Fred Thompson Takes First Step in Presidential Run, Opposes Abortion

LifeNews.com ^ | May 30, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

[gpapa]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former Tennessee senator and well-known actor Fred Thompson has taken the first step in what could be a full-fledged candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Thompson will file paperwork on Friday forming saying he is considering an exploratory committee allowing him to start raising funds.

[TAdams8591]

I would suggest the Boston Globe article is correct, since they despise Romney so, mostly write hit pieces on him, and would like nothing better to have gotten Romney in trouble with Catholics, in a state which is largely Catholic. : )

[hershey]

Interesting comment that Law and Order is anti-Catholic...and you are so right! But Fred played himself, conservative, principled, and every week he gave ultra-liberal assistant D.A.’s like Jack McCoy, (Sam Waterston...an Ultra-Liberal in real life), etc., fits.

[Sun]

And how about the other antiCatholic info about Romney (not only adoptions) from my article by WND?

I’m afraid I just don’t trust Romney, friend.

He changes his mind on too many things. For instance, last year he was in favor of a comprehensive amnesty bill, but this year, he talks tough against it. But he sure is smooooooth.

[Sun]

Despite his role on Law and Order, it still helped the show.

But even though there are a couple of things that I don’t like, I think Thompson is a pretty good guy, and I would strongly support him, if he is the nominee.

However, Duncan Hunter is near perfect on all counts, so I will be fighting HARD for him until the primaries.

DUNCAN HUNTER is the only politican that was EFFECTIVE on building a fence at a strategic place on our borders (which made crime go down tremendously in San Diego), STRONGLY pro-life a 26 year pro-life history NO FLIP FLOP HERE, understands the Red China threat and China’s trade imbalance through cheating, knows his defense (was Chairman of the Armed Services Committee when the Republicans had the majority, fought hard for the missle defense shield, won a medal in Viet Nam & his son did two tours in Iraq and will do a 3rd tour in Afghanistan) voted for traditional marriage between a man and a woman through HJ Res 88; supports a Constitutional Amendment allowing prayer in public schools - and that’s just for starters.

[Rameumptom]

>>>Tell Boston’s largest adoption agency, Catholic Charities, they had to place vulnerable orphan children in the homes of homosexual activists or go out of business?

You are mixing up the Legislative and Executive Branch. Romney openly opposed gay adoption being forced on Catholic Charities. it was important he did so because LDS family services refuses to adopt to gays also. Something he is aware of.

Unmarked Package answers this.

____________________________________________

Take a look at the chronology of events in that issue from published stories at the time. It wasn't Gov. Romney who gave up on the fight for Catholic Charities of Boston. Romney took the actions that were available to him under law to help them based on legal counsel he was given. Catholic Charities abandoned the fight.

Catholic Charities stuns state, ends adoptions http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/?page=1

[President of Catholic Charities of Boston, Rev. J. Bryan] Hehir said he hoped the decision will end the tumult surrounding the gay adoption issue. The controversy began in October when the Globe reported that Catholic Charities had been quietly processing a small number of gay adoptions, despite Vatican statements condemning the practice. Over the last decades, the Globe reported, approximately 13 children had been placed by Catholic Charities in gay households, a fraction of the 720 children placed by the agency during that period.

Agency officials said they had been permitting gay adoptions to comply with the state's antidiscrimination laws. But after the story was published, the state's four bishops announced they would appoint a panel to examine whether the practice should continue. In December, the Catholic Charities board, which is dominated by lay people, voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions.

But, on Feb. 28, the four bishops announced a plan to seek an exemption from the antidiscrimination laws. Eight of the 42 board members quit in protest, saying the agency should welcome gays as adoptive parents.

That day, Hehir and [Archbishop] O'Malley met with Romney in his State House office to make their case for an exemption, but Romney said he lacked the authority to do so. Hehir and O'Malley left the State House feeling that nothing could be done soon for their cause. The bishops had considered launching a court challenge, but Hehir said he and O'Malley realized it would cost "too much time and energy" -- without any certainty of victory.

"It became clear our options were narrow," Hehir said.

In the following parts of the article it describes the unanimous decision of the board of Catholic Charities of Boston to pull out on March 10, 2006. If any anger is expressed, it's against Catholic Charities of Boston for giving up too easily, not disappointment with Gov. Romney. We can be quite sure the liberal Boston Globe would have printed any anti-Romney sentiment on this subject if there was any hint that Romney had the authority to grant the exemption. Amateur lawyers and anti-Romney trolls will parrot the Dem talking point (Dukakis, et al) that Gov. Romney had the authority to grant the exemption. The legal advice Romney received clearly showed he did not have the authority.

