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."
Each state can be targeted more effectively, than trying to lobby the Federal congresscritter to do the right thing.
In the first place, they won't have enough money.
In the second, they will be seen as radical as the global warmists.
Each time the Feds have been wrong on legislation it has taken longer to eliminate it or a complete societal breakdown(Prohibition vs gang activity) to repair the damage.
I think it is really funny to blame everyone’s failures on Hunter supporters!
Either that or the majority of folks at FreeRepublic, including the boss, are ididots...
Excuse me, idiots...
Too many threads open.
Hey, Pistol ... I hear you. But it sounds to me like Fred would be AGAINST our state-by-state campaign to make abortion illegal.
There may be another way to interpret his words, but it sure sounds like Fred not only thinks it's a state decision, but he is also against banning abortion state by state.
His words may have another reasonable interpretation, but no one has taken a stab at one yet.
I don’t know any gop candidate, including rudy, who is against overturning roe v wade. Rudy said he supports a federal ban on partial birth. But if you say “state’s rights! state’s rights!” you don’t even get that because that’s federal law.
You make an impressive presentation. I suppose our disagreement is on the efficacy and the question as to why throw away another tool in the fight.
If the framers thought abortion or Same sex marriages were going to come up they would, no doubt written the constitution with less ambiguity. Such things were likely unimaginable in their epoch. I am sure that they could not even envision the world in which we live. The law provides for amendments so why discard it as a tool? Quite simply, we aren’t going to defeat this inherent evil by throwing away options, parsing words and rationalizing that abortion is anything other than evil.
Now, will every state follow the same pattern? Of course not, BUT it will be easier to garner support and effectiveness in those states that allow abortion to change their law.
Fred is being the Federalist he is.
ari, partial birth abortion is barbaric in the extreme. IT deserved to be Federaly legislated out, and without the amendment process. There were still those who voted to keep it, and they should be targetted at their next re-election, that's the other avenue to getting to the Amendment that the platform calls for, but again, it will be a lengthier process than working at the state level.
well, we can’t stop until there’s no abortion in all 50 states. It has to be a national issue...how do you bring everyone together if it is brought to the states?
That is not how it would work... but I also know that you have reasons for seeing things the way that you want to see them. I can’t change that any more than some Amendment will change people’s hearts. I do know that our Nation has been screwed up everytime we go against the Founder’s intent (and GOD’s intent through the Founders).
LLS
Now you know that we are not to use logic in arguments... 15 yard penalty! ;-)
LLS
Yes, but Fred seems to say that he does NOT want abortion to be illegal at the federal OR state level.
Isn't that what this says? That Fred WANTS ABORTION TO REMAIN LEGAL at both the federal AND state level?
Someone either give me an alternate interpretation of Fred's words, or tell me how this is consistent with being pro-life at all:
"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."
One state at a time if we have to, but I believe the number will be less than 10 to have to change. Regardless, it will be a process that goes on year by year until we have all 50 states.
sounds like you are making a new religion out of the founding fathers
It is a sad time when people think it is totally unneccesary to be completely honest and forthright. Instead, I assume, you would rather hear a candidate pay lip service to ideas he will not and cannot implement. I think 90% of the people who saw Fred's performance thought it was good. The criticism you hear is from the Hunter, Huckabee, and Romney supporters in denial.
yes, work on one state at a time on the one hand but still keep a national push for HLA on the other.
That is what read from this.
I think that the states ought to be free to make their own abortion laws, but it would take a constitutional amendment that specifically overturns Casey to make that work. What’s to keep a federal court from voiding a state law? That explains the language of the platform. American abortion law is so extreme it effectively nullifies the right of the state to make law in this area.
You will repeal Roe and outlaw abortion quicker if you take a state by state federalist approach. Pushing a Constitutional Amendment which has no chance of passage will delay progress on the issue and kill more babies in the long run.
Fred sees a realistic approach to stopping infanticide. It is easier to pander with pie in the sky illusions than to offer workable solutions.
I guess a fair question would be does the Federal government have laws against any other type of murder? If they leave the traditional crime of murder to be adjucated by the states, it would make sense for murder by abortion to be handled by them as well.
BTW, I'm a Duncan Hunter supporter too, but Senator Thompson does have a point.
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.