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?
Human government? Is that the UN? You are starting to scare me.
The purpose of our federal government is defined in the preamble. However the authority of different branches of our federal government is very limited, specific and delineated by the Constitution. But in recent years the federal government has vastly overstepped its authority and you are helping that process along.
Yes, but the states have always had the right to define what rights different persons have. At one time slaves did not have the same rights as others. Adults have different rights than children. And unborn children have different rights in different states. Unborn children are legally different from other children. Unborn children are not counted in the census, they do not require passports and they cannot collect welfare. In some states the murder of a pregnant woman is counted as one crime, not two. All these legal differences are determined by the states.
No. It is as opposed to God's government, or anarchy.
Human government is every form of government men have either arranged for themselves, or have had imposed upon them.
Yes. Here's why.
Abortion is an evil thing that we must fight. But what is the best way to fight evil? I say that securing liberty for a free people is much better way to fight evil. But when you give more power to government you diminish the liberty of the people. Police power has been used to jail protesters at abortion clinics. Public schools ban speech against abortion and other family values. The one nonviolent sanction that free people have, the right of free association, is being eroded.
Most doctors exercise their right to refuse to do abortions but that is starting to erode in some places where they are required to study and practice abortion in medical school. After we have socialized medicine, that right will disappear.
If this trend continues towards liberalizing and marginalizing the constraints established in federal and state constitutions then the people will have no freedom to fight these evils.
But you're saying that States can completely ignore the clear words of the Constitution and kill innocent people - to destroy the very posterity that the Preamble says has a right to the blessings of liberty.
And, it is you, not me, that is "helping along the overstepping of governmental authority," since no government has the right to kill the innocent.
As I said earlier, you've turned logic on its head.
If you believe that the federal government is killing these babies why do you want to give that government more power by such a loose interpretation of the Constitution? It is stupid to try to force evil regimes to do the right thing by giving them more power.
It was the Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government that allowed wholesale abortion when they decided Roe v Wade. Do you seriously believe that if you give them more power it won't be abused?
Unreal. Why are your rights superior to theirs? You said "Here's why," and then you completely glossed it over without actually saying one thing that proved that your rights are in any way superior to theirs.
But when you give more power to government you diminish the liberty of the people.
We're not talking about increasing the power of government. We're talking about defending the most fundamental right there is, the right to live. That's government's reason for being, according to the Declaration.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...
It was the Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government that allowed wholesale abortion when they decided Roe v Wade. Do you seriously believe that if you give them more power it won't be abused?
Utter nonsense. All that is required is for those in government to do what they have sworn to do: Protect the life and liberty of the people.
If these words are so clear, they could have stopped at the preamble. In fact, any liberal could draw just about any kind of legal principle out of the preamble. That's how we got into this mess in the first place when the supreme court dragged a right of privacy out of the 14th amendment (your favorite).
But a liberal Supreme Court could just as easily have used the preamble. Does the "liberty" of a pregnant woman trump the rights of the unborn person in her? They could have ruled that if they decided that a fetus wasn't a yet a person. I think it's better to have the states decide these things. Things were humming along pretty smoothly until Roe v Wade, maybe we can get things back to normal if we keep the feds out of the picture.
And you are willing to cut a swath through the limitations of the Constitution so that these men have ultimate authority to do that?
"And when the law was down and the devil turned around on you, where would you hide; the laws being all flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast, and if you cut them down, do you think you could stand in the winds that would blow through them?'.-- Thomas More
Roe did decide that a fetus was NOT a person. That is the decision’s primary basis, and the decision, as written, in fact admits that if a “fetus” or baby, was in fact a person that they WERE indeed protected under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. I’ve already posted the relevent portion of the decision on this thread.
LOL...that isn’t even a quote from Thomas More. It is from a play about Thomas More.
But, putting that aside, the whole point of the quote from the play is to ask the question of whether we are going to follow the laws as they are written or not.
The basic law of our land; in the Declaration, the Preamble, and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments; is clear in its meaning. The only way you can overturn that clear meaning is to propagate the silly, but eminently destructive, myth that unborn children are not people.
Fact is, you are “cutting down the laws,” not in pursuit of the Devil, but in pursuit of the “right” to kill children. I seriously doubt More would have agreed with you, or with those others who continue to empower the abortion industry.
The government that actually kills those babies as opposed to the one that allows their mothers to do it.
Either way, the babies are dead.
Member since 5/9/07. Welcome to FreeRepublic.
Got asbestos pajamas?
Fred won't do that. He believes, as I do, that it is a state's right issue.
But that aside, what do you think he could do? Prosecute abortionists on civil rights violations?
I didn't get much of a response from you on that. Do you think that individuals can be prosecuted for violating rights as specified in the Bill of Rights?
Can I be prosecuted for denying employment or service based on what someone says or because they carry weapons? Can I refuse to hire a Muslim to teach in my school? These are not straw men. The issues have come up.
But it's easier to change the minds of new mothers than it is to get a tyrannical government to admit that they have committed mass murder. I doubt if China's government will ever repent.
If it were clear in its meaning then how did so many people come to the conclusion that it legalized abortion?
Fact is, you are “cutting down the laws,” not in pursuit of the Devil, but in pursuit of the “right” to kill children.
The law you are cutting down is the 10th Amendment which reserves that authority to the states which was not given to the Federal Government.
How ironic that the 14th amendment, designed to insure rights should be used to enable such wholesale slaughter.
Every time you give them more power, you create more mischief. Start messing with the definition of "person" and you will see all kinds of weird things happening -- like lawyers suing mothers on behalf of the fetus. It is just bewildering to me that you want to give more authority to people who have done so much wrong.
But if we never had a 14th amendment to start with, there would not have been a Roe v Wade suit in the first place because it would have been strictly a state issue. By restricting these issues to the state level we minimize damage if another state court decides that children are not people.
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.