Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment

CBNnews.com ^ | November 4, 2007 | David Brody

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Here’s what the 2004 GOP platform says:

"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions." Here’s what Thompson said about it lifted from today’s Meet The Press transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.

MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?

MR. THOMPSON: No.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not?

--snip--

[Petronski]

English, please. You make no sense.

[CitizenUSA]

Dionysius... wrote: “But he’s banking on people not stopping to think about the federalisticality of the ratification process of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.”

OK, please write what you’d like to see added to the US Constitution to ban abortion. I’m not asking for just a statement saying it should be banned. I’d like to see exactly how you’d write that amendment you are so eager to add to our nation’s law. Then you can explain how you are going to get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the senate and house and 3/4 of the states.

[upsdriver]

“Bottom line, Thompson needed to be stronger on this issue to solidify conservative support to his cause. His weak answer makes that less likely.”

The bottom line is that Fred Thompson has no passion on this issue. He will not be an advocate for unborn babies. Anyone thinking otherwise is only fooling themselves.

[Scotsman will be Free]

There is no protection of life and liberty if the Constitution isn’t followed.

[Tailgunner Joe]

So states should have the "right" to legalize say, the lynching of black people, right?

Hooray for "state's rights!"

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Uh, the amendment simply clarifies the fourteenth, as to who fits under the term “person”—that human beings exist from the point of conception is JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE and would never have been questioned apart from stupid abortion-lovers. The Constitution/14th Amendment grants rights to people. Because some people tend to deny peoplehood to other people (slaves, the unborn), peoplehood has to be defined. It shouldn’t have to be but because of R v W and the pro-abortion lobby, it now does.

If the 14th amendment was a legitimate federalist addition to the Constitution, clarifying what had become controversial, a Human Life Amendment is every bit as legitimate constitutionally. Not that it’s likely ever to be ratified, but supporting it is like supporting the 14th amendment—it makes a point once for all about the unborn (blacks) being entitled to the protection of personhood under the law. Rights of persons is part of the Constitution, indeed, last I checked, fairly centrally part of the Constitution.

[Tailgunner Joe]

where, in the Constitution, it says life begins at conception and that it is the role of the federal government to protect the unborn?

It doesn't. That's why conservatives want to put it in the Constitution. Not Fred though. He won't dance to anyone's tune.

[The Dude Abides]

Thank you. I agree. And that’s bad news for those for whom this issue is Issue #1.

For me, Issue #1 is beating Hillary.

If your man Duncan can do it, I’ll vote for him.

I don’t think Fred can beat Hillary - however.

For that reason, and I know to the dismay of many freepers, I am pleased with how this interview turned out.

[deport]

This will sink Freddy.

---

Thompson may well sink in his efforts to become the nominee but I don’t see this is the defining issue to sink him based upon his past pro life stances/votes as a senator. Thompson definetly has a lot of work to do to become the nominee. You know the challenge since you support a candidate with even more work to do than Thompson in the coming 59 days when the selection process begins.

[ari-freedom]

the difference is, Rudy would be an advocate for abortion. Including taxpayer funding. So we're not even talking about someone who is "just" pro-choice.

[Rastus]

Because the Supreme Court imposed legal abortion on the entire nation. It has to be dealt with on a federal level. Same with gay marriage, which FT also wants left up the states. That’s a nice ideal, but the courts are imposing gay marriage on us whether we want it or not. So far, they are doing it on the state level, but the push is to force other states to recognize those “marriages.” And, when a state court imposes something on the state, I don’t consider that as having been left up to the state anyway. Bottom line, federalism is great, but we have the left and the courts fighting at the federal level. We can engage them in that arena, or all of this is academic.

[upsdriver]

I only hope they are paying attention.

[Jim Noble]

I’d like to see exactly how you’d write that amendment you are so eager to add to our nation’s law. Then you can explain how you are going to get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the senate and house and 3/4 of the states.

That's the question the HLA people can't answer.

And it's perverse (strictly IMO) that they require potential candidates to lie to them about it.

The only way an electoral politician at any level (House, Senate, or President) can get away with pledging to work to pass an HLA is if he's lying (i.e., if once in office, he will do nothing about it).

But if he tells the truth (as FDT apparantly just did), LOOK OUT.

All of a sudden, he's a murderer.

The HLA people have not even begun to make progress on the necessary political work to convert a supermajority of the people to their point of view.

But there are enough of them to make the Mitt Romneys of the world lie to them, so they can support him - and then cry that he deceived them.

The whole charade is a travesty. Good for Fred Thompson, if he really told the truth - my opinion of him just increased twentyfold.

[STARWISE]

Here’s the WHOLE interview with Fred .... he makes his
position on conception and life very clear.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608

[Lurker]

More criticism from a supporter of the guy who said he would do nothing to stop abortion when he was Governor of Massachutsets.

Well at least Fred can spell "federalism" as well as explain it.Romney can do neither.

L

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Uh, I think I said that it’s very unlikely ever to pass. “Eager”? Well, this Fredthread is about whether such an amendment is anti-federalist and whether FredtheMan could support it. I don’t need to write the language—there’s plenty of people far better qualified. I’m simply saying that it would be perfectly constitutional to clarify whether the 14th Amendment applies to unborn babies or not. Is that so difficult?

As an answer to whether it’s constitutional or whether the Fredster should support it, your prediction that it can’t be written successsfully is a red herring. Write the damn thing and see if it can succeed rather than opposing it out of the gate as Fred said.

[firebrand]

The president acts on morals within the constraints of the Constitution. At least one would hope he would do this, rather than act on the basis of lack of morals, or immoral principles, within the constraints of the Constitution. There's lots of room to move one way or the other and still be within those constraints. Otherwise there would be no office of president. There would just be a Supreme Court to judge whether laws were Constitutional.

To say he can't act on morals because of the Constitution is nonsense. It's nihilist wishful thinking.

Abortion is different from murder because it is the systematic, methodical, institutionalized murder of the totally helpless and innocent on an enormous scale. And it operates under a deceptive lie that a woman has this "right." If some people thought they had a right to murder others, would that be okay if their state approved of it? It is a bloody national disgrace wearing a pretty dress.

[gpapa]

Fred’s position sounds reasonable to me. In effect, it is the same position taken by Supreme Courth Justices Thomas and Scalia.

[upsdriver]

Here is what a real pro-life candidate’s positions looks like from http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

Right to Life Amendment
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.

Philosophy of Judicial Appointments
I support people with good judgment, proven values, a belief in God, and a heart for the least of us, including the unborn. I believe it is important that those sitting on the bench understand that they have a responsibility to strictly interpret our nation’s laws and not legislate from the bench with their own political or social agenda. I will not appoint judges who do not believe that the unborn are precious and should be protected

[Balding_Eagle]

What is his position now?

I’m having a problem believing he want R V Wade overturned.