“It was disingenuous for Thompson to say that life begins at conception but that states should be able to allow the taking of this life without due process. Is he saying that life is not protected by the Constitution even if that document states that it is? His position doesn’t make any sense.”
I know you have been a supporter of Fred for some time. Let me see if I can provide a little context for his answer that could not be given in the MTP rapid fire setting. Fred’s position, that the abortion issue is a matter for the states, is exactly the position of Justice Antonin Scalia and Judge Robert Bork. Both of them oppose abortion and are not against criminalizing it at the state level. (Fred and, I think, most ethicists do not favor criminal penalties against the woman who is the second victim of the procedure, but believe the abortionists should be prosecuted). So Fred’s position is indistinguishable from Scalia’s and Bork’s on the treatment of abortion at the federal level under current law. I myself would go further and would apply the Equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the unborn child, defining him as a person, and giving him the rights of a citizen. That is a matter for the judiciary, however, and not for the President or for the Congress. Both Scalia and Bork oppose this application of the 14th Amendment. I have never heard Clarence Thomas’ view, so I will not try to extrapolate it from Scalia’s. Suffice it to say that under current law, Fred’s position is indistinguishable from that of Justice Scalia and Judge Bork.
On the question of the Constitutional Amendment, let me make a few observations. First, the President has no role whatsoever in a Constitutional Amendment. He neither sign it nor vetoes it. It is passed by two thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three quarters (38) of the state legislatures. There are nowhere near the votes in Congress now to pass an Amendment, probably far less than a majority. If, somehow, the prolife forces achieved the two thirds supermajority, there are probably no more than 20 state legislatures, perhaps far fewer, that would ratify the Amendment. This battle has to be won at the state level , and it cannot be joined until Roe v. Wade is consigned to the dustbin of history. The promise to support a Constitutional Amendment is “pie in the sky” which allows candidates to establish prolife bona fides with full knowledge that the Amendment cannot be achieved for decades, if ever.
Which brings me back to Fred Thompson’s position. If you are serious about Right to Life, as I know you are ( as I am), the most reliable way to advance the prolife struggle is to change the Supreme Court, not by picking judges that agree with you on this issue or that, but whose overall philosophy is one of constitutionalism. Roe v. Wade was the most extra-constitutional, anti-federalist, ultra vires arrogation of power by the federal judiciary in American history. It was based on bad law and bad science, as Fred Thompson has stated. You have to ask yourself which of the major candidates do you trust the most to nominate Justices who will overturn this blatant anti-federlist decision, not because the Justice is prolife or tell the President he is prolife (Remember Justice Anthony Kennedy, who assured both the Senate and President Reagan, when asked about abortion, that he was a practicing Catholic and then proceeded to affirm Roe). For me, the answer is easy. I choose the candidate who gives the principled answer, not necessarily the one which this group or that group feels he should give, because I trust his principles more than the other candidates’ pledges. That candidate is Fred Thompson.
Sorry for the long post, but this is an important issue for most of us.
Thanks for that excellent analysis.
Tim didn’t want Fred to say it, but Fred seems to say what he’s determined to say.
I thought his remarks about seeing his (now) 4 year old in the sonogram and realizing that life begins at conception were very sincere and moving.
A little more principle.
"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
~~~~ President Ronald Reagan : "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", 1983
Brices, your post on Thomson & abortion is cause for many thanks, posted and thought. Count mine among them. The excerpt above reminds me of something my politically wise dad told me long ago and that I've always remembered:
You don't vote for the man, you vote for the philosophy because the philosophy sets the principles, and the principles can always be trusted. Like a compass. So when you vote for a man who embraces your philosophy, you know exactly what you're getting. On the other hand, when you vote for a man according to his personal opinion on separate issues, you have no idea what you're really getting in part because you have no idea what's going to come up in the next four or eight years.
My pet peeve is the demand for "pledges." They are crap, and every time someone asks for or expects one, it ticks me off. And every time a candidate succumbs, it drops him a tad in my view. I liked the way Thompson handled Russert's demand for a pledge by finally conceding that he'd pledge that his administration would do what it could to keep nuclear options away from hostile ME nations. As in, DUH! Pledges are jokes. Demonstrated consistency to philosophy and principles are serious and true.