Another account of the story is found in the March 17, 2006 issue of The Pilot, a Catholic newspaper (excerpts follow).

Catholic Charities ceases adoption work http://thebostonpilot.com/articlearchives.asp?ID=2961

Father Hehir also sought the council of the law firm Ropes & Gray.

"They worked for us from November to Feb. 18, they helped us clarify the legal situation and they did not charge us for any work," he said.

The committee looked for recourse in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government. Gov. Mitt Romney informed them that the executive level was not an option, and Catholic Charities determined that the legislature was not a viable option, he said.

"Catholic Charities is not supporting the governor’s bill," Father Hehir said. "We already looked at the legislative road and made a decision there was no possibility there."

Romney proposed the bill designed to allow Catholic Charities to continue providing adoptions without serving same-sex couples but still allow other agencies to provide adoptions to gay couples.

"They have within their religion the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that children should not be sent into homes without a mother and father," Romney said about Catholic Charities. "That’s their religious freedom to have that belief and we’d like them to be able to be true to that religion and at the same time provide a service to the Commonwealth of placing special needs kids."

Father Hehir added that the committee decided not to seek help from the judicial branch.

"The third route was through the courts, and that would have been a long process with inconclusive prospects," he said.

Father Hehir said he and the other members of the board were concerned that seeking an exemption "could threaten the rest of the programs over time," including their management and funding.

The same day that Catholic Charities announced they were discontinuing adoption services (March 10, 2006), Gov. Romney issued a press release announcing he would file legislation to permit religious institutions to perform adoptions without violating the tenets of their faith. http://myclob.pbwiki.com/03-10-2006 Gov. Romney filed the bill just five days later on March 15, 2006

Romney files 'religious freedom' bill on church and gay adoption http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/15/romney_files_religious_freedom_bill_on_church_and_gay_adoption/

"It is a matter beyond dispute, and a prerequisite to the preservation of liberty, that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission," Romney said in a letter to House and Senate leaders.

"He said Catholic Charities' withdrawal from providing adoption services creates a void in the child welfare system."

"In this case, the needs of children must come before the rights of adults," he said.

The Governor got the following response from gay activists for his actions in favor of religious freedom:

"Arline Isaacson, the co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said Romney's proposal was reprehensible."

"These kids need loving and nurturing homes and if the best match for them is a gay family, they should be allowed to have that," she said. "When you start exempting from discrimination laws in one category, someone can come around and ask for it in another and another and another. Ultimately the kids are the losers."

The Democrats in the MA Legislature reacted predictably, and the anti-Romney trolls, as usual, parrot the Dem talking point that the legislation had no chance of passing and he was just pandering for show:

"House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Robert Travaglini, both Democrats, have said they would oppose Romney's efforts." Romney's bill was not pandering to the Republican base for political purposes. Republican Lt. Gov. Healey opposed it.

"Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican hoping to succeed Romney as governor, recently said she disagreed with the governor's position." Furthermore, as described above by Father Hehir in The Pilot article, not even Catholic Charities supported the Governor's bill. Thus, he gained nothing politically by working to help them.

192 posted on 04/14/2007 5:14:45 PM PDT by Unmarked Package (<<<< Click to learn more about the conservative record of Governor Mitt Romney)

[Sun]

Thanks for the info, and I’m glad to hear it, but what about the other stuff in my posts 138 & 142?

Pat Buchanan was on Ingraham’s show yesterday, and says Romney keeps changing his mind.

I am scared to death of even the possibility of a RINO winning the election in 2008.

[Rameumptom]

Unmarked Package's homepage is a good place to start and answers most basic questions about Romney. The other stuff is answered here Unmarked Package's homepage

On the record, from around the web (January 2, 2003 – Present) Examine the record of Mitt Romney while Governor of Massachusetts and you will find that he applied and practiced core conservative principles of fiscal and social conservatism in one of the most liberal states of the U.S. It required courage to take the conservative positions and actions he did in the face of a hostile political environment.

I believe we should care about Mitt Romney's actions while in a position of authority, since taking office in 2003, much more than we care about words he spoke in campaigns years ago. Mitt Romney's record as Governor, when his actions had real consequences, tells the real story about how he would govern as President.

