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 needs to hire you
So does that make you a troll?
If a STATE decides to allow it, that is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
-
that’s the will of mob rule. The tyranny of the majority.
Well hes lost me, anyone who can think that fundimental rights like life can be decided by the states misses the whole point of the 14th amendment.
For the same reason we cant deny people the right to free speech at the state level we cant deny people life.. I guess God given rights are only ok if the state legislature says so right?
She did murder her unborn child. Heck, the fact she's pregnant at that age should be a crime in itself and probably evidence of statutory rape.
This distortion of the truth was posted by a Duncan Hunter supporter. They are starting to remind me of Ron Paul supporters in their tactics. I had a lot of respect for Duncan Hunter. That has changed now.
Your interpretation.
Correctly Fred is still supporting the notion of letting the states decide on what should be allowed and penaties for it, his consideration here is for what constitutes crime and punishment.
So let me ask, what would be the punishment?
In a world of our choosing, abortion would be outlawed. Period. In a realistic sense, abortion would be limited to the case of danger to the mother, rape or incest. This cannot be done at the Federal level, there is not enough support for it.
Now at the state level is another matter. Once a bill can be made into law, even with some deficiences, it can be strengthened each year far easier than trying to re-write law at the federal level.
Whatever trips your trigger, bucko.
Have a nice day.
The other candidates you mention JUST AREN’T GOING TO WIN. They just aren’t.
_________________________________________________________
Murder is a crime in all 50 states, I just suggest that a fetus is a person and should be covered by the same laws. While Murder is a State crime it is a mandated crime by the Federal Constitution because of the protection of Life. If Life was defined in the constitution to include the unborn then abortion would automatically be illegal in all 50 states.
I did not mention any particular candidates, I think at this early point all have a chance. I have a favorite today but tomorrow that may change. I will support the nominee whomever it is, I just hope the nominee is someone who speaks well on his feet and will support my right to life by winning the WOT and protect the life of the unborn. I think the Republican platform is pretty good, it could be much better but should be supported 100% by the candidates.
I agree.
I am looking for the win on this, not who's idea is best per se, or who is the most "right".
The Federalist approach may well save more lives quicker seeing as how our frontal attack is really not getting very far.
Am I speculating on all this when it comes to Fred? Yes, however I base it on two simple facts:
One he does have strong federalist leanings, but has been pro life on the national stage.
Two, he did back the partial birth abortion bill, which seems to 'betray" his federalist stance.
So where does he really stand?
He is pro life, of that I am sure.
I also think he is looking for the win as well, via any means possible. If that means pulling back on the rhetoric and looking at various options, all the better.
Sad fact is to get the win in this case literally means selling the pro life agenda to a nation that has been hardened by years of liberal thought. They need to be persuaded not preached to. I think FDT can do that given a chance. We are not getting very far the way things are going right now
It's war, and it's time for combat tactics...
Agreed, they are giving hunter a bad name.
I’m available...but who want’s to hire a little old advertising agency in SW Missouri?
I do have some clients in D.C. who market to rural areas...no on there has a clue about Middle America.
It’s people like you that cause the majority of Americans to “fear” those who are percieved to be part of the Christian Right.
Pot, meet kettle.
If it were not for the idol worship of Fred Thompson on this board we would not have to resort to such "low" tactics as exposing his record and platform.
Good luck winning any general elections with that sound bite.
I thought they already had... Or has the Governator changed his liberal stances on that again?
Hunter Duncan is a fine conservative who desperately needs a better class of supporter.
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.