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 watched the interview and in my view he left it open to distortion.
Right, although there’s the issue of perception. All of the sudden, FT is pro-abortion, not a true conservative, blah-blah.
The person who wrote this (Terrence Jeffrey) is a liar!
the fact is, there doesn’t need to be an amendment to ban abortion. It’s already banned by the constitution. What needs to happen is the federal government needs to protect the life of its citizens whether the states will or not.
If we are talking about joining the 21st century maybe you should adjust your constitutional interpretation to catch up with the last 150 years of Constitutional Law. Many of the Frederalists seem to be stuck with a pre-civil war view of States Rights. Many of you seem to act as if the 14th Amendment was never ratified.
Kinda like slavery and Jim Crow, huh?
or to appoint judges that overthrow RvW and return the issue to the states, where we may very well find many states that ban it outright.
So which is better, an attempt to ban it federally that fails, or at the state level where it is banned in some states. Now, women who want to abort could still go to a pro-abort state, but teens and young women who may be confused or mislead by the seriousness of the issue, may realize what is fully at stake is several states ban it outright. This, IMHO, would have the greatest effect in reducing abortions in this country.
______________________________________________________
I’m not sure I agree with you. This is a terribly important issue to a lot of people, not THE most important but right up there near the top.
I think Fred was wrong to make the statements he made, perhaps he will review and revise in a few days.
One poster said that the constitution does not mention murder, but in fact it does by guaranteeing everyone the right to LIFE. No state has the right to not protect it’s citizens from murder. If life begins at conception then no state has the right to kill the unborn. His logic on this subject is flawed.
To answer those who say that this is a states rights issue I say only in part, the states can decide what the penalty is for taking life but they have to do something to protect it.
Fred has stumbled on this issue, if he is the nominee I will vote for him but it will not be as easy as it would have been last week.
There are still candidates who support a total ban on abortion, they just went up a couple of notches in my book.
Here is Duncan Hunter's take:
"I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define personhood as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment".
"I support people with good judgment, proven values, a belief in God, and a heart for the least of us, including the unborn. I believe it is important that those sitting on the bench understand that they have a responsibility to strictly interpret our nations laws and not legislate from the bench with their own political or social agenda. I will not appoint judges who do not believe that the unborn are precious and should be protected".
Be careful how you twist the words my friend. For it is not I who will be perceived as the liar.
Pretending to support the principles in the Republican platform is a new trick for Romney in the first place. Since his whole campaign is based on fooling people into believing that he's a conservative (by some definition), he wouldn't dare step on any toes.
Yep!
Overturning R v W (restoring States Rights) is fine with me.......the thought of unrelated additional Amendments introduced during a Constitutional Convention called for an abortion Amendment is just too scary.......unless I am mistaken, once a CC is opened, other Amendments can be introduced.
Once again, if you are against criminalizing it, how is that supporting making it illegal?
By trying to work in context of what he had at the time. He knew that Roe v. Wade was the law and would be for a while under the structure of the court when he was a senator.
Now he wants to do it right.
“I would rather see Hillary win the ‘08 election than vote for Fred......I mean, what diference is there between the two?”
I’m sure you’ll get flamed for that comment but there’s a lot of wisdom in that which I don’t have the ability to articulate. I can say this, having fake conservatives gives us false hope and it’s better to have an adversary who’s openly fighting us.
Romney is from Massachusetts, Fred is from Tennessee. even Al Gore was pro-life when he was senator from tennessee. In order to win mass you have to be pro-choice and in order to win tenn you have to be pro-life. It’s not so easy to tell what a politician really stands for. And I think both mitt and fred are politicians.
But at least Romney isn’t dumb enough to propose changing the platform at a time when Rudy is in the lead.
"Thompson takes a federalist viewpoint on abortion because it's the only way to handle issues society is currently so divided about. Given this division, there is zero chance a Constitutional amendment would pass; the only way to at least stop some abortions is to return the issue to the states. He obviously isn't a pure federalist on this issue, since he voted to ban partial birth abortion on a federal level.
