An overly federalistic approach is a Pontius Pilate approach - washing your hands of responsibility while allowing evil to spread unchecked.
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” ~~~ Thomas Jefferson
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.
His position is not “pro-choice” it is pro-Constitution.
We have had enough of “big government conservatives” in the past several years, and its time for the party to get back to its federalist roots.
Last I checked, it isn't. However Fred has said that abortionists would be breaking the law should a state legislate against abortion. He's refused to say that women should be locked up for seeking one or receiving one.
An overly federalistic approach is a Pontius Pilate approach - washing your hands of responsibility while allowing evil to spread unchecked.
Whatever happened to states rights or governance OF the people BY the people? Fred's position is constitutionally based. But you already know that...
It’s a position that can lead to Roe v. Wade’s overturn.
So he is like Mitt then...
“An overly federalistic approach is a Pontius Pilate approach - washing your hands of responsibility while allowing evil to spread unchecked.”
I agree with your statement. While I agree in principle that many issues are best handled at the state, or lower, level. There are certain fundamental rights (and prohibitions) that need to be universal to all states of the union. That requires they be in federal level law - the constitution being the highest law, it is logical that it be ammended because of SCOTUS decisions. Personally I think the founding fathers would be horrified that abortion is being practiced in this country because of an “interpretation” of the constitution. In the same way, I think they would be also horrified that same-sex marriage was being practiced, and that sodomy laws were being struct down as “unconstitutional.”
Fred is killing his chances by sticking to extreme federalism that allows zero pragmatism. He is alienating the moral base of the GOP, and it will cost him the nomination. I consider this a great shame, because he has the potential to be a formidible candidate to face Mrs. Clinton.
The tired old statement, “I’m personnally against abortion, but won’t keep others from having one” is just plain cowardice or double talk. If it is taking an innocent human life, it needs to be stopped, just like slavery was. It IS a federal issue. There has to be some middle ground he can take beyond what he has....he has to accommodate the base in some way.
Your impression is flatly wrong.
Pro-life politics have never been divorced from the desire to overturn Roe.
The Democrats' response to Robert Bork, when he stated that Roe Vs. Wade is bad law during his confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court, created the verb "to Bork," which refers to the process by which a federal judicial nominee is refused confirmation due to a constructionist view of the Constitution.
All legitimate pro-life advocacy has centered around attempts to stack the court with constructionists who see Roe as bad law. And every current Republican presidential candidate is on the record stating that either they are in favor of overturning Roe or that if Roe were overturned, it would be "okay" with them.
Contrast that with every single Democrat's position on Roe and if anyone with a tenth of a brain is paying attention they'll shut their ignorant pieholes about there not being a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Fred Thompson is pro-life, he's always been pro-life, he'll always be pro-life and he's the best Republican candidate in the field.
Fred is looking at the issue at what can actually be DONE about it, not just jawing about it. A lot of ink has been spilled, and discussions held, but that hasn't saved any babies. The only thing that will help will be for Roe v Wade to be overturned so that States can place restrictions on the procedure. That has not been possible because the courts have always fallen back on Roe.
Fred knows that if we went the Human Life Amendment route it would be years before it passed if it EVER did. The pro-abortion forces would be arrayed against it, even before it made it to the floor of either house of Congress.