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?
From the April Chris Wallace interview: "THOMPSON: I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don't think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It's contrary to what it's been the past 200 years. We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn't be doing that. That's what happened in that case. I think it was wrong."
That doesn’t make any sense.
So, you think that if, say, Mississippi wanted to legalize slavery, that would be okay?
By the way, abortion is far worse than slavery. So far, there are about 50 million DEAD since Roe.
Again, Fred is wrong. The way to end abortion is not simply to pick “good judges.” The way to end abortion is for EVERYONE, at every level of government, including judges, to declare the personhood of the unborn. Even by the internal illogic of Roe, that ends the debate, and every child is forever protected by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
You see, overturning Roe is not enough. If that just reinforces the notion that popped up in the late Sixties, that a State could alienate the God-given right to life, very little will change. In fact, it just drives the roots of the abortion industry deeper and stronger.
Abortion will never be ended in this country by someone who is as weak in this area as Fred Thompson is.
If a fetus is a person then so is a child. So do you believe that a child can be deprived of the right to vote?
He said this was done early on, and it was written down incorrectly by his campaign workers. He was immediately aware of it. It was just bad pr and communication between his crew, not something to blame him on.
THAT is my point exactly.....once it is repealed then it goes to the States for a vote to see whether or not specific States will continue with or completly abolish the practice therein.
Furthermore, the idea of a fetus not being a person was not the main premise behind Roe Vs. Wade..It was a matter of Right to Privacy which I agree with. If the people of California “choose” to destroy their unborn along with their souls, I could care less. When any politician suggests that all States in the union warp the idea of “equal protection” to deny those same Californians their God-Given freedom and choice...I have an issue with it just as much as my issue with your argument suggesting we submit all “non-believers” to our will!
I agree with your stance on abortion....just not on your tactic to get it your way. I do believe that if there is to be a second civil war it will be over this topic. After all we are on the same side and will have to agree to disagree on the manner by which we go about our ultimate goal of abolishment.
p.s. Please try to contain a “holier-than-thou” response with the typical “God is the ultimate judge and you are on the wrong side.” God knows where my heart is in this battle and so do I!
Well, prior to Roe v. Wade, Federalism was the way the issue was approached. The Constitution nowhere gives Congress the power to regulate abortion, so under the 10th Amendment, that power rests in the hands of the states.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, as it should, Federalism will again rule the day.
You're confusing civil rights with inalienable rights.
The inalienable rights to life, liberty and private property are God-given, and cannot rightly be taken by anyone. That is the core principle that America is built on.
You can't kill a child. You can't make a slave of a child. And you can't steal the property of a child. Why is that so hard to understand? The founders called this fact "self-evident." Have conservatives fallen so far that they can't even see what the founders thought was so obvious that it didn't even require proof?
In which case the president's view will become irrelevent.
Once again, I have no idea why you keep bringing up slavery in this argument, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I’m not saying abortion isn’t a moral wrong, but the fact is, like most moral wrongs, it is up to each individual state to make a choice, because doing otherwise causes problems.
To be quite blunt, there are states in this country where people in large margins 70-80% support abortion on demand. If you suddenly say, we’re sorry, but the public opinion of the people in your state doesn’t matter, Washington has made it’s decision. See where the problem is. It’s exactly the same as it is now, where 70-80% of the people in my state oppose abortion on demand, and yet we can’t outlaw it because of Washington.
The whole Warren Court idea that it was the job of the federal judiciary to come in and tell states what they can and cannot do is the reason this country is as screwed up as it is today.
Correction...he wasn’t immediately aware of it.
Then, I hardly consider you my countryman, because you have gutted the Constitution.
I am SICK of you pie in the sky outlook. That is NOT going to happen!!
I will take overturning Roe V Wade and saving SOME babies over your stupid “strategy” which ensures that nothing will be done EVER.
Gosh, then that would put him with MOST folks in this country! As far as not criminalizing women; I think even folks who are adamantly pro-life know that for the most part, women who are having their first abortion are usually being pressured into it by the father of the baby, or their parents, or even because of a job situation. They truly don't see another way out. We may be interested in criminalizing the doctors, because they are exploiting the situation, and are doing the actual killing.
What a candidate says on a questionnaire is all well and good, but what I'm interested in is, when push comes to shove, what are the ACTIONS. Fred Thompson voted pro-life the whole time he was in the Senate, and he's made it clear since then, that he wants to see Roe v Wade overturned because it was BAD LAW. That's proof enough for me.
But a child's parents can take the property of the child, or deprive the child of liberty.
He has clearly stated that he believes Roe V Wade was a BAD legal decision, and wants to see it overturned.
It most certainly does, if you have the sense to understand that a baby is a person. Both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments explicitly prohibit the taking of the life of an innocent person.
so under the 10th Amendment, that power rests in the hands of the states.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The primary purpose of the United States government is to protect the lives of its people. The duty to do so is the primary sworn duty of every single officer of the United States. No State or individual has the right to kill innocent Americans. Period.
This as support of other evidence could be meaningful, but the other evidence all points the other direction, to a guy who has been decidedly and repeatedly pro-life in his positions, and more importantly, his actions.
And I would not put it past SeeBS or some other "reputable" organization to be pushing a forgery. They've done it before.
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.