Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
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."
Any means necessary.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
I’ll vote for Fred if he wins. But this is only one issue that I strongly prefer Hunter’s position.
I’m not in this primary for Fred, only Hunter. So I’m willing and able to contrast those differences.
That’s NOT what he said, he said it is a state issue.
It should be “criminalized”.
What form of government do you want?
(P.S.-don't quote the "Representative Democracy" rhetoric; that's not the issue).
So long as the MAJORITY are electing the government (as provided by the U.S. Constitution, I might add), then arguing against "mob rule" is a red herring/whole cloth argument.
If the People are not allowed to govern, then you are living in some foreign country, (or one that has eroded from the Founders' principles).
I’m not ready to throw him under the bus, either. He still seems to be our best chance of getting a conservative elected. But this is the first time these charges have had something to work with, and he provided it.
He’s still better than Rudy by a country mile. And I think more reliable and trustworthy on this issue than Mitt.
I remember George Bush said, in his first campaign, that he supported abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Yet he has been the most active pro-life supporter we have had in office, with a better judicial appointment record than Reagan.
But Fred had better be careful, because he risks losing the Evangelical vote. Not over the constitutional amendment issue, but over this kind of stuff.
If I can choose 1 of the current candidates to be President, I'd choose Duncan Hunter...
If I can choose 1 person to win the GOP primaries, it's FDT (Romney's next)... Even if Hunter did win, which will NEVER happen- he'll get about 2% of the vote... he'd be creamed far worse than Dukakis...
If it came down to Rudy vs. Hillary, I'd gladly vote for Rudy over the beast.
I KNOW FRed is a Conservative, Christian, human FIRST.
-
you can say that about romney as well. Fred has lost his major advantage here and there are others that Romney has over fred. For example, experience, a marriage that people won’t make fun of...you do know what I’m talking about here, right?
“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.”
To those on the pro-life side that are REALISTIC, this is the best that we can hope for at this point. I personally disagree with Fred on one point, I would want to criminalize abortionists performing the murder.
However, ANY rollback on abortion starts with overturning Roe. Any other plan is frankly delusional.
If a state makes it illegal, the law has to be enforced.
“Sometimes absolutionists need a swift kick in the ass from the foot of pragmatism.”
Well put!
Well, the way to handle that is to complain to Jim Robinson. It's his forum.
To do so, paste his name in the 'To:' window and blast away. Go for it.
And which candidate, besides Rudy, is not in full agreement with overturning RvW? None. So then you look at their position in total on the subject.
Well, he's right. I just looked up the 2004 Republican Party Platform: "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America." (.pdf format)
It's 92 pages of meaningless feel good, pie in the sky pap. Mostly praising Dubya for 'his' past legislation and for crap like throwing money away in Africa for fighting AIDS. AND what Russet quoted wasn't exactly correct. He was cherry picking a tiny part of page 84 (Promoting a Culture of Life). The part Timmy left OUT mirrored exactly, Fred's Profile Voting Record in the Senate.
In short, Fred was set up. Russert might as well have asked "When did you stop beating your wife".
And this 'Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief' is no better. This 'article' is bullsh*t gotcha tripe.
“It’s not a sense of the Senate.”, is just double-speak for a symbolic overture that will pacify the constituency leaving things to go on as they were. We ought to be doing all we can to rid our country of this inherent evil. That’s what it is, an inherent evil and we need to be calling it exactly what it is.
Not posturing, not doing what we think people will accept, but calling this exactly what it is, an inherent evil. Fred is wrong on this and we have to attack wherever we can, whenever we can. We can push for a constitutional amendment and push to overturn Roe Vs Wade. Sending it back to the states will require voting for or against abortion and even if abortion loses in that particular state, it will only be as good as the supreme court of that state. They can rule that denying a woman a right to a safe legal abortion is unconstitutional and we are right back at square one.
A supreme court would not attempt to rule a constitutional amendment, unconstitutional. Fred can throw out “states rights” when he gets stuck, and play shell games all he wants but that doesn’t mean we have to buy it. It’s an inherent evil, folks, and yes there should be a penalty. This has nothing to do with choice or constitutions, it’s an inherent evil thrust upon us by the SCOTUS. They made the rules of the game, not us. Fred can play “constitution” all he wants and believe whatever he wants. They made the rules and we have to fight fire with fire. This inherent evil was forced onto our country contrary to the constitution and I am for expelling it in the same way if that is what is necessary.
I am going to sound really shifty and deceptive here, but hey, we are talking about the left as our enemy with the lives of the innocent in the balance.
If we totally abandon the national fight, that’s a dead give away that we are up to something.
I think we need to keep up the pressure, but concentrate on the winnable battles to build our position.
I don’t care how we win, if it’s a flanking maneuver via the states so be it. Right now we are stalled. Any general would tell you to change tactics but do so with an eye to not letting the other guy know what you are doing as much as possible.
Like I said, I think that maybe Fred’s thoughts, it would explain his contradictory approaches (supporting partial birth then touting a federalist approach) but drawing it out is a mistake, it would tip his hand.
I have seen some saying that would make him a liar. No that would make him a politician that could get us the victory we need.
This isn't a game of monopoly here, this is a fight for the life of the unborn, and the enemy has no shame. If we really mean what we say, if life is the most important of all issues, it is time to shut up and get dirty, because war is not pretty.
I’m not in this primary for Fred, only Hunter. So I’m willing and able to contrast those differences.
And good for you. I feel the same about Hunter. But I see Fred as having more chance at nomination - by far. Thus, my support.
But if you think all this back-and-forth against Thompson is going to turn magically into a great level of Hunter support you're deluding yourself. And that's the problem you have.
This seems to go further than "it's a state decision." It seems to be saying that Fred thinks abortion should be kept legal at the state level.
What am I missing ... or what did he mean by this?
"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."
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.