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 ...
The federal government has enumerated powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. All other powers belong to the states or the individual.
Fred Thompson on Abortion
Former Republican Senator (TN)
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science
On the issue of abortion Thompson was unequivocal: “Prolife.” Asked if he supported overturning Roe v. Wade, Thompson was equally unequivocal: “I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science And the way to address that is through good judges. I don’t think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It’s contrary to what it’s been the past 200 years... That’s what happened in this case [Roe v. Wade]. I think it was wrong.”
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.143-144 Jun 3, 2007
Appoint strict constructionist judges
As President, Thompson would appoint strict constructionist judges like the man he helped through the confirmation process to the position of Chief Justice, John Roberts.
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.162 Jun 3, 2007
Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports
Some news reports from Thompson’s 1994 campaign classified him as pro-choice. Thompson confesses to being perplexed over the confusion about his position on the issue: “I have read these accounts [about me being pro-choice] and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them, although I don’t remember it.”
But, he adds: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100% voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.” Planned Parenthood gave him a ZERO rating because of his pro-life voting record. NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gave him an “F” rating when considering potential vice-presidential candidates in 2000.
Ultimately, however, Thompson is motivated on the issue from a personal level, not just a legalistic or moralistic viewpoint. He has said the issue “means more’’ to him now because he has had two children in recent years. “I have seen the sonograms of my babies.’’
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.159-160 Jun 3, 2007
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities.
Reference: Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.
This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights].
Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3
Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999
Voted YES on banning human cloning.
This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
The federal government already sanctions and carries out murder - in the form of the federal death penalty.
I don’t like it much - and I don’t think states should do it either.
Erm, it isn't. It's not against the law. Why is it so hard for some to get that Fred thinks it's an issue that should go to the voters in their particular state?
I haven't seen anything concrete on the issue from Fred, but I doubt he is pro choice, or he wouldn't have gotten the conservative rating points.
"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."
~~~ President Ronald Reagan : "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", 1983
Pontius Pilate. Fred has washed his hands in the waters of federalism.
That was the post I responded too. Not impressed.
I see even more problems with getting a constitutional amendment “done.” Which is why it wouldn’t really hurt Fred to support an amendment. It makes a crucial point and it’s very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely ever to pass. And if it ever came close, it would thereby give the states exactly the privilege he claims he wants to give them: they could then decide whether to ratify it.
No one’s asking him to put all his eggs in the amendment basket. He could support this and also support overturning R v W and giving the states authority to decide—he could support all three of them.
But that would be an extreme position, now, wouldn’t it. And Fred’s laid back and nuanced. Romney’s looking better all the time.
You need to do a little reading on the definition of murder.
To do nothing to stop the spread of evil is to become an accessory to it.Unless all 50 states were to legalize abortion, FDT's federalist position allows for states to prohibit abortion, which would de facto not only halt the spread of abortion but actually push it back. It's a step in the right direction.
Because a society which preys on its weakest members does not survive.
But, he (Fred) adds: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100% voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.” Planned Parenthood gave him a ZERO rating because of his pro-life voting record. NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gave him an “F” rating when considering potential vice-presidential candidates in 2000.
I can live with that.
Your perceptions are clouded by mittlust.
“Fred has a “nuanced” view...”
“Nuanced” in this case also meaning “Federalist.”
Fred’s answer sounds fine. Some of us don’t care about the abortion issue either way, and letting the states decide about it - and many other things - would be a good idea.
Seems like you are another big government “conservative”.
Maybe states will decide to start executing all boys under the age of two.
I’m not impressed by Fred’s wishy washy positions either.
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.