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."
“I agree that this should be a state-level decision”
I’m sure someone has picked up on this already but here’s my two cents. Do you think beheading 5 year olds should be a state issue? No? Well that’s because you believe everyone has an inalienable right to life. If an unborn baby is a life, it certainly has inalienable rights. If not, no state has the right to tell a women what to do with her body.
To whom, Hilliary? She's not only pro-abortion, she would probably make Roe v. Wade into a Constitutional Amendment GUARANTEEING abortion on demand.
You've hit the nail on the head, really. Do you think we'll need such an amendment if activist judges begin allowing murder?
That's where we are now with abortion and euthanasia...
"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."
Wow! That sounds like our Founding Fathers could have said it!
Or even Ron Paul!
I am the same.
People might think I’m not by virtue of what I say here, but really it’s just basing my views on a few key items:
1. Reality
2. Federalism and the Constitution
3. Net effect - which basically means the best combination of electability and net effect on the issue when elected. Hunter might be “perfect” on abortion, and, while he’s a hell of a guy, he just isn’t going to win. Fred is damn good on the issue despite what some here say and I think he can win.
Please explain how Fred was showing his integrity and consistency when he voted for the federal partial birth abortion ban if he truly believes that federal restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional. At the end of the day Fred’s voting record shows that his opposition to the Human Life Amendment is not about principle but rather politics. His rhapsodies about Federalism are simply opiates for the masses.
Please show us, oh smart one, where exactly, FRed said that?
Tue Fred Hates Puppies
Wed Fred hasn’t sent his Mom a Christmas Card
Thur Fred’s underware are two sizes too small
Fri 9 out of 10 say they wont vote for a bald guy.
Sat Dozen illegals found in Freds trunk
I can understand that - me being a 2nd Amendment absolutist.
However, you've got to consider whether any other candidate who agrees with you has a snowball's chance in Hell of beating Hillary - because she ASSUREDLY doesn't.
There's no perfect candidate. Pick the one that is the least bad. When analyzing the Republican field and considering both policy positions and electability, FDT is the least bad one for me. Hunter may be better on the policy front (he is for me, anyway), but he's unelectable IMHO, so I can't support him.
“...all he had to do is leave it alone!”
And be a sissy panderer like Rudy Romney? I’m glad he told us he’s for giving states the right to disembowel babies. Now those “pro-lifers” who support him will have to make a decision: Do you remain pro-life or change to pro-choice in order to be hitlery?
There is quite a difference between the two men.
Giuliani might SAY he’d appoint “strict constructionist justices.” That’s fine and dandy, but if you look at who he appointed while mayor, most of them were more like Ginsburg than Scalia. Which means either:
A-he’s lying
B-his definition of “strict constructionist” is a hell of a lot different than mine
Thompson has been consistent on this view. He was the one who helped shepherd John Roberts to the SCOTUS. Says a lot more for who he’d appoint.
Within the limits of the Presidents power, he is 100% pro-life. More so than Bush actually. Bush, using a simple EO, could end Federal Funding for abortion providers. He hasn't...
If you are looking for MORE, than you not only violate principle, you set up precedent. We've gotten to this point from too much of that exact mindset.
Yes. FDT was instrumental in ditching the GOP’s “Contract with America”, way back when, which disenfranchised it’s own conservative base. Since then we’ve pretty much had a one party system.
We true conservatives have had to watch the party lurch left ever since. If we’d had a brain among us, we’d have founded a second party then, and would be a formidable force today! Duncan Hunter would be the giant Conservative Party candidate to beat in 1980.
Duncan Hunter wears the white hat in this rodeo!The least we can do is make certain that he is the giant Conservative Republican to beat in 1980! Actually, Duncan Hunter transcends party to appeal to conservatives in all parties. If true conservatives unite and get behind Duncan Hunter in the primaries, we can win with him
in the general!
Thompson is returning the issue to the states back to where it should be. Even though I haven't committed to any candidate, I agree with his position.
The grass roots is where most of the social issues like abortion should be decided.
LOL!!!!!
Because FRed doesn't think a Constitutional Amendment to ban what isn't provided in the Constitution to start with, and promotes (properly) the rights of the States and the People, you wanna make an issue of that?
Get realistic, and join the 21st century and reality of the waste of time on second-tier/non-electable candidates.
Unreal, isn’t it? Anyone who truly wants to know what Thompson believes knows that he believes Roe v Wade should fall back to the states, and the federal government shouldn’t be involved. Oh, and he’s pro life.
I always hold to the addage that if you give a man enough rope he will hang himself. Fredheads take note!
Thompson’s “Read My Lips” moment
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.