Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by 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--
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
I doubt it only because he has a record of nominating very lefty judges. He won’t have the incentive to do otherwise once he gets the nomination. And if the dems keep the senate, there is no way he will pick a fight to appoint judges that he doesn’t even agree with.
I have not yet chosen a candidate to support in the primaries, and am not about to engage in the arguments that have torn this site asunder over the past many months.
I would note, however, that there are other issues that Romney and his fans should focus on where he is strong, instead of abortion where he is vulnerable. In fact, far more vulnerable than Thompson. If Romney wins the nomination, I will support Romney, as I will Thompson or Giuliani, or Hunter. Or perhaps a combination thereof.
Instead of debating you, for which neither of us has time, I thought I’d present both candidates as seen by other than their own campaign websites on the abortion issue.
http://ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Abortion.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Fred_Thompson_Abortion.htm
So have Fred's, you just apparently don't agree with them. That's fine, that's your decision. You support your candidate and I'll support mine.
I still think anyone Hillary nominates will be far to the left of anyone Rudy (or any of the other Republicans) nominate.
I think it is wise to keep trying the lower level approaches certainly, but the big win will not come from the top down, but the bottom up.
We don’t wast to wait another 30 years for our next major federal win.
I guess Mitt isn't the only one to do that. These things keep coming up (lobbying for abortion, lobbying for CFR) yet it is OK for Fred, but not for any other candidate.
Fred has a 100% Pro Life voting record, yet on Senate candidate worksheets he seemed to indicate that he was pro-choice, THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW!
Fred was pro-choice on 1994 questionaires, pro-life in the Senate, apparently then switched back to pro-choice, because he admits that until he saw his baby's ultrasound (which was after he served in the Senate) that was when he realized that she really was a baby. but...THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW!
Illegal immigration ....THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW!
CFR...THAT WAS THEN,THIS IS NOW!
I get it, if Fred is states it, it is ok. Enjoy your mental gymnastics.
HEY MITT FANS, ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY TO SATISFY REAGAN MAN IS .....
THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW!!!!!
Really!!? How soon FReepers forget... How convenient.
He doesn’t know any other way. I’m surprised they unbanned him.
There’s so many things that government can’t do. And I never look to the government for the first answer. But protection of the innocent has to be the first priority of a society. We’re nowhere close to that, in a lot of different areas, and I don’t know how to fix it.
Obviously, the death penalty for abortion is an overreaction. But the unborn are every bit as alive as you or me. I’ve never understood what is so magical about the trip down the birth canal that it could turn a collection of cells into a human being. How do we make the protection of life a priority? That’s the question.
Personally I’m opposed to a constitutional amendment. I guess that’s something I have in common with Thompson. But it’s because I don’t think there’s a person alive today, including me, who could come close to Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson, and I don’t want to risk messing with the greatest thing we have going as a nation.
Like most of the other problems today, we have the laws on the books to fix this. I posted the federal definition of murder earlier on this thread, and I could definitely see applying that to abortion. But how do we convince people that unborn children have the same rights as the rest of us? I admit, I don’t know. I know how I’d like things to be, but I also know that it won’t be that way. But that won’t change my opinion.
Fred did not say he wanted to change it. That is for bozos like Todd Whitman and Pete Wilson, big time wasters.
I agree with you. Just apply the 14th Amendment to the unborn. The problem with this is there is not a single sitting Supreme Court Justice who takes this position, not even Scalia. In other words, it ain’t happening regardless of how much you and I would like to see it happen.
On the issue of overturning Roe and returning the matter to the states, in order for a Constitutional Amendment to pass it needs ratification by Three-fourths of the State legislatures.
In other words, it is going back to the states, whether via state by state bans or proposed constitutional amendments. Thompson’s position is an honest one. The Constitutional Amendment is never going to happen. If three fourths of the states ban abortion, you already have a national consensus and probably have enough of the Supreme Court disposed to properly construe the 14th Amendment so that the Human Life Amendment would be unnecessary.
