Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
(CNSNews.com) - Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Sunday he does not support the pro-life plank that has been included in the Republican National Platform since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Thompson told host Tim Russert that he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that took the issue of abortion away from the states by declaring abortion a constitutional right. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.
"People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states," said Thompson. "Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law."
If abortions are not "criminalized" even for doctors who are paid to perform them, they will remain legal.
The Republican National Platform has included language endorsing a human life amendment since 1976, the first presidential election following the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
Since 1984, the year President Ronald Reagan ran for re-election, each quadrennial Republican platform has included the same pro-life language, calling for both a human life amendment and for legislation making clear that the 14th Amendment, which includes the right to equal protection of the law, extends to unborn babies.
On "Meet the Press," Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican "pro-life" plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.
"This," said Russert, "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?"
"No," said Thompson.
"You would not?" said Russert.
"No," said Thompson. "I have always -- and that's been my position the entire time I've been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that.
"Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is -- serves us very, very well. I think that's true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But..."
"Each state would make their own abortion laws?" Russert asked.
"Yeah," said Thompson. "But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling -- going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go."
Thompson told Russert that since he ran for the Senate in 1994, he has changed his mind about whether human life begins at conception.
Back then, he did not know the answer, he said. Now, especially in light of having seen the sonogram of his four-year-old child, he has changed his mind -- and now believes human life does begin at conception.
Still, he does not favor "criminalizing" the taking of a human life through abortion. Russert challenged him on the consistency of this position.
"So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?" said Russert.
"Yes, I, I, I, I do," said Thompson.
"You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?" asked Russert.
"I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially -- you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do.
"It cannot change the way I feel about it morally -- but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind," said Thompson.
In an interview with Fox News Monday morning, Thompson said he's been pro-life all his career -- "and always will be."
Thompson insisted that he's been consistent on the issue, unlike other Republicans.
"Look at what I did for eight years in the United States Senate. I mean, we had votes on federal funding for abortion, we had votes on partial birth abortion, we had votes on the Mexico City policy, we had votes on cloning, we had votes to prohibit people taking young girls across state lines to avoid parental consent laws -- that's what I did. Those are the issues that face the federal government," Thompson said.
"I would have done the same policies as president that I did when I was in the United States Senate, which is one hundred percent pro-life," he said.
"I can't reach into every person to change their hearts and minds in America, but I can certainly make sure where, for example, federal tax dollars go."
Thompson told Russert that since he ran for the Senate in 1994, he has changed his mind about whether human life begins at conception.
Back then, he did not know the answer, he said. Now, especially in light of having seen the sonogram of his four-year-old child, he has changed his mind — and now believes human life does begin at conception.
—
hmm just like romney
BYE BYE FRED!
I guess big government is OK so long as you agree with it?
Every party’s platform is a useless exercise, designed simply to smooth over the ruffled feathers of those whose candidate lost the primaries.
As far as FDT is concerned on this issue, I greatly admire his consistency on the issue of federalism, I agree with him that life begins at conception, and I agree that this should be a state-level decision - IMHO and his, this isn’t a decision that is properly made by the President or the Fed.gov.
However, this is going to hurt him with the absolutists on this issue.
WTF is wrong with Fred Thompson? He is self destructing...all he had to do is leave it alone!
Precisely. Now, when will FReepers start deriding Thompson and calling him a "flip-flooper" just as they've been doing to Romney?
One of these candidates has the money, organization, energy, appeal, and executive experience to beat liberal dirtbag Giuliani and go on to win the general election. The other does not. I urge people to choose wisely.
This is a willful distortion of what he said. Read the transcript, and form an informed opinion.
He’s not going anywhere.
Think about it. He says Roe should be overturned. He will appoint the kind of justices that would do so.
We have a lot better chance of overturning Roe than passing a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Sometimes absolutionists need a swift kick in the ass from the foot of pragmatism.
****************
That's not what he said. This article is intentionally misleading.
Wow, what an utter distortion of Fred’s STATED position.
“Precisely. Now, when will FReepers start deriding Thompson and calling him a “flip-flooper” just as they’ve been doing to Romney?”
Naah. Fred will get a pass. This is just part of his Frederalism genius.
He’s not a flip flopper. This position is consistent with his views and votes in the Senate.
Intellectual dishonesty on your part won’t get your guy the nomination.
Why is it “big government” to forward constitutional protections to the unborn? Are they human beings or not?
Did anybody read the article? He wants to give that decision to the states, where it should be! At least then, we’ll have a chance at outlawing it, instead of involuntarily funding it with our federal tax dollars.
Baloney! Quit reacting to some writer's willfully distorted interpretation and read the transcript.
This is the third thread on this article this morning, actually different articles, same subject. That is not my point: My point is that the Fred bashers are lying about what Fred said, he did not advocate abortion be legal, he merely stated it should be up to each state to decide and that RoeVSWade be dumped. He was against a federal amendment outlawing abortion and rightly so. Either we are for constitutional law or we are not. We can’t have it both ways. Fred is right, the Fred bashers are totally wrong. This is not an opinion it is a fact. Read the constitution, the powers go to the states, NOT the feds.
Because it’s the correct position.
Keep in mind this is a VERY misleading headline. Did you WATCH the show?
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.