The following information is my latest collection gathered from personal research all around the web. I hope FReepers will give it an honest look.

Contents: [ War on Terror ] [ Guns ] [ Abortion and Sanctity of Life ] [ Judicial Appointments ] [ Homosexual Rights ] [ Immigration ] [ Government Spending and Taxes ] [ CFR ] [ Public Education ] [ Crime ] [ Healthcare ] [ Environmental and Energy Policy ] [ Labor Unions ] [ Mitt Romney's Résumé and Education ] [ Photographs ] [ Miscellaneous Videos ] [ Resources ] [ Rebuttals ] [ Ping List ]

[tpaine]

There are ways to word sentences which avoid the fundamental issues and jump the argument to the irrational extremes immediately.
The following wording does that and I'll address why:

"So as I now understand it, Fred Thompson is as Pro-Life as Justice Antonin Scalia, both are of the Federalist position. They think Roe v Wade should be overturned so the "legality" of abortion is decided on a State by State basis, BUT both oppose the federal government criminalizing abortion, meaning neither see the unborn as Constitutional persons that deserve equal protection under the law. That is not even close to a 100% Pro-Life position."

Here's why wording such as that is pushing the limits of rational.
Until science can save both the mother and the alive unborn child with a pregnancy termination procedure, there will always be the rare situation when the life of each compete for imminence. Codifying with a Constitutional Amendment the approved killing of one alive citizen without reaching the established right to execute based upon criminal conviction immediately establishes an untenable law which contradicts our DofI and current first ten amendments to the Constitution.
IMHO, so long as the debate over pregnancy termination is not based in the well established principle of self defense, a rational balance based in our existing principles can not be reached to authorize the purposeful killing of an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human being.

Well put. - Everyone should agree on the constitutional principle that both a pregnant woman and "an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human being" have the right to self defense.

Though not directly, the exceptions for rape and incest actually address the notion of self defense, as in pregnancy brings an increased mortality risk and the one impregnated under circumstances of rape or minor child incest must be viewed from the standpoint of a right to defend the innocent one upon whom criminal act has been perpetrated.
A rational approach can only be achieved when we recognize the underlying principle which makes pregnancy termination a reasonable option for protecting life of the one unlawfully forced to give life support.

Yep, the pregnant woman cannot be "- unlawfully forced to give life support -". Only with due process of law can she be so forced.

THEN we may apply that principle to even embryo-aged innocent human beings and when science achieves the ability to save even an implanted embryo we will have a natural flow to apply defense of the embryo-aged beings as well as the older life of the woman.

To attack Fred based upon not being 100% in defense of the unborn when no rational balance is yet achievable is nonsense.
If we really want to get somewhere in the pro-life impasse, we will alter the debate to address the notion of human lives having a right to self defense where the individual life is in peril.
Current law and perspective for pro-life does not establish that foundation and we see it cannot be transferred to protecting embryo-aged humans.

Exactly. It is constitutionally and medically impossible [at this time] to protect the self defense rights of both a pregnant woman and "an alive yet unborn innocent fellow human". - As you say:

"- Until science can save both the mother and the alive unborn child with a pregnancy termination procedure, there will always be the rare situation when the life of each compete for imminence. -"

In effect, demanding that Fred Thompson [at this point in time] support "100 percent" total bans on abortion is playing into the political rhetoric of our opponents. That position on this issue makes a candidate unelectable.

[Sun]

sorry, I can’t support a candidate (Romney) who changes positions every couple of years, or so.

[TexanSniper]

This seems to contradict some of the info you posted:

Romney has been publicly supporting key social issues backed by conservative Catholics in Massachusetts. That makes political sense, according to observers who say Romney's support for issues close to the heart for Catholic leaders in his home state could resonate with conservative Republican voters outside Massachusetts -- especially those who might otherwise be leery about supporting a Mormon.

"He's showing and demonstrating that the social and moral values he possesses as a Mormon are identical to those of conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants," said Rick Beltram, chairman of the Spartanburg County Republican Party in South Carolina.

Last year, Romney sided with the Catholic church's efforts to resist a law requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims, although he later backed off. He recently filed a bill that would exempt the church from a state law requiring they consider same-sex couples when putting children up for adoption.

Romney's ties the Catholic church -- the dominant religion in Massachusetts -- have become so close he was invited to Rome to attend Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley's elevation to cardinal at the Vatican.