Thompson is sticking to his federalist principles. He is refusing to pander using a completely impossible Amendment as eye candy to gain votes. Had these federalist principles been applied in the selection of Supreme Court Justices over the last 30 years, the High Court would have long since consigned Roe to the dustbin of history. And a lot of other bad jurisprudence would have been averted in the bargain.
The reason I favor Thompson is that I trust him to select judges who are federalists, as opposed to those who claim to be prolife during the confirmation process. Anthony Kennedy, who reassured Reagan and Jesse Helms that he was a practicing Catholic when asked about Roe comes to mind as an example; he should have been quizzed and examined on his views concerning federal judicial power vis a vis the states in other contexts. That might have smoked him out. I think Thompson will do the necessary probing of philosophy because he alone among the candidates is serious about the Constitution and its proper interpretation.
Governor Romney appointed 36 judges but a check of their political affiliation confirms that only 9 of them are Republicans. Two are radical gay activists and 14 are registered Democrats. The remainder are unenrolled. Since Massachusetts Democrats are among the most pro-abortion Democrats in America, we have to assume that the majority of Romney’s judicial appointments are NOT pro-life.
Take for example, Steve Abany, a hard left Democrat and a prominent gay activist involved with the effort to legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. Romney appointed him to the bench in May of 2005, which was, again, well after his pro-life “conversion.” Any bets that he’s pro-life?
Nor can we find any evidence that the Governor tried to recruit judges who respect life. Romney’s defenders claim he had no choice because a entity called the Governor’s Council controls the process and is composed of Democrats, but we’ve found that this council serves mostly as a rubber stamp and is set up purely to ensure judicial nominees are qualified, not to oppose them on ideological grounds. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Governor’s Council has ever blocked any judicial nominees on ideological grounds.
Many of these judicial appointments were made in the last three years, SINCE Romney’s alleged conversion.
The Romney campaign also claims that his judicial selections as governor had nothing to do with abortion and was more about the nominee’s stance on local issues such as crime. However, the Los Angeles Times has revealed that notes taken at a 2002 NARAL endorsement meeting attended by Romney, reveal that he assured its leaders his judicial picks would be more likely to protect abortion rights than those of a Democrat governor!
Maybe I am not as smart as you but I at least wouldn’t be quite as insulting as you are. I’m not ridiculous or trying to come up with specious arguments. I am pro-life! Gosh o gee, you’d rather make me mad than teach me something gently. And I’m on YOUR side.
Anyway, re the 14th Amendment, I do agree that the unborn should be protected, but STILL to my FEEBLE brain I’d have to play chess with it for a long time before I in all my blonde stupidity could figure out how it would play out legally.
Thank you (((Hugs))) Fatima:)
OR how about pushing a Const. Amendment for term limits for crap’s sake. That was real important in comparison. /s
Whatever. It really must SUCK ASS trying to be an apologist for WideStance Willard, who has never, ever taken a decisive stand on anything (much less abortion, versus Fred, with his 100% PROLIFE, 0% NARAL/ PLANNED PARENTHOOD VOTING REORD IN THE SENATE). But please stick around so we have somebody to laugh at.
Exactly, I think if the states could get this right back, many many states would make abortion illegal. The straw dog argument would be that women would die from illegal abortions, however, a woman could go to the 2 states that would be left (MA or NY note the rudy mc romney states) and have a legal abortion.
I feel it is happening. More and more with each new generation of ultrasound machines.
The younger generations are becoming less likely to fall for the Right of A Woman to Choose BS. (Liberal or apolitical) women in their 30s and 40s are cooked, though - they have been forcefed that stupid "women's rights" argument from every corner of their mainstream media.
I think, when you see those little tiny images in their little sacs, five weeks after the couple made love, with the little beating hearts, it's convincing people more than any Hillary-ites screaming that a woman should be able to copulate without responsibility like a rabbit. Don't you?
According to Mitt Romney, he had a total epiphany on the abortion issue. One day he supported RvW and abortion on demand as a Constitutional right, the next day he was pro-life. Sorry, I don't but it. Romney is well known for his use of political expediency on issues ranging from abortion, to gays to guns. He also supports nationalized health care. A very liberal position that even Giuliani is smart enough to stay away from.
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.