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."
But, you see, not everyone agrees he's 'the only good candidate'. In fact, the polls show he's in the minority, so the majority must disagree with your assessment.
If all the people who’d vote for him if they weren’t afraid he’d lose would vote for him, he’d win.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. You have no way of knowing. But the fact those people you refer to haven't come to his candidacy doesn't reflect their '[being] afraid he'd lose' as much as he's shown he just doesn't have what it takes to succeed.
Your #335, exactly right.
Did not know it was easy (Thanks!) Of course I was born in 1969. lol. I am from Pennsylvania (unfortunately “blue” right now...will be seeing red in 2008 I hope!!!!)
There is no magic wand to wave, no EO to sign, no solution to stop abortion other than to follow the law and the avenues of resolution afforded by that law.
Which is all well and good, but, judging by the comments lately here, there is NO candidate good enough for many people here.
Well, you get the point. If you want someone as President who agrees with EVERYTHING you stand for, I suggest you start your own fund-raising committee. Meanwhile, you try to find someone who is closest to your major points, and get behind him.
The alternatives are to go with a third party candidate (remember Ross Perot? You can thank him for BOTH Clin-toons) or just sit it out (like the 550 or so Florida Democrats who probably have been beating themselves up for the past 7 years). Neither alternative is not a pleasant one, in my book!
Then, if you and Fred are going to be consistent on state rights, shouldn't both of your oppose the 15th amendment, which prohibit states from discriminating on the basis of race?
If the right to life isn't worthy of a Constitutional amendment required in all 50 states, how could the right of all citizens to vote be?
Do you have it in your power to end abortion right this very minute?
Do you have the ability to bypass the entire political process and decree abortion illegal?
If so, why have you not done it yet?
We are waiting...
Of course, not! But he specifically declined to support making it illegal. What's the practical difference?
The pro-life movement would be better served by electing someone who is more committed to advancing the cause of ending abortion on demand. The "so be it" attitude is not good enough.
It behooves the pro-life movement to elect a candidate who supports the amendment in the first place --- even if its passage seems futile at present and requires a two-step process to achieve.
Well, I've had far better conversations with HunterBots than PaulBots. But that seems to be changing and the two are becoming alike in their recrimination. Sad to see. But still, it's the few whereas with the PaulBots it's run-of-the-mill (except for a very few).
Whatever value you place on my opinions is irrelevant. The reality is there will still be abortions and numbers will be the same or greater. Abortion would likely become an even more lucrative enterprise. The travel packages, overnight stays, etc.
I understand you are spinning for your candidate and that’s fine. The reality is that you’re wrong and Fred is wrong. I’m not a purist, I’m an abolitionist. You know “Party of Lincoln” and all.
Good question. I would assume those that favor state rights above all else would have to support California's decision to allow that, just like they should oppose the repeal of the 15th amendment, which usurped power from the states when it came to prohibiting certain citizens the right to vote.
That is not Mitt Romney as of yet.
Too much risk involved that he will seek other avenues for political expediency as he has in the past.
Maybe one day...
I’m done with this thread.
I’ll leave you with a few comments:
-Fred voted 100% pro-life in the Senate
-Fred would do a lot more good than any Dem and more than Rudy, and is electable
-The 15th amendment didn’t come to exist overnight, either
Have a nice day.
Don’t be gullible and naive.
Read the article for yourself.
Fred is against abortion.
Abolition comes through the use of the courts and the LAW, or are you for taking the law in your own hands? John Brown and all that?
If Giuliani is nominated, I will never, ever, forgive all you Duncan Hunter trolls. You are condemning us to 4 or 8 years of authoritarian liberal rule, whether it’s Giuliani or Clinton. Both will allow federal funding of abortions. Both will sign more gun legislation. Both will appoint Ginsburg type judges.
All because a 100% pro-life candidate wants to take a realistic approach to making abortion illegal instead of waving a magic wand.
Supporters of Thompson, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Paul should be absolutely disgusted by Hunter supporters. Supporters of Giuliani should be in glee.
LOL
Our family sent a young girl to an Aunt’s house for that reason. :(
Born in 69? That was a great year! I was 17, worked as a bicycle usher at the local drive in, had a 426 Hemi Plymouth, and sign on the back of the driver’s seat that read...Azz, Gas, or Grass. NO ONE rides for free! HeHe.
When has Fred committed adultery, paraded his mistress around in public and alienated his children?
Fred may have some problems but, at least, he can be considered an 80% conservative. Giuliani can't even be considered a 20% conservative based on his liberal record.
Pardon the pun, but bull crud he’s 100% pro life. If he was truly 100% pro life he would not take money from pro-abortion groups during his lobbying days. He would actually have a conscience, which is something most lawyers don’t have.
See, that’s Thompson’s problem. He allies himself with and takes money from the shadiest people. Is that not the same problem we have with Hillary Clinton?
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.