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?
The credibility of a candidate is fair game. Romney is suspect, but I can be persuaded. Politics is the art of the possible. Duncan Hunter, is an extremely uphill battle, and he has very little national profile. I am against abortion. It will take years of incremental effort to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one. I believe, Thompson may have the best chance of doing such, as he may be able to wrest control of the party from the country club, economic conservatives, who are socailly liberal. The jury is out.
I think that upholding the constitution is the pillar of Conservatism. Abortion therefore would fall under states rights and therefore as an answer to the previous post, if the people in California or New York want to kill their children....I really don’t care. However when they start dictating what we do with our unborn here in Colorado....Yeah, I have a huge problem with that! Abortion is not THE core issue but an issue wrapped within that of states rights.
Well, they tried that with a little thing called the Articles of Confederation. Didn't work out too well.
Wrong. No State or individual has the right to abrogate the God-given and therefore unalienable right to life. To claim so is to advocate for the destruction of our free republic.
Sorry, just like some are living in a pre-9-11 world when it comes to national defense and foreign policy, you are living in a pre-Roe world...back in the day when no one was insane enough to think that any State or individual had a right to murder someone.
I posted two posts too late! However brilliant minds think alike! I agree with you 100%
According to the Declaration of Independence, in the founding paragraph of America, the very reason for the existence of government is to protect the self-evident right to life.
"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..."
You talk of a “Pre-Roe” timeframe but still live in it yourself. The law has already determined a fetus to not be a “person” therefore has no rights. This is not my personal belief however the “life,liberty,and pusuit of happiness” doesn’t apply to a “fetus.” So what were you saying about the abrogation of individuals or states?
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."
Do you believe in the equal protection of the laws?
Do you believe that any State can outlaw free speech, or religious liberty, or the right to petition government? Why would the right to life, which is the penultimate right, be less important than those rights?
FLIP FLOP, FLIP FLOP.
And actually, the constitution was only a modification of that. How can I say this with confidence, because when the rest of the nation had a vibrant two party system, in our state, you had a poll tax, and the real election was the Democratic runoff. I should also note that here, we don’t hold “Lincoln” dinners as Republican fundraisers.
When you consider what classically defines a nation as a nation, the United States contains several of them. And I still personally believe that nullification is a valid doctrine. The reason Republicans took the majority is because of state’s rights. The fact is, California should be governed under a different set of laws than my state is. We believe different things, and our laws should reflect that.
That's the silly notion propated by Roe.
First, if you claim that any State has the right to declare the non-personhood of the "fetus," which simply means "child," you are agreeing with Roe, and have removed any moral or intellectual argument against Roe.
Secondly, if you take such a position, you have also removed any justification for any individual State to outlaw abortion.
In short, you are advocating for the status quo, as is any politician who takes this immoral and nonsensical position.
The President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States not his "deeply held convictions". The reason the Constitution has been trampled on for so many years is that too many politicians in the Federal Government have used moral issues to exceed the authority given them. If Fred Thomson believes there should be no federal law against abortion he is exactly right.
I might be more concerned if there was actually a document at the link in the article,and if it could be determined with any certitude that FT filled out the questionnaire himself.
The only reason for the existence of a national government, and our Constitition, is the protection of the Life and Liberty of the people as a whole. Remove that, and there is no foundation left for the American republic. You are declaring it dead, whether you know it or not, or whether you will admit it or not.
No, he is applying the final hammerblows to the cornerstone of American liberty.
Then there should be United Nations law criminalizing murder. Murder is just so evil, the fact that the UN has to legal authority to criminalize murder is irrelevant.
By the way, you Romney supporters have no grounds to criticize Fred Thompson on this.
Mitt Romney’s position is identical. If one State or another wants to kill American kids, that’s just dandy with him.
I am going to go ahead and assume you are not a Southerner, based on that comment. Slavery and abortion have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The only thing they have in common are that they are issues that are divisive and divide the country.
And this actually justifies my position. The reason we have a problem in this country is because legalized abortion is mandated upon all states whether or not the residents of the respective states actually want that. Mandating that abortion be illegal, irrespective of the desire of those states voters, csuses the exact same problems. And in your argument, you further my position that people in different parts of the country believe different things regarding the role of government, thereby making a national imperative improper.
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.