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?
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
All of the State constitutions pretty much read the same way.
The right to life is preeminent throughout American governance, from top to bottom. Always been that way. All that is required is for us to return to sanity.
Well, Pinkbell, thanks for the words of wisdom. I’m glad at least some haven’t swallowed the camel. ;-)
I really thought the legislature would get busy immediately and redefine the definition of citizen. The lily livered congress critters have failed utterly to protect the most innocent, and most helpless of all our people. I no longer expect much from the lawmakers.
I never thought the argument with respect to privacy made any sense. That’s like saying well it’s okay to murder someone as long as you do it in private.
I do think it is a states rights issue, which was usurped to impose this godless Holocaust on our most precious children. China makes families abort their children as a form of birth control. Obviously, the government should have no right to dictate in such a matter. Why then should they dictate no abortion?(see next paragraph). I can understand the logic of saying that Government should butt out of what is more appropriately between the parents, and their god.
But the US was founded with more lofty ideals: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the declaration of independence. How can a nation so founded, fail to ensure the life of future generations? Even if the legislatures have failed us, I believe that eventually case law could make an impact.
There have been several cases where criminals have been charged and convicted in double homicides for the death of a pregnant women and her unborn child. Every such case builds a foundation to eventually challenge the treatment of the unborn as something less than human. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We should keep trying them all till one works.
We should keep trying them all till one works.
Absolutely. Fight on every front. The judicial solution is the quickest route to ending the holocaust...all it would take is a declaration of the personhood of the unborn from the hight court, and abortion would be illegal everywhere on American territory. But, there are two other co-equal branches: the Executive and the Legislative. They too raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution, and therefore have a duty to act accordingly.
If we're not willing to have a constitutiolal crisis over LIFE, what would we ever have a constitutional crisis over?
Fight in the Courts. Fight in the Executive Branch. Fight in the Congress. Fight in the States. Fight in the media. Fight in the coffee shops and the churches and in the hearts and minds of men and women.
But, we must fight. Another 3 to 4 thousand babies were brutally killed in their mothers' wombs in America today.
And tomorrow, the slaughterhouses are again open for business...
You are welcome. I hope you got the FReepmail I sent you earlier today. My cousin is supporting Thompson. I am having the same argument with her. Abortion is as unconstitutional as slavery. States can violate the heart and soul of Constitution.
can = can’t
But also careful reading of the 14th amendment shows that “no state” shall deprive any person of life without due process, nor deny equal protection. Hence the Federal government is limiting what a STATE can do with respect to death, it placed no such limitation on the US government in amendment 14-Look at the 15th for comparison. And no where in the constitution, does it say a fetus is a person. Slaves were only 3 fifths of a person, and all kinds of laws were passed to impinge on their rights in spite of the 15th amendment.
A history professor of mine once noted that we have continued throughout our history to redefine the word person. It is way past time for the unborn baby to be defined as a person.
I have read that at the time of the 13 colonies, abortion was allowed before the quickening which I believe is about 5 weeks. This was before modern science. I believe that the science of today clearly demonstrates that unborn babies are children and should be afforded the protection of all persons and citizens.
and what ELECTABLE CANDIDATE will bring this about?
pretty damning document...from a certain pro-life POV
That doesn’t make any sense.
That's the point -- the UN has no authority over defining what "murder" is or enforcing appropriate punishments for murder on its member nations.
Likewise, the federal government has no authority to define what "murder" is or to enforce appropriate punishments for its member states. The only legitimate federal murder laws on the books are the ones committed on federal property or against federal officials (or even by federal officials acting in their official capacity), and those crimes committed across state lines.
Then how would you define those that were previously defined as 'persons'? An unborn baby is worlds different than what we call a 'person' today. It might be deserving of 'right to life', but I think it foolish to nullify the substance of the definition of 'person' just to protect the unborn. There are more respectable arguments for getting there.
I have read that at the time of the 13 colonies, abortion was allowed before the quickening which I believe is about 5 weeks. This was before modern science. I believe that the science of today clearly demonstrates that unborn babies are children and should be afforded the protection of all persons and citizens.
Howso? Simple logic would have told those 'before modern science' that an unborn baby, one, was a member of the human species, two, was a future person, and three, probably physically exhibited traits we associated with persons. I can't imagine them thinking that the unborn baby grows up in the womb as a formless mass and then suddenly forms into a child a day or two before birth.
All this said, I'm very curious as to what our founders and thinkers of the time thought about the unborn. I've not seen many quotes.
"Respectable"??
"Worlds different"??
Every person ever born, including you, was an unborn baby. The only difference is stage of growth.
To conclude that an unborn baby is not a person puts you in the same league as the Court that decided Roe.
So, like so many here, you think States can allow murder.
Unreal.
Hmmm...where have I heard THAT argument before...
The President of the United States is, in his person, one complete co-equal branch of the American government. It’s nonsensical to think that who that person is isn’t important to whether the daily holocaust of 3 to 4000 defenseless children in the womb continues. In fact, that person’s role is pivotal.
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Regardless of what the states can or cannot do, there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to do what you want it to do. Period.
Of course there is, if you believe, as common sense dictates, that unborn babies are “persons.” They are then covered explicitly by the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
To put it another way, the only possible way you can believe that the protections of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments do no apply to unborn babies is to assert, as the Roe Court did, to their everlasting shame, that unborn babies are not PERSONS.
Do you believe that unborn babies are NOT persons?
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.