Just for reference, here are all Thompson's abortion-related votes in the Senate. He voted with Jesse Helms 100% of the time. I hope that this provides some insight into your questions above.
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against allowing coverage of abortion under the Federal employees' health insurance policies in cases where it is medically necessary - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00371
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican in the senate) against an amendment "to express the sense of Congress in support of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00337
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment to prohibit the expenditure of certain appropriated funds for the distribution or provision of, or the provision of a prescription for, postcoital emergency contraception - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00169
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe "to provide for certain disclosures and limitations with respect to the transference of human fetal tissue" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00338
One of only 17 senators (including Helms, Gramm and Sessions) to vote against the Schumer amendment "to ensure that debts incurred as a result of clinic violence are nondischargeable.- http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00002
One of only 24 senators (including Helms and Inhofe) to vote for requiring that the Congressional-Executive Commission monitor the cooperation of the People's Republic of China with respect to POW/MIA issues, improvement in the areas of forced abortions, slave labor, and organ harvesting, and for other purposes - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00249
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and against almost every moderate republican senator) against killing an amendment to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00197
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Tommy Daschle's "moderate" amendment that banned late-term abortions but affirmed Roe v. Wade - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00070
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against cloture for Henry Foster, surgeon general (and abortionist) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00273
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against striking the limitation on the coverage of abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00129
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against a joint resolution that stated limitations of abortion coverage was negatively affecting population planning programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00013
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the restriction of certain types of medical communications between a health care provider and a patient (i.e., abortion counseling) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00283
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against an amendment "to clarify the application of certain provisions with respect to abortions where necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00593
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to delete language concerning certification of population programs - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00035
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00277
Voted with Helms, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for purposes of human cloning - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00010
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00370
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00176
Again voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00340
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against killing an amendment expressing "the sense of Congress concerning Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortion bans" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00334
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe (and almost all other senators) "to protect infants who are born alive" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00208
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill a measure to repeal the restriction on use of the Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00148
Voted with Helms, Thurmon, Santorum and Inhofe for a motion to ban partial birth abortions. (motion to table the motion to reconsider) - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00333
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to express the sense of Congress regarding forced abortions in the People's Republic of China - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00243
Voted with Helms, Thurmond and Santorum to kill an amendment to repeal the restriction on the use of Department of Defense facilities for privately funded abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00134
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to proceed on a bill to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00332
Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe against Specter's amendment "to protect the reproductive rights of Federal women prisoners" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=1&vote=00478
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to kill an amendment repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00163
Again voted against repealing the restriction on use of Department of Defense facilities for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00167
Again, voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to prohibit the use of funds the pay for an abortion or to pay for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans that provide coverage for abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00190
Voted with only 37 other senators (including Helms, Santorum and Inhofe) to prohibit the use of funds for research that utilizes human fetal tissue, cells, or organs that are obtained from a living or dead embryo or fetus during or after an induced abortion - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00215"
We remain pro-life. Principles are something you people don’t seem to understand.
I have a notion that the lamestream media twisted this story. With a small child in his lap or his wife’s lap during interviews, there is no way he would come out against life.
Off my soap box.
Since your post was filled with logic and reason, I can respond in kind.
It is an important issue to a lot of people, I’m one of them. However, I wish the “absolutionists” as I call them would take my more pragmatic view. Absolutionist is not meant to be derogatory, it’s just the best one-word term to describe conservatives who put abortion above all else. Not a judgement in favor or against such a position, it’s just a description.
You’re right that there is a right to life in the Constitution.
However, as other Freepers have pointed out, murder itself is a state issue currently. All 50 states, of course, make murder illegal, but it’s a state issue nonetheless. Why not make abortion the same?
The other candidates you mention JUST AREN’T GOING TO WIN. They just aren’t.
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.