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."
FT cast himself aside. It was his to lose. It’s only good news for rudy I’m afraid.
His is the best practical and constitutional attitude on the issue but it puts him in the wrong position when the inevitable compromising comes up. Being ‘for’ the marriage amendment and being ‘absolutely against’ abortion are the only sensible positions, given the electorate that wants to be convinced of a candidate’s beliefs. And, because that amendment could not get 3/4 of the states to ratify it, even if Congress sent it out, and abortion is not subject to presidential action or influence except at the federal level i.e. Roe v Wade-maybe, those are proper positions to take. Taking the all-the-way stand does not compromise the practical stance at all, only reinforces the candidate’s ability to do something practical if he becomes president.
sometimes our republicans running for president need a swift kick in the ass! If the pro life ammendment is good enough for the party, it should be acceptable to Fred. The 14th ammendment defends life in this country...human life, period. that is the federal government’s main duty, to uphold the right to life libery, and the pursuit of happiness. Those children in the womb know no unhappiness and are having a grand time swimming around in there. What’s going on here? Are we losing our clarity to see murder as murder? How long until we get a huge jackhammer on the head of our country unless we strongly move towards protecting the MOST innocent!
If only that were true. We now live in the days of the perpetual campaigns -- all of the candidates except Thompson have been running pretty much since the 2006 ballots were cast. It will only get worse, I fear.
What goes for Rudy goes for Fred. No matter how Fred tries to speak out of both sides of his mouth on this, the bottom line is he opposes the criminalization of abortion! He said so! Fred doesn’t have to agree with me 100% on everything, but on the question of whether innocent babies have a right to live, Fred’s position is 100% immoral! Conservatives don’t want such an immoral person as their president and appointing supreme court justices!
Otherwise, stop spreading false info.
You’re assuming Hunter would accept. It’s all moot anyway, Fred would likely pick a McCain or a Rudy, if he ever gets to make that choice.
You won’t have a say in it anyway, the nominee will pick who he pleases. I have heard a lot of derisive commentary from Fred supporters but that won’t change my position on Fred one iota. If nicest supporters was the criterion, I guess I would vote for Romney and the Huckabee supporter is very nice as well. :)
And ejonsie22 has been pretty darn straighforward all these months. Fred has his positions. We either agree with them or not. No sense in trying to make them something they are not. He may still win. He’s got solid positions on many things. I just think the federalism when it comes to the protection of human life is the absolute wrong path. An unborn child is still a child.
How about all of his votes in the Senate??
I'd like to see you try to prove that.
Yes. Because, guess what? Since we’re not a dictatorship, a candidate has to get ELECTED to be able to do Job One.
>When a candidate’s supporter makes derogatory comments on a thread regarding another candidate, they should expect and accept remarks about their own candidate. You can’t have it both ways.<
Oh. Forgive me. Children cannot focus. I keep forgetting that I’m conversing with children here.
The thread is about what Freddie Dalton Thompson said on Tim Russert’s show last night. Pointing out what he said and how we relate to it is not making derogatory remarks, it is expressisng a point of view. That is what Free Republic is all about. Expressing one’s point of view, hopefully in a mature manner. :)
If it was all about principle, there would be no abortion because it is wrong.
Guess what, there is abortion because the POLITICIANS over the years have allowed it to be so.
Guess that does indeed make this a political situation.
Get your head out of the clouds up there on your mountain top and get down here where we can win this fight.
Or is being “right” more important to you than saving lives?
Yes, the quickening argument is confusing. However, the relevent time period would be the 1860’s when the 14th Amendment was ratified rather than 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. You seem to think my analysis of Thompson’s voting record is disingenious. Then please explain how he could consistently vote for a federal ban on partial birth abortion (a specific abortion procedure) and then later argue that it would be beyond federal power to pass a law or ratify an amendment banning abortion.
I watched MTP and Fred did say that he doesn’t “want to criminalize young girls who get abortions”. That is double speak for, “I want to keep abortion legal”.
I see why Dr. Dobson doesn’t support Fred now. Rudy is more conservative on this than Fred.
Wrong. It is a pathetic and dirty attempt at derailing threads and diverting attention away from the issue at hand. Just like the pro-Fred crowd derailed the Sunday talk show thread yesterday. You people make me sick, you're worse than Ron Paul supporters and ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
This is where you don't undertand the man or his calling in this life.
He influences millions because he has consistently and caringly worked to help families for close to 30 years...
..and these 'millions' love and respect him and listen to his opinions.
He certainly doesn't tell them what to do, but yes, he influences them because they trust him.
You said...."no one is more pro-life than me"....how else can I interpret your statement?....you think you are more pro-life than anyone!...I simply wanted to know your credentials.
Have you helped finance the pro-life cause?
...Counselled in crisis pregancy centers?
..contributed to pro-life candidates?
..joined a pro-life march?
..prayed in front of an abortion clinic?
Helped save the life of an unborn baby-(by God's grace)
I have..
Have you?
I say Pro-death because Bush and Thompson have had positions where they could uphold the constitution and protect our citizens from being murdered and have done nothing.
What are the polls at for total withdraw from Iraq? Does it matter? NO!! Do what’s right despite majority opinion!!
what, you don’t think fred is a politician?
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.