 4 year cicada that comes around every Presidential election and then disasppears.
However for me nothing else tops respect for life. Those that deny it's a baby should be doing press releases for Gonzales.
FYI
Funny, those issues never turn up in any poll on important issues. But, you're correct, the social right might find a way to bring all the front runners down. Doubt it though.
What about the fight for the future existence of our posterity?
As we continue to countenance the killing of 4000 American babies per day, we call into question our own moral authority. We need a President who will stand for innocent life, no matter its enemy. We won't have a country if we settle for less.
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.