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."
Thank you for your intellectual honesty. I hope it spreads.
You could, but I would not want to try for a HLA until all 50 states are in the same camp. By then we would have more of an influence on having the legislators we want in place and even that would mean a tough fight with liberal districts.
if a state decided to legalize, say the murder of jews or blacks, you better believe the federal govt will get involved.
That is not a good analogy, IMO.
A better analogy would be if the Supremes ruled that retarded children are not afforded constitutional protections, and that states could not prosecute those who committed the executions of those kids.
How one would respond to that scenario is how we should be responding to this ongoing infantacide called abortion. IOTW, re-establish their constitutional right to life.
no....you don’t understand. This is not just about changing the constitution. That may not happen for a long long time. But HLA makes the pro-life cause a national campaign. It unites the party. Drop the push for HLA and no president will talk about abortion anymore.
How one would respond to that scenario is how we should be responding to this ongoing infantacide called abortion. IOTW, re-establish their constitutional right to life.
Yep, this is the analogy that those who advocate a "federalist" approach to abortion must wrestle with in order to be intellectually consistent.
My thoughts exactly... abortion is not a "State Rights" and/or Federalism issue. It's a matter of life or death and whether or not baby humans have a right to live. "Let the States decide" isn't going to work in the case of abortion. Nor should it.
-jw
I know. But they put up smoke screens. If all of the GOP would unite and show the appropriate amount of outrage regarding the snuffing of the unborn, an Amendment would pass easily. Alas, too many are happy being ‘nuanced’ about the issue. Blech!
Amen.
To accomplish a HLA you need a majority of the House(not likely because of the liberal districts), a majority of the Senate(even more difficult because of the liberal states that elect the bafoons), then a ratification from the states and that will bring even more contention to the issue and is no guarantee unless you have the groundswell in place beforehand.
Keeping it in front of the Congress only makes it dismissive by them.
Thanks ... at least you gave a resaonable response. No other Thompson defenders on this thread seem to want to touch Fred's statement at all.
Frankly, it scares me. It's not the kind of language that genuine pro-lifers are in the custom of using ... "criminalizing young girls" ... "their family doctor" (how many abortions are comitted by "family doctors"?).
Hopefully he will clarify ... but for now his claim to be "pro-life" is suspect to me.
Sorry Fred that's called being Pro-Choice on Abortion.
Fred wants to end Roe and leave abortion up to the "Choice" of the States.
While that is an improvement over today's situation it's his end goal and to me that's pathetic.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
I do not disagree with anything in your post. I wish that our Founders had seen a bit into the future... for a lot of reasons... abortion being number one. Like you said, they would have a fit if they knew where liberalism has taken America today.
LLS
No reason to blaspheme. Our Founders were touched by GOD himself... do you dispute that fact?
LLS
**Well, that helps explain why he thinks the GOP platform is “the most useless device” he’s ever heard of.
**
U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson says he seldom hears about abortion in campaign travels throughout Tennessee and hopes the issue is downplayed at the Republican National Convention. The Tennessee Republican, a pro-choice defender in a party with an anti-abortion tilt, is preparing for next week’s convention in San Diego. He said the party must avoid distracting issues and focus on electing Bob Dole as president. “We need to concentrate on what brings us together and not what divides us,” Thompson said in an interview with The Tennessean published Tuesday. Thompson said he opposes making early-term abortions a crime, as some Republicans would like to do with a constitutional amendment. “But I don’t think you should bolt on one issue. I’m still not convinced platforms are a good idea. We know what we believe in and I don’t think we need to write it all down in a document,” Thompson said. (AP, 8/6/96)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/12/87865.aspx
First let me state that I do not believe in abortion for any reason. If the child is the product of a rape or incest and you abort it, you've executed the wrong individual.
If the claim is that it hazards the life of the mother, my contention is that the mother's life is not more valuable than the childs...let God decide. The notion that the child endangers the life (or even more feebly the health) of the mother is a straw dog. With modern medicine that's almost an impossible notion.
All of that said, I think that we should be consistant with the application of our laws. I would have no objection to making regular murders a Federal crime (as a matter of fact, that could be an easy way to restore the death penalty here in West Virginia), but whichever way we go we should be consistant.
we have accomplished...the GOP is a pro-life party on a national level because of HLA and other federal pro-life measures that congress can vote for and presidents can advocate for.
This was not the case before Reagan...before the issue was nationalized.
please explain what you mean by that
Yes, but the pro life plank is important.
I am not voting third party. Have no fear - however, the pro life plank is important. And no, there is no circumstance under which I could ever, ever vote for a 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.