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."
LLS
“It must be frustrating to know that a pretty good candidate just isn’t going anywhere.”
It is frustrating that the best candidate, the only good candidate is going nowhere. If all the people who’d vote for him if they weren’t afraid he’d lose would vote for him, he’d win.
How does trying to pass an amendment to the Constitution violate the Constitution?
Did passing the 15th amendment violate the Constitution since it mandated all states must all citizens of all races to vote?
There is no difference, evil is evil. The “evil empire” speech was as much about persuading Americans as it was facing down Russia. They have heard the message, really? A US President has stated that abortion is an inherent evil under no uncertain terms and pounded it home repeatedly, without equivocation?
What we have been doing without a good result is exactly what you are proposing. Approaching the issue with kit gloves. Roe vs Wade is bad decision or I’m pro-life isn’t what I am talking about here at all. My position is not that I am taking a side and I am pro-life. My position is women do not get to make a choice to murder as many of them have already made more than few wrong choices to get to the point where they would want an abortion in the first place. It’s an inherent evil, there is no choice.
The same thing that happened under Bill Clinton but for only four years instead of eight. And, one of the things that happened under Bill Clinton was Republican retaking Congress and conservative revolution in 1994.
That is better scenario than a liberal like Giuliani in the White House.
I would vote for Fred. But, he isn't helping his chances any with positions like this.
The shame is that he spent 26 years there and has still not developed name recognition. Sorry, but that is no one’s fault but his own, your playing of the victim card doesn’t change that. He simply has no support and will not be nominated.
If it is left up to the States, and enough people leave a State and reduce taxes enough to cause problems... they can be affected in their legislation. States Rights are the Founder’s intent!
LLS
See post #137 – Fred has consistently voted (a record Mitt can't hold a candle to) for the pro-life agenda. He’s personally uncomfortable with the thought of the consequences of criminalizing abortion - “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.” He will have to deal with that eventually but what he should clarify right now regarding a constitutional amendment is this:
"say he would support it if the congress makes it happen, but that it is not the most effective means to an end.” (source: pissant)
IMHO, it is (unfortunately) clear that this primary race is between Thompson, Romney and Giuliani. Fred is infinitely superior to either of the other two: Giuliani’s positions need no repeating and here is Romney on abortion:...
Romney ran for US Senate in 1994 pledging to keep abortion ''safe and legal in this country."
As a 2002 candidate for governor, Romney said he would not change the state's abortion laws.
"On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ''yes" to the question, 'Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?
Would Fred oppose the 15th amendment on Federalist grounds? Or would he realize that some issues are so important that a Constitutional amendment is necessary to assure basic civil rights?
I can certainly understand frustration... but not the evil some Hunter supporters spew.
LLS
It's amazing how little people understand the process of passing bills into law. At the state level, a huge garnering of the public can be obtained. In the Federal system, it's about the power of the lobby.
A perfect example is CCW here in the state. Our first bill signed into law was full of terrible problems, 1 year renewals, qualification with EACH caliber you intended to carry, and a few other items. Over the years, at each session, improvements were made, 4 year license, qualification of the .45 caliber and carry anything smaller, carry restrictions were modified. In other words, it was far easier to modify this than try and rewrite the law. We had too many purists that were willing to throw out what was passed origianlly, rather than get a law on the books to modify.
The same thing is what will happen with abortion IF we can get Roe v Wade overturned. And to do that we need good constructionist judges on the SCOTUS, and to get to THAT, we need a case to take to the SCOTUS , THEN it goes back to the states, where we can really organize our position.
This simple set of circumstances escapes the minds of too many people, who see themselves as purists.
It may be silent on abortion but it is not silent on life. When you kill, you take away life. They knew that back then in those days. When you deny someone life you are going against the Constitution no matter how you do it — abortion or slavery.
Some Hunter supporters would rather live with the delusion that since he garners so much support here on FR, that it should resound around the country, which it hasn’t.
If they will cross state lines for fireworks, they will do so for abortions. The number of abortions won’t change any if at all. This will not effect the volume only the location. Transportation and communications have advanced greatly since the writing of the constitution, huh?
I have no problem at all with the 14th Amendment, other than the fact that "persons" (which erroneously has been held by the Courts to mean "anyone", as opposed to "chldren born to U.S. Citizens".
Here, again, the PEOPLE decided on the Constitutional Amendment approval NOT the Fed's. Someone previously had a problem with "mob rule" when it came to majority votes deciding issues, but I do not.
See #355, you’re wrong, Fred is wrong. That is if the goal is to protect the unborn and not just a matter of constitutional law.
Don’t know where you’re from, but it was very easy to get an hush hush-sweet child, abortion in the South in the 50’s and 60’s.
It's a crazy mixed up world...
Exactly! Fred in '08.
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.