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--

[fatima]

His answer sucked.

[phrogphlyer]

I hope you’re right, but I’m not as optimistic as you.

And you hit the underlying cause - lack of personal responsibility. People like hearing that they don’t have to be responsible for their actions. “Screw around all you want, there’s an easy solution if you happen to get pregnant.” If we fix that, we might just win this one someday.

[victim soul]

another personally opposed but ..... grrrrrr!!

[Fred]

Fred Thompson has a 100% pro-life voting record, no one can dispute this, nor can any of these out of context lame-o quotes from lam-o journalists change this fact.

NARAL's Five Questions for Fred Thompson

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 5, 2007
Five Questions for Fred Thompson
Pro-choice Americans call on Thompson to explain how his anti-choice views would impact women’s freedom and privacy

Washington, DC – As former Sen. Fred Thompson prepares to formally enter the Republican presidential primary, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that his anti-choice record, including his call for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, represents another disappointing option for voters.

"Fred Thompson has made clear that he supports taking away a woman's right to choose," Keenan said. "Sadly, his out-of-the mainstream views make him the rule, rather than the exception, in a GOP field of candidates that is openly hostile to the American values of freedom and privacy. Voters want a leader who has a vision of unifying this country behind policies that improve women's health-care options, not another president, like George Bush, who will use the government's power to take away our personal freedoms. Fred Thompson is not a candidate who will unify this country."

During his eight years in the U.S. Senate, Thompson voted anti-choice 44 out of 46 times on choice-related issues. He has called Roe v. Wade "bad law" and received the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement in his bid for Senate.

Keenan said Thompson, along with other leading GOP candidates, has taken the hypocritical stance of refusing to support commonsense prevention proposals while trying to make abortion more difficult and dangerous. Keenan called on Thompson to clarify his views and answer the following five questions on a woman's right to choose:

1. You support overturning Roe v. Wade. Doesn't that mean you support government interference in personal, private medical decisions that should be made between a woman, her family, and her doctor?

2. If you believe abortion should be outlawed and that doctors who provide abortion care should face criminal charges, then do you also believe women should be sent to prison for terminating a pregnancy?

3. Ninety-nine percent of Americans believe it is appropriate for young people to have information about STDs, and 94 percent of Americans think it is appropriate to teach young people about birth control. Do you support honest, realistic, age-appropriate sex education?

4. Do you think it's okay for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a woman's prescription for birth control based on an employee's personal views against contraception?

5. Do you believe hospital emergency rooms should be allowed to withhold information from a sexual-assault survivor about emergency contraception — which can help to prevent a pregnancy if taken soon after the assault?

NARAL Pro-Choice America is committed to making sure voters know all presidential candidates' positions on choice. For more information, please visit www.ProChoiceAmerica.org/elections/.

Contact: Ted Miller, 202.973.3032

[Scotsman will be Free]

Yes, but the SCOTUS certainly ended any chance for a debate, didn’t they.

[tiki]

States Rights are VERY important.

[Fred]

Now, is that any way for Our Lady to be talking??? Which answer?

[Fishrrman]

donna wrote:
Samuel Alito reassured lawmakers that he would respect legal precedent on abortion rights and put his personal views aside.

John Roberts said that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court”.

So, how is this supposed to get better?

Short answer:
it doesn't.

Longer answer:
One of the tenets of conservatism is realism, regarding the frailties of human nature and the way things are in the world, whether we like it or not.

And as a realist, one must conclude that the issue of abortion is pretty much settled in America, as no less a "conservative" as John G. Roberts, Jr. admits. What is, will be.

I believe the Roberts court is arguably the most conservative court I will see for the rest of my life (granted, I'm older). I do not expect to ever see nominated or confirmed justices "further to the right" on the abortion divide than those who sit now.

Having said that, I can comfortably predict that the Roberts court is never going to "reverse" Roe v. Wade. Nor, for that matter, will any subsequent court. Can you say the two words "stare decisis"? I knew you could.

