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--

[lonevoice]

I quite enjoy your posts on this issue. Very well presented.

[JCEccles]

Fred`s the real deal.

Fred is a fatuous fraud.

[shhrubbery!]

We don’t need another amendment. We just need for the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, i.e. that the unborn child has the right to life.

That's what I've always thought!

If the Supreme Court were merely to admit that unborn children are "persons," then the unborn would be due all the protections of the 14th Amendment...

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

There would be no need for an additional amendment to protect the unborn.

[Rudder]

Rudy is Pro-Abortion, would pay for the murder of his own grand child and wants you and me to pay for the murder of poor children. Fred doesn’t. Is that easy enough or do I need to break it down further?

You have no idea if Fred would or would not pay the bill for his daughter to have an abortion, do you?

[RockinRight]

It’s a position that can lead to Roe v. Wade’s overturn.

[B Knotts]

But not everyone is a Christian. Many believe it is a lump of flesh with potential for life.

Faith aside, an unborn baby is either alive or dead, and either human or not.

It can easily be determined that the baby is, in fact, alive, and human.

[RockinRight]

No, his position is one that gives us more hope of overturning Roe v. Wade than the alternative.

[RockinRight]

Not even close. Rudy would appoint a David Souter while Fred would appoint a Sam Alito.

[RockinRight]

Fred’s position will do more to overturn Roe v. Wade than any other ELECTABLE candidate.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>>Fred is a fatuous fraud.

If that was the case, Fred wouldn't be the #1 choice for members of this conservative forum. I see you still have your head up your butt. Carry on.

[Rudder]

Not even close. Rudy would appoint a David Souter while Fred would appoint a Sam Alito.

Rudy contradicts you. You make this up as you go and you guessed wrong this time.

[JCEccles]

As a lobbyist Fred took blood money from the abortion industry to advise them on how more effectively to pitch infanticide to lawmakers. It was a cool, calculated business decision and it caused him no distress whatsoever.

[ari-freedom]

yes well...my opinion is that there are plenty of ways we can reduce abortion without changing any law and yet nobody talks about those methods

Everyone is seriously upset that Fred ‘only’ wants to repeal Roe v wade. But even achieving that will take a long time, much less an actual amendment.

[RockinRight]

Whether we like to admit it or not today...abortion just wasn’t an “issue” that was widely discussed before Roe v. Wade.

[PerConPat]

I respect Fred for his position, and his honesty in stating it.

I will support Hunter until his candidacy ends. However, that in no way detracts from the validity of your comment. I will not likely get what I want one year from tonight. But politics in America, IMHO, is rarely about getting exactly what one wants.

In my view, abortion on demand -as currently provided in the US, is the judicial taking of innocent human life. Many of us believe that explanation will not suffice to save our souls when it is time to defend our actions on this planet, including supporting politicians and policies that condone killing for convenience.

By supporting candidates with Hunter's views, I have taken the first step in trying to stop the killing of innocents. If I have no choice in Nov. 2008 other than a Dim who will put the pedal to the metal with respect to this wicked policy or a Pub who will slow the process, I will vote for the Pub.

I have witnessed two Pub organizations, that I previously belonged to, tear themselves apart over this issue. I am now wondering if the virus will spread to the party at large.

[ari-freedom]

we know what kind of judges rudy appointed in the past.

[ejonesie22]

So he is like Mitt then...

[Clara Lou]

Lying and distorting don’t seem to bother you.

[bjs1779]

Got to watch the guys from the southern states. Fred is from Alabama. I don’t see how he would oppose slavery on his rational either. “States Rights” you know.

[JCEccles]

Fred's lobbyist hands are indelibly stained with the blood of the innocent unborn.

It was more than a business decision. It was a moral test of the highest order.

And he failed it.