Romney's alliance with Catholic leaders on conservative social issues like abortion and gay marriage could reap political rewards as he seeks to cultivate support outside Massachusetts among conservative Christians, one of the Republican Party's core constituencies. source

 

Also you might wanna check this out:

Why So Many Prominent Catholics Are Supporting Romney

[Sun]

Thanks, but I just don’t trust Romney. Far too many flip flops.

[TAdams8591]

Thanks for the post, TS. Yes, I and several Catholics in my Catholic family support Romney. And it was my Catholic cousin (a practicing Catholic who’s own family reminds me so much of Romney and his family) who persuaded me to support him.

[TAdams8591]

Ping to post #150, which you might want to add to your most excellent and informative homepage, if you don’t mind the suggestion! : )

[Unmarked Package]

I see that Rameumpton has already responded about Boston Catholic Charities.

"Force Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to hand out the abortion drug “Plan B” or close their doors?"

Constitutional lawyer David French answers this:

"And Steve's statement regarding "forcing" pro-life hospitals to provide the morning-after pill is off-base. State law--enacted by Democrats--forced the hospitals to provide the pill. Such a law can and should be challenged by the hospitals in court. The Governor does not have the standing (or constitutional ability) to mount such a challenge."
^{(A Comment from a Romney Opponent (or a "Pre-supporter?"), David French, Jan. 5, 2007 post at EvangelicalsForMitt.org)}

Time after time it's necessary to first examine the credentials and credibility of the people expressing opinions about a set of events.

David French is a Harvard Law School graduate and a leading constitutional attorney with the non-profit Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal defense and advocacy group for religious freedom founded in 1994 by the leaders of more than 35 ministries, including Dr. James Dobson. ADF directly litigates carefully chosen, strategic cases to protect the freedom of religion, guard the sanctity of human life, and preserve marriage and traditional family values. The ADF is a major force opposing liberal activist groups such as the ACLU. David French is a First Lieutenant in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the United States Army Reserve.

David French co-founded EvangelicalsForMitt.org, an independent website dedicated to spreading awareness about Governor Mitt Romney among Christian conservatives. David and his wife, Nancy, have two children and live in Columbia, Tenn. where they attend Zion Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Before placing much stock in Janet Folger's article in WND that you [Sun] cite, you need to be aware that most of these charges against Gov. Romney are lifted straight from 'The Mitt Romney Deception' written by Brian Camenker.

I have a whole section on the Romney homepage about Brian Camenker and his fringe group MassResistance.

This is a guy who voted for Michael Dukakis in the past. Camenker believes he can link lower quality of life, increased homelessness, higher crime, and bad air quality to gay marriage if given enough time and research. He has a history of attacking prominent Republicans. Excuse me for ignoring Folger if she is relying on Brian Camenker for an interpretation of events.

[TAdams8591]

"However, Duncan Hunter is near perfect on all counts"

Except, that he is unelectable and has no charisma. Otherwise, as you say, he's perfect.

"so I will be fighting HARD for him until the primaries."

until the primaries and not after. How right you are! : )

Take it easy pro-life, sister. Always good to see you! : )

[TAdams8591]

An excellent post, as always. Thank you, UP! : )

[Unmarked Package]

"Ping to post #150, which you might want to add to your most excellent and informative homepage, if you don’t mind the suggestion! : )"

Thanks for the ping and to TexanSniper for the reference.

Another fact that directly contradicts any notion that Gov. Romney was at odds with the policies of the Catholic church in MA is a recent letter of endorsement signed by Richard Guerriero, Immediate Past State Deputy, Massachusetts State Council, Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus is the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization. There may be other Catholics among the eight signatories of the letter.

Eight prominent leaders of pro-life and pro-family groups in Massachusetts wrote an open letter praising Gov. Romney for his leadership and accomplishments in these important issues and attesting to his commitment to the pro-life and pro-family causes.

[Sun]

Duncan Hunter has a great personality, and is very likeable and down-to-earth. I like that.

[Sun]

I am a Catholic who does not support Romney, because I don’t trust him.

ROMNEY claimed to have more liberal views when he ran in liberal MA, but now is claiming to be more conservative when he wants to win in the GOP primaries.

Pardon my logic.

[mwl1]

I concur. Judges, judges, judges — especially the appellate courts and the Supreme Court.

Do you want Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton making those appointments over the next generation?

Any reasonable freeper recognizes that any GOP candidate will appoint decent judges. With Thompson, the pot is sweetened: we’ll get excellent judges, because he will dance with those who brung him.