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?
LOL...
We’re talking the innocent here Dan. Don’t try and confuse the issues.
Next you’re going to use just war to defend killing the unborn, I suppose.
Now you know why conscientious people fled Europe in the 17 & 18 century. They could no longer tolerate the corruption. The Founders tried to set up a way that these immoral clowns could not make the decisions any longer. aka the Declaration of Independence & the US Constitution.
The immoral clowns are perverting the minds of our Youth in the halls of Academia and the courtrooms of America today. Liturgically twisting the free thought from their minds by emotional arguments that have no basis in rational thought, by dodging the real issues. Continually evading the face of the truth that a human being is at the earliest stage of their existence at the point of conception, just as they are at their latest stage being completely supported in a nursing home. Murder is murder is murder.
We are bent on taking a stand on the only issue we cannot ever give ground. A human beings right to life.
Self-evident for a moral people. Anathema to the immoral. This is where control always begins! Think Nazi Germany & the Middle East, where life is but a tool to use.
There are all kinds of different rights in different states regarding life and death in a Republic. That's central to idea of a Republic that there are different local laws. In some states a home intruder has a right to life. In other states, no.
The Constitutional prohibition against taking life applies to the Federal government and/or the States. It does not require that a person exercise "due process of law" before exercising his right to self-defense.
BTW, I didn't. I just posted the graphic, as is my wont, which I thought might be helpful to the thread since it is the subject. More helpful, I might add, than would be dozens of vituperative, self- righteous, argumentative and uninformative posts.
There’s a whole lot of shilly-shallying in that reply. On such an important issue, I don’t want a pol with marbles in his mouth and indecision one floor up (the brain).
So, you're arguing that a State has the right to legalize murder. That if North Dakota wants to, they can legalize stabbing to death. That's insane.
That's central to idea of a Republic that there are different local laws.
What is central to the American Republic is that we all have a God-given right to Life, Liberty and Private Property, and that our government officers, at every level, have a sworn duty to protect those rights.
Again, your argument removes any need for an American republic or a Constitution.
Where does being innocent convey any greater Constitutional protection? It can't be, because innocence is decided in a court. The issue is not whether killing the unborn is right (it's wrong and I've already said that). The issue is who has the authority to prohibit it.
No matter how vituperative you might think them to be, you can’t argue that they are “uninformative,” credibly. I’ve simply brought out the cornerstone principles of our free republic. I can’t help it if certain politicians’ supporters don’t like it.
Unborn children are by nature innocent, friend. It is not possible for them to have committed a capital crime. Get real.
that sounded like a ho hum answer...the states should have some authority about abortion. How about the constitution promises the right to life and liberty to the unborn also, for God sakes! I hope his answer is alot better today.
The Fifth Amendment, the heart of the Bill of Rights, says that you can't kill the innocent, ie someone who has not been convicted of a capital offense. That is what "due process" means. A fair trial.
Yes. At one time it was legal to buy and sell slaves in the US. Someone here once said it was legal to kill a Mormon in Missouri. But that's the nature of a republic, the states are free to make their own laws. The price of freedom is failure. The alternative is central control. And what happens when the central government gets out of control is tyranny.
But I think it would be wise to have a Constitutional amendment to expel states if a state were to become so corrupt that they would legalize murder.
Sorry, but the definition of tyranny is 50 million dead babies.
And no State can legalize murder, period. No need for a Constitutional Amendment to make it so. All that is required is officers of the United States who possess sixth grade reading skills and comprehension, and enough honor to fulfill their sworn oaths.
Do you think the Fifth Amendment applies to citizens? If a parent wanted to search his child's room he needs a search warrant?
I think the Fifth Amendment applies to the government only.
So, you think private citizens have the right to kill people.
Yes, that's why abortion should be made illegal -- by the states not Congress.
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.
Only when it is justified by state law.
Roe, and its accompanying court rulings, made abortion a national issue, whether you like it or not. Instead of doing what their sworn duty required them to do, affirming the right to life of every person, born and unborn, they went insane.
The only way back to sanity is for all of us to do the job they were remiss in doing.
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.