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--

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

see #19.

[Petronski]

Slick Willard was pro-abortion as late as 2005, just before running for president.

Now he claims he’s pro-life. Riiiiiiiight.

[Reagan Man]

There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to an abortion. According to the 10th amendment, abortion is a states issue. Fred wants to see Roe v Wade ended and abortion on demand abolished as the national policy of the US government. That means returning the issue of abortion back to the states, were it resided for 200 years. Fred believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life.

Fred doesn’t support a right to life amendment. But even if he did support such an amendment, the chances of it becoming law anytime soon are slim to none. Besides, the POTUS has no say in the amendment process. That power belongs to the Congress and to the states.

[ari-freedom]

i don’t think a baby deserves to die simply by being in the wrong state at the wrong time. Now if I don’t like what my state does I can either vote the bums out or move if I don’t get my way. but a baby can’t make that choice and his rights must be protected by all states.

[phrogphlyer]

The federal government has as much business prohibiting abortion as it does prohibiting murder. Because it’s the same thing.

[Constantine XIII]

“Besides, the POTUS has no say in the amendment process. That power belongs to the Congress and to the states.”

Good point!

[Petronski]

Let’s say that again: POTUS has no constitutional role in constitutional amendment. NONE.

[SE Mom]

Ted Kennedy and Fred Thompson have one thing in common- they have both been US Senators. Ted, to our distress, still is one :(

Thanks for the ping:)

[The Dude Abides]

Come now... there is only one Slick Willy.

I guess it depends on what the definition of is.... is.

:-)

[italianquaker]

I have still not decided but the more I hear of FT the less I want to hear

[Rudder]

This will sink Freddy.

If it does, it will also sink Rudy and Romney. It seems like this levels the playing field for the GOP front runners with regard to abortion.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

There’s a big distinction you Fredheads refuse to admit.

Mitt Romney’s positions have been clearly stated and explained.

Fred Thompson is still selling his personal pro-life/politically pro-choice distinction under the false cover of federalism.

Attacking people who notice is a poor strategy.

[firebrand]

Can’t agree with you that Romney is the most electable candidate, however. The absence of the Christian right at the polls will make it look like the first day after the Rapture.

[Sudetenland]

That is as precise a description of the difference between those of us who would vote for Rudy or Fred or Mitt or John versus those will only vote for a "true Conservative."

Any real Conservative would find Fred Thompson's answer perfect. Any real "Conservative" believes in the Constitution as the only legitimate paradigm on which to base our laws.

Leaving the abortion issue to be sorted out on a state's rights basis is the Constitutional answer. I don't want law by judicial fiat, I want Constitutionally based law.

If you are able to get a constitutional amendment passed that would be a very good thing, but simply getting Roe v. Wade reversed is what Conservatives have been asking for as long as the ruling has existed. It was bad law when the ruling was made, it is bad law now and it needs to be reversed. Once that happens the battle will return to the state legislatures where it belongs.

That is not Ted Kennedy's policy; it is the un-nuanced very specific position of anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the position of an "originalist," a "constitutionalist," and a "strict constructionist." It also happens to be the Libertarian position, Ron Paul to the contrary.

Conservative Republicans have always wanted the abortion question to revert to the states, because the state legislatures are more closely controlled and answerable to the citizens. I gave Fred 5/5 for that answer.

[Scotsman will be Free]

The federal govt has no business prohibiting murder. Crime fighting is a state issue that is slowly, but surely, being taken over by the feds. Abortion is murder. Abortion is a state issue.

[Petronski]

Mitt Romney’s positions have been clearly stated and explained.

Only a fool would trust his Road to Ames conversion. Oh . . . sorry.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

But, but, but, but, but Fred’s the authentic conservative, isn’t he? Unlike that flippin’ floppin’ Johnny-come-lately Mitt feller. Fred’s the real deal, isn’t he? He’s the one we all have to hold out to which is why we can’t coalesce around Mitt in order to stave off a Julieannie disaster, isn’t he?

[Petronski]

True, there is only one Slick Willie.

But just as true, there is also only one Slick Willard, the animatronic weatherman, suddenly masquerading as a conservative to advance his political career.

[Scotsman will be Free]

You can make that argument about virtually everything. Let’s just do away with what remains of our federalist system, and become a dictatorship.

[upsdriver]

“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.”

Fortynine million dead babies might disagree with that. Unfortunately our constitution failed to protect them and they are forever silenced.