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."
He also knows that if we talk about tossing young girls in jail for making a "dumb choice" (thanks Hollywood and MSM) before there is a law, then we won't get the law.
People may be pro life, but they also love their children enough to do what it takes to keep them out of trouble. If abortion is never illegal, then they are safe from serving such time.
It's called strategy. You want to save the life of the unborn, bone up on it. We are losing this fight by virtue of our stubbornness and ignorance of the true nature of the battlefield
so you would repeal the federal partial abortion ban?
He rang the bell. I don’t think he appreciated the ‘consistent conservative’ many voters were looking for.
“Keep in mind this is a VERY misleading headline.”
Of course it is.
He’s got three supporters in this house.
“However, this is going to hurt him with the absolutists on this issue.”
“I’m one. It does.”
It doesn’t hurt him with me. I always knew this was his position. You’ll find it’s only the controversial stuff he’s libertarian on.
When will you guys realize one cannot be just a little bit pregnant? Either you are or you aren’t. Same with a stand on abortion - either you are all for it or you are all against it. It is a sin or it isn’t! There is no in between, and from what I can understand from the meandering wordy platitudes that emanate from your candidate, he is definitely in between!
Terrence Jeffrey is a staunch conservative.
This is a willful distortion of what he said. Read the transcript, and form an informed opinion.
You're certainly right that it's distorted. Catholic News Service is a Democratic rag under cover of religion, and this is intended as a hit piece. Meanwhile, CNS routinely tries to make pro-abort candidates sound good.
I have to say I'm troubled and confused by Fred saying that he doesn't favor states criminalizing abortion, just because it means putting the arm on girls, docs and parents as aiders and abettors. If life begins at conception, and is innocent, then abortion is murder, and people who do it are criminals. Sorry, that's reality. Should we let off the girls who throw their newborns in trash-bins, too? I say, if you start locking up the docs and the pushy parents and boyfriends, the whole thing will dry up overnight.
I agree with Fred on Federalism, including not buying the HLA. But why shoot off your mouth about state-level action? I thought he said it was none of the Federal gov's business? It seems incoherent to me. I like Fred a lot, but I don't like what he said.
I don’t think that answer is completely satisfactory and I think Fred will be forced to address his glaring inconsistency. However, your answer is by far the best answer that I have seen to the question.
Who does?
Amen and Amen!
I even promise to not answer in a snide way, just for you, Ma’am.
My position is based in reality and pragmatism.
Who will have the best ‘NET EFFECT’ on the issue?
A completely, totally, undeniably unelectable person who is “perfect” on the issue
-or-
A person with a perfect pro-life VOTING RECORD who would help overturn Roe v. Wade and can WIN.
-or-
Hillary
You choose.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm#Abortion
Fred Thompson on Abortion
Click here for 6 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
* Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
* Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
* Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
******
Video of Fred’s entire segment on Meet The Press:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608
This whole thing is all about politics!
When are we going to learn this!
I am as pro life as anyone and know it should be much more than this, but we live in a Federal Republic where what is right and what is law do not always converge.
Making broad pronouncements and parsing out every detail is getting us no where.
It has been thirty long years and the best we have done is get a ban on the most egregious and disgusting of all abortion procedures, one that should disgust any but the most callous individual or average Democrat.
It’s time to change tactics and win this thing.
I did not say I was more pro-life than anyone else--I said no one is more pro-life than I. I don't believe for one minute that I am the MOST pro-life person. There are many of us who are pro-life. Why did you feel it necessary to distort what I said?
Dobson is full of himself if he believes he can get me to abandon the Republican party nominee if he thinks it's time to go third party. He's more than entitled to his own opinion but for him to believe that he can automatically influence others just because of who he is, is an arrogant position. I don't need anyone else to do my thinking for me, thank you.
“He has spoken like someone who actually read the Constitution.”
Great, so on protecting LIFE, he’s all libertarian. But he still supports federal funding for education and so on, which really is anti-constitution, while protecting life, is constitutional.
Useful information--thanks.
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.