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."
That may indeed have been part of the 2004 Republican party election plank, but I'll go out on a limb and predict that it will NOT remain a part of the 2008 party plank.
Expect the official Republican party plank for 2008 to be modified to something to the effect of supporting the rights of the states to decide the issue of abortion, or, perhaps no mention at all, other than that abortion is a matter of individual conscience for individuals to decide.
- John
If the right to life is a state issue, shouldn't the right to vote be, too? Shouldn't both you and Fred be supporting the repeal of the 15th amendment, which mandated that states allow all citizens, regardless of race, to vote?
After all, if state rights take priority over the right to life, certainly they take priority over the right to vote as well. Right?
I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for Fred, just that it is sad that he is the best candidate the Republicans can put forward.
You can set up the straw men all you like and wait for as long as you like. I’m not falling for it. The issue here is why Fred doesn’t support a Constitutional Amendment that will protect the unborn. His solution is to “give it back to the states”. That will make some of us feel really good in a few states,but it will have little effect on the number of the unborn murdered.
I think I posted earlier precisely my thoughts on this issue. You do what you can, when you can as hard as you can. If going to the states is what we can get, then so be it. I’m for it. But why not support a constitutional amendment as well? Why throw away an option, relinquish a weapon in the fight? Who is the real purist here? There is nothing unconstitutional about a constitutional amendment is there? Is Fred such a “states rights” purist that he will reject an alternative? It doesn’t have to be either/or, it can be both. The efforts to spin this have been nothing short of admirable, but the truth remains, you’re wrong, Fred’s wrong.
Having an actual, workable, viable plan to end a seriously effed up medical practice just ain't enough for some people...
Good, but be prepared for the frontal assault to fail.
We don’t need preaching, we need persuasion right now, and a bit of tactics....
A constitutional amendment isn’t provided for by the law? Why would you suggest I would take the law into my own hands? Did you really think that was my intent or did you throw that in for effect? Why would Fred discount another process by which to rid this country of an inherent evil? That’s the question that needs answered not some contrived question seeking to paint me as a vigilante. LOL :)
1. Overturning Roe would ALWAYS have brought the issue back to the states.
The pro-abortion movement sees roe as a way to unify imposition across the land.
2. Thompson is losing people due to his illconceived adherence to his personal perception and anachronistic view Federalism.
Um...not to change the subject...but ever hear of the Underground Railroad?
Forgive me if I give more weight to the opinion of people like Jim Bopp instead of you, ejoneie22. Romney's leading adviser, Jim Bopp, actually wrote the amendment which is in the GOP platform. He knows Mitt supports it or he would not have endorsed him.
This is what Bopp's said on the matter:
Romney advisor Jim Bopp, a leading pro-life lawyer who serves as the top attorney for National Right to Life and other pro-life groups, who wrote the amendment that appears in the Republican Party platform, said Romney "views the Human Life Amendment as an aspirational goal, which we hope and pray we eventually can achieve."
______________________
The bottomline is that Romney said he'd sign an amendment - and I believe he will fight for the cause.
He has been praised by numerous pro-life and pro-family organizations that worked with him in Massachusetts.
His conservative track record is already established. His words have matched his actions.
Prominent pro-life leaders, like Jim Bopp and others, have signed on to assist his campaign.
I don't see it as risky at all. What's risky is allowing Rudy to take the nomination by failing to unite behind the one conservative candidate who offers fiscal conservatism, national security conservatism and social conservatism all wrapped up in an electable, well-funded, expertly organized package.
there’s a reason why it was called “underground”
Because it doesn't have a chance of passing, in either the House or the Senate, or being ratified by the states, and only deflects attention from doing work that CAN be done.
In the first place, abortion was a state issue until the SCOTUS legislated from the bench. Not through the laws of the 'several states', not through the legislative process. It was by fiat.
Now, if RvW is overturned, a process in itself, then it will go back to the states, NOT the Federal legislature. Trying to do both is admirable, but Federalism is about not interfering with what should be a states rights issue.
If he made a mistake that is on him, not me.
And I am by far not the only one who feels that way.
Even Bopp says the drive to end abortion is seen as a two-step process: First, overturn Roe v. Wade, which would return abortion law to the states; and second, create consensus for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.
However, one cannot deny that it certainly would be preferable for the pro-life movement to elect a president who agrees to work towards passing an amendment in the first place -- even if it is seemingly futile at present. Fred's statements imply that he will not use his presidential position to further that cause. Romney will. Hunter will.
In fact, Fred has a laissez faire attitude regarding social issues in general as evidenced by his "so be it" statement regarding gay marriage as well. We don't have to settle for indifference when we can have resolve to lead the cause.
Having said that, even prominent pro-life leaders like Jim Bopp realize that the pro-life community should be sophisticated and savvy enough to understand how a pro-life politician has to advocate for the possible, and must not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
the HLA is the flag of the pro-life movement. it keeps focus on the issue at a national level.
Congratulations, letter for letter, word for word that may have been the most obtuse and vacuous bit of hyperbole written on FR today. The approach isn't so realistic, but hey, an advance is an advance. Again I ask, why would Fred discount another tool that could be used in the fight? You are falsely defining the argument here and misrepresenting the facts. My argument isn't his approach but rather that he will not support another approach. Why leave options by the wayside? I can assure you I am in good standing with the Romney and Fred supporters, for the most part, and the Huckabee supporter and I have had nothing but pleasant exchanges.
I sure hope so ... but this sounds like he does NOT want abortion to be illegal ... at the federal OR 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."
Right all his supporters are duped, mistaken, bought off etc... Got it.
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.