Posted on 08/16/2007 6:50:49 PM PDT by Plutarch
Former Senator's Archives Contain Two Position Papers on Abortion, One Labeled 'Pro-Life' and Another Labeled 'Pro-Choice'
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson will appear in the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa Friday...
...Thompson's foray into the Hawkeye State comes at a time when documents from his Senate and campaign archives provoke further questions about whether he truly is the political savior that conservative Republicans hope he is.
The papers that Thompson donated to the University of Tennessee...offer a view as to Thompson's political career that seems not always in firm alliance with Christian conservatives.
ABC News has obtained, for instance, two sets of position papers on abortion from Thompson's 1996 Senate race that indicate Thompson may have been to a degree trying to appeal to both those who support and those who oppose abortion rights.
CLICK HERE to read these two position papers in full.
In one "position paper on abortion" someone has written "(PRO-LIFE)" on the top right-hand corner, and the document states "Senator Thompson has a strong pro-life voting record in the Senate." The paper contains seven examples of votes Thompson cast against legal abortion.
Another "position paper on abortion," however, on which someone has written "(PRO-CHOICE)" omits the statement that "Senator Thompson has a strong pro-life voting record in the Senate," and it does not mention the seven votes he cast against legal abortion.
The "PRO-CHOICE" position paper mentions, as does the "PRO-LIFE" one, that Thompson opposes "federal funding of abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger," and supports other restrictions, while concluding that "(b)eyond that, Senator Thompson has said that the federal government should not be involved in the issue of abortion...."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Isn’t that basically what Rudy got so much heat for?
Rudy gets heat for addressing NARAL. Twice. I can't find an instance where Fred addressed NARAL - instead, he got goose eggs from them for his voting record in the Senate.
Are you saying that Fred Thompson has TWO positions to the right of where your pathetic candidate, Mitt, is NOW? even after his phony conversion?
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses: Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington."
--------
Mitt refused to accept the endorsement of pro-life groups and refused to even meet with any pro-life groups during his first years as governor -- even while supposedly being "personally pro-life".
I haven't said anything, I just posted the article that was out there.
If the exact same document had come from the Romney Governors office, you would be on it like a big dog, and braying about Romney's perfidy and hypocrisy.
It is hardly heavy political lifting to be a Republican Senator from Tennessee, and have a Pro-Life position. Thompson needed merely guide his canoe into the the right flowing stream, and as his wont, drift lazily along. We do not know how he will respond to a National electorate less conservative than Tennessee's. The existence of two different position papers on abortion suggests that there may be some sail trimming once he secures the nomination from the conservatives of the GOP.
But there was none, was there? Because Romney didn't even bother with pro-life groups -- he bent over forward and backward trying to prove to pro-abortion groups how much he supported abortion, supported government funding of abortion, like in RomneyCare.
And of course he never did anything like what Fred did -- put together a presentation for "pro-choice" groups saying how pro-life he was!
Uh, he wouldn't have needed two different versions if that was what he was intending.
This is false (surprise!).
Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute.
The Best Choice Is Also a Good Choice
Why social conservatives should support Mitt Romney for president by James Bopp, Jr.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?
______________________________
More recently, during his governorship, he maintained the support of the Massachusetts pro-life groups.
Eight prominent leaders of pro-life and pro-family groups in Massachusetts wrote an open letter praising Gov. Romney for his leadership and accomplishments in these important issues and attesting to his commitment to the pro-life and pro-family causes. This letter is a MUST READ
Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "An Early Massachusetts Primary," National Review, 1/10/07)
Massachusetts Citizens For Life Pioneer Valley Chapter Chairman Kevin Jourdain: "Mitt Romney was a great Governor, who served with honor and distinction. But most importantly, he was a pro-life Governor. He vetoed a number of pro-abortion pieces of legislation and made many pro-life appointments. He was always there for us." (Kevin Jourdain, Remarks, Agawam, MA, 5/10/07)
I really hate it when the media is deceptive or misleading.
This looks like a detail document on Fred Thompson position on abortion of being pro life!
Oh my gosh, you are right. It is the same paper. And yet this Jake Tapper is trying to say it is two separate papers!
Unflippinbelievable.
“Uh, he wouldn’t have needed two different versions if that was what he was intending.”
I though FT wanted RvW overturned, but I haven’t been able to figure out why, if FT is truly anti-abortion, , he would make a statement like this, have you?
“Government should stay out of it. No public financing. The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own.”
Wow, what a great answer. Now that I know the federal government is supposed to pay for medical procedures, which federal agency is it that I go to about getting them to pay for some cosmetic dentistry I'd like done?
They are copies, so how would you know if the original was one document or two? If it was on one or two, it’s a matter of semantics anyway. That is all immaterial one way or another.
What is of relevance here is whether or not this was his work or work done by his directive. If so, then all that remains is for one to ask themselves if they are comfortable with this: Early term abortions should not be criminalized. This must be won in the hearts and minds of the people.
Army, Navy, Airforce, or Marines. Two year stint minimum.
It's not exactly free.
**************
Agreed.
“Wow, what a great answer. Now that I know the federal government is supposed to pay for medical procedures, which federal agency is it that I go to about getting them to pay for some cosmetic dentistry I’d like done?”
It was a great answer and I didn’t say the Feds were “supposed to pay for medical procedures”. I’m a disabled veteran and I don’t use the VA, although I can.
Now if you are serving your country and you need some braces, I “think” the government does pay for that. You would go to your military dentist, show him your beautiful choppers and let him slap a railroad track or two on them.
Wanted to let you know that I saw this as well and just commented about it on the ABCNEWS website. Props to you for seeming to catch it first. While I disagree with those final “pro-choice” labeled paragraphs, it’s unfair to present the document as two separate papers when looks very clearly to be the same document.
Which, OMG, is a classic conservative position if I’ve ever heard one.
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.