Just as it is still argued that the Southern states were in the right in their cause, there are those who are still trying to fight the Civil War. And, regardless of how in the right the pro-life movement is, their cause has become as unwinnable as that of the South. It is a battle lost.

The refusal of some to recognize this political reality could lead the Republican party to the same fate as the Whigs.

- John

[SuziQ]

Given what I heard today from Fred, he will no more work to overturn Roe v. Wade than Rudy would.

Fred has said, since the beginning that he believes Roe was a bad decision, and he would appoint Justices who would work to overturn it. Don't know how he can be more clear than that.

[Hunton Peck]

I hate to post "Great post!" posts, but doggone it, that was one great post, X-roads. Especially the point about examining judges on their faithfulness to the constitution, rather than on specific issues. If they truly understand and rigorously apply the constitution, everything else will follow from that. I think you're right that Thompson is the best qualified and most inclined to do that.

The only thing I disagree with is the idea that an HLA will "never happen." It could, well into the future (how many of us in, say, 1968 thought the Soviet Union would ever fall?), but the idea that the next president, or the next three, will have a chance to do anything about it is far fetched.

[puroresu]

Roe will eventually be overturned, and abortion will ultimately be illegal again. It’ll take a while to happen, though. No lie can survive permanently, and Roe and abortion are both based on lies.

Of course, from a Christian perspective, advocates of legal abortion are very, very doomed in the long run.

[yield 2 the right]

True that..but Roe V. Wade affects all races(and the rising “me” and “my” own life first and foremost among a lot of today’s single women) and in this political climate is that much harder to overturn.....hope I am wrong about this but I fear I am not....

[mimaw]

The genie is out of the bottle on this one. Hearts and minds have to be changed before abortion is a thing of the past. I’ve worked for and donated heavily for years to Right to Life and Veritas and have come to realize most people are personally opposed to abortion but want it available for cases of rape incest ect... They think it’s dangerous to outlaw abortion. If Roe was overturned does anyone think more than a handful of states would vote to outlaw abortion? I have educated my children on the evil of abortion and they will do the same with theirs and I would vigorously advise anyone who sought my advise not to do it. I think we as pro life advocates would serve our cause more effectively by working for and supporting organizations that assist unwed mothers than waiting for some White Knight to ride in and change the world.

[Bull Market]

Have fun with Rudy for President. This uproar against a perfectly reasonable, realistic position on abortion Fred stated is solid proof that a voting split will cause Rudy to be the nominee.

After he’s elected, don’t act too shocked when he signs funding for abortion and legislation restricting firearms even more than they are now.

But hey, at least we didn’t elect old evil Fred who would have allowed states, and the people in those states, to decide on abortion. /s

[puroresu]

If the pro-life battle is lost, then our nation is lost. Legal abortion, perhaps more than anything else, symbolizes the death of Western Civilization. To capitulate on that is to concede everything in the long run.

Ultimately, the pro-aborts will abort themselves into oblivion and the sanctity of life will arise again. But that can only happen if we don’t follow your advice and concede defeat on this issue.

[puroresu]

Hearts and minds have to be changed before abortion is a thing of the past.

I agree that we need to change hearts and minds, but that can only succeed in an atmosphere where people are willing to ban abortion. You can't tell people not to abort while simultaneously defending its legality. If you're willing to tolerate its legality, it can't be as bad as killing a human being.

[fatima]

Fred I am so bad but trust me I do not not answer for Her.:)Litany of the Saints http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5B4U6k0qs4

[Brices Crossroads]

I appreciate the kind words. I too am reluctant to predict the HLA will never happen. I probably should have qualified it by saying “barring some divine intervention” or that it likely won’t happen for the next two or three Presidencies, as you point out. I am just tired of people like Huckabee dangling their ip service to the HLA as evidence of their prolife bona fides, instead of addressing the issue (anti-federalist, anti-consitutionalist judicial interpretation)that brought us Roe (and a lot of other bad jurisprudence) in the first place.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Brices Crossroads]

Fred’s right. You have certain responsibility, given your screen name, to be an example to the rest of us:)