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."
“family physician” - oh, he means the friendly abortionist! Fred, you are disappointing me!
* Snort! * Oops. And I'll bet you're right about Jeffrey. I thought "CNS" referred to what it usually refers to in print, which is "Catholic News Service." I shoulda checked the original source, but the article was right on the page, so I didn't. My bad.
In fact, Cybercast News is Catholic in a way. Its founder Brent Bozell IV, is a serious RC. His grandfather Brent Bozell, Jr.—an inlaw of Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.—was the NR editor who apparently ghost-wrote Conscience of a Conservative. Brent Jr. was later a heroic pro-life activist just as the abortion laws were first being liberalized. Great family.
They are not always “young girls” - sometimes they are older women who were having an affair, or older MARRIED WOMEN. The “young girl” or the rape victim are the favorite straw man or woman of the abortion lobby.
I am really trying to follow you here, but not sure really where you are headed. No work can be done until the SCOTUS changes and who knows when that will be. That is, if I am following you and you are considering the SCOTUS sending abortion back to the states as "work that can be done"? Let's be honest here an amendment doesn't deflect attention from anything. There is nothing right now from which to deflect attention. A three or four pronged attack puts this issue at the forefront and puts it into the national conscience. I am not so sure an amendment would do so poorly as you think. Battles are won and lost everyday, but you have to fight the battles, win or lose, if you have any intention of winning the war. You hit them high and low and then in the middle. You fight them everyday, anyway you can. You make the opposition weary and tired of the fight. Remember they are fighting for the right to murder the unborn. Ours is the more noble cause of ending this inherent evil. I rather think our side will turn out in force on this issue. I find it hard to believe the other side will be able to get voters enthusiastic about murdering the unborn and be able to marhsal the forces they will need.
Certainly the language he uses ... “criminalizing young girls,” “family physician” ... is more consistent with a pro-abortion viewpoint.
The question is, is this just a clumsy attempt to pander to moderate voters, or does it reveal where his heart really is on the issue?
Abortion cannot be illegal if no one is held legally accountable. If Fred is personally against abortion, but doesn’t think it should be illegal ... that’s not much different than Rudy, and it’s NOT pro-life by any reasonable definition of the term.
“No reason to blaspheme. Our Founders were touched by GOD himself... do you dispute that fact?”
First, you accuse me of creating a new religion of the Founders. That is blasphemous to this Christian. Secondly, I stated that our Founders were touched by GOD when they created America. Their writings and our legal documents are all paying homage to GOD the CREATOR. I simply stated that I did not try to make a religion “out of our Founders” and then I asked you if you disagreed that the Founders were touched by GOD himself.
LLS
Consider it again. Suppose you said, “I’m not going to criminalize murder, because sometimes youngsters do it.”
I don’t remember a whole lot of young girls being sent to jail in the days before Roe v. Wade. But after they legalized it, everyone started doing it. Does that mean that young girls are better off now than they were before?
If the states don’t say that abortion is a crime, because it involves the taking of an innocent life, then you are saying that abortion is just fine. But it isn’t.
Yes, it’s hard to put the sexual revolution and its attendant atrocities back in the bottle, once it broke loose. But I think we need to try. It’s wrecking a lot of lives as well as killing a lot of babies.
There is not a single mention of ‘abortion’ in the Contract With America:
http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
I don’t want to get you upset. It just sounded as if you were somehow saying that the founding fathers were prophets or divinely chosen or that the original constitution was sacred and perfect. It is not, which is why we are trying to amend it.
Is there one single justice on the Supreme Court that is pro-life, then? I have never read anywherethat any current Supreme Court justice indicated, they would go beyond leaving it up to the states.
They are not divine... but touched by divinity. I think we just had a misunderstanding.
LLS
Thanks for the ping. bmflr later.
Yes ... and it’s interesting how few of Fred’s friends on this thread have been willing to grapple with what he actually said.
The big news from the interview is not that Fred thinks abortion should be a state issue ... everyone knew that.
The big news is that he seemed to say he didn’t think abortion should be illegal ... even at the state level. If neither the “young girl,” her parents, or especially the kind and friendly “family physician” who kills the baby are to be “criminalized” (a favorite pro-choice word) ... then it’s hard to see how abortion could be illegal.
I’ll give him a chance to clarify. I may be misunderstanding what he said ... or maybe he misspoke in some way. It certainly doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies.
Yes, he’s slanting it. Saying “young girls” instead of just “women,” too.
If a person is “personally opposed” to abortion and wants to overturn Roe, with the end goal of letting the States have the “Choice” with potentially 50 State level Roe’s then yes I think that person is esentially Pro-Choice on abortion.
At the heart of it they don’t think a human in the womb has equal rights under the Constitution. So if they are “Pro-Life” there needs to be many foot notes.
“Is there one single justice on the Supreme Court that is pro-life, then?”
Possibly Thomas. This article gives excellent details about this. I encourage all to read this article:
“How Not To Overturn Roe v. Wade” http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft0211/opinion/linton.html
Amen! I saw him Sunday and it was a wonderful straight talking interview. More I hear him the more I like him. Nothing fancy, but a strong honest man who makes a lot of sense to me. We are never going to get exactly what we want on all issues, but to me he's certainly the best of what we have to choose from who could be electable.
Don’t cloud this discussion with facts. She’s already said she will offer no proof of her wild claim.
You have no clue.
The big news is that he seemed to say he didn’t think abortion should be illegal ... even at the state level.
-
that bothers me
Either way, the contract with America specifically did not address abortion - not a mention of abortion at all.
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.