They can say it because he voted for the restrictions that were before him in Congress. He was always for restrictions, but pro-choice. Now he’s apparently pro-life. Just not enough to criminalize it in the first trimester or support a constitutional amendment to end it.
You are lying again.
A lie and you know it.
Pissant, I know you know better than that.
Fred Thompson is not pro-choice. He does not support anti-Constitutional reactions to R v W. We need a Human Life Amendment to ban abortion at a Federal level. I just can’t see any other way to prevent going back and forth according to the whims of the SCOTUS.
Until then, we will have to return to Federalism.
What’s great is that we have ultrasound and ‘way more information about the embryo than we had in 1970.
“Now he’s apparently pro-life. Just not enough to criminalize it in the first trimester or support a constitutional amendment to end it.”
A position that’s a little too ‘convenient’, but I hear all that matters is that he might win over some of the middle of the roaders. Then again, so will the RHINOs.
Just not enough to criminalize it in the first trimester or support a constitutional amendment to end it.
Not quite accurate. He said it’s bad law and believes it should be up to the states like most things the fed has usurped. I’d take that as it would still lead to an over turn of RvW - although the president has nothing to do with this other than picking judges. If he picks a judge he’ll pick a federalist judge.