Posted on 06/17/2007 9:14:40 PM PDT by monomaniac
The Brody File has in its' possession a Tennesseans for Choice questionnaire filled out by Fred Thompson. It was provided to The Brody File by a rival campaign. In it, he answers "no" when asked if he favors criminalizing abortion. This form was filled out by Thompson around 1996 though the exact date is unknown.
I know there are other questionnaires out there which Thompson filled out and which have already been reported. But this one is new.
Here's a key part:
Question: Please summarize your personal philosophy on the issue of reproductive choice
Thompson: The Supreme Court has attempted to delineate the constitutionally appropriate roles for individual and governmental decision-making on the issue of abortion. Beyond that, I believe that the federal government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area
I would make an exception to this general rule of governmental non-interference in a very limited number of cases where government has a compelling interest in promoting the public welfare. For instance, I believe that states should be allowed to impose various restrictions if they so choose.
Click here
( http://www.cbn.com/images4/cbnnews/blogs/TennesseansForChoiceQuestionnaire.pdf )
to view the whole questionnaire in Adobe Acrobat format.
The person from the rival campaign who furnished the document told me, "It's notable that in the entire questionnaire he never once says he's pro-life or says what he thinks about Roe."
It's an interesting point. Fred Thompson may have a perfect Senate score with the National Right to Life but when he enters the race, he'll need to explain questionnaires like this one and others. Where was the fervent pro-life talk? He will be challenged on this just like Romney was for his pro-choice comments in the 1990's. I'm not saying they are the same. I'm just saying that it'll be important for Thompson to show some passion for the pro-life cause in 2008. In the 1990's you don't see it.
He looks to be treating the pro-life cause as a federalism type issue rather than a deeply held conviction. That may not be the case but the questionnaire raises the question: Just how much of a priority will the life issue be for a President Fred Thompson? Or is it just another Federalism issue? Comments?
Again, you try and cloud the issue.
We’re talking about the innocent. Not those convicted of a capital offense. Not those killed in a justifiable homicide. And not those killed in the prosecution of a just war.
Yes, the 14th muddied the Constitution and the interpretation of it turned the Constitution on it's head. It should be repealed.
But nowhere does it say that parents need a search warrant to search their kid's room. Nor does it ban abortion by individuals. It might ban a state-ordered abortion.
Folks like you, and the judges who decided Roe, have already repealed it, in practice.
Nor does it ban abortion by individuals. It might ban a state-ordered abortion.
Only if you define an unborn child as not being a person.
Do you think an unborn child is not a person?
Your “search warrants for children’s rooms” schtick is a strawman that will get no further comment than this post.
But if an innocent child has his room searched by his parent, is that a violation of the fifth amendment? No. The reason has nothing to do with innocence, it is because the fifth amendment does not apply to private citizens.
Private citizens do not have the right to end the life of another person.
So, again, you think private citizens can kill a “person.”
Not even the Roe judges thought that. In the decision itself, they admitted that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would cover the unborn, and protect them, if they were Persons.
No.
I can cite a thousand similar examples of where the Constitution does not apply to individuals. For example when an employer tells his employees they can't talk politics on the job, that is not a violation of free speech. If a Christian lady wants to hire only a Christian handyman, that is not a violation of freedom of religion. If you tell someone they can't bring guns into your home, that is not a violation of the second amendment.
The Constitution was meant to restrict government, not the people.
Only where it is allowed by state law. And it is in many cases of self-defense.
In some states it is legal to kill someone who intrudes into your home.
Even the Roe judges recognized that under your understanding, abortion would not be allowable.
To wit, from the Roe vs. Wade decision:
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
So, you think that individuals can alienate your right to free speech, peaceful assembly, the petitioning of your government, religious liberty, etc.
Strange doctrine, that.
Your understanding of the Bill of Rights is faulty.
The idea that the Bill of Rights was enacted just to limit government is wrongheaded in the extreme. It was put in place specifically to safeguard the God-given rights of the people.
Hence the name “Bill of Rights.”
Many refused to support the Constitution as a whole without the promise of the protections that the Bill of Rights provides...or at least should provide, without the ascendency of muddle-headed judges who can’t understand plain English, and who strain at gnats while swallowing camels.
It will mean that you can’t require that your kids do the chores because that is “involuntary servitude”.
It will mean the an editor can’t edit a reporter’s story because that would violate the 1st amendment.
It would mean that churches can’t refuse to hire Muslims or agnostics to teach children because that would violate their freedom of religion.
Gosh. You have no shortage of strawmen, do you.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That person is guilty of wrongdoing and may attempt to kill the resident of the home. They are using self defense. A child in the womb is innocent.
Can you name me one State whose constitution does not contain the same verbiage protecting innocent human life as the Declaration and the Constitution do, if you define the unborn child as a person, as common sense dictates?
I don’t know of one.
Yes! It happens all the time. You can be ejected from private property if the owner doesn't like what you say. You can be tossed out of a shopping mall for a political demonstration. A printer can refuse to publish words he doesn't agree with. A private organization can refuse to hire agnostics or can insist that they be Catholic. A business can ban handguns on the premises.
I could go on and on but I'm going to bed.
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.