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."
Have fun with Rudy as President.
well the one with the best chance of beating rudy is romney so maybe I should go for him?
If for some reason Thompson’s fund raising fell significantly short, Romney is definitely my second choice. His past is shakier, but I do believe he cares about key conservative issues. I have no qualms with Romney.
Now watch all the Hunter people accuse me of supporting a baby-killer or some such garbage they spew.
But please don’t get me wrong, if Fred wins the nomination I will help to get him elected. We must realize that we are voting for politicians and not Saints.
Fred’s position is far from perfect but I have to think he would appoint judges to SCOTUS who would vote to overturn Roe and that in and of itself is a very good thing. It would be a big step in the right direction.
Let me take a shot. I think Fred might be saying that, while he might support banning abortion, he does not believe in enforcing the law against the principal in the crime, ie the woman. Considering that the mainstream pro-life position seems to be that abortion should be banned as murder, but women obtaining abortions should not be arrested and prosecuted, you can't really say that this is not a pro-life position.
Personally, I don't think it makes much sense to ban something that you believe is child murder, then support an automatic amnesty for the main culprit (it's a bit like saying you don't believe the mother who contracts a hit on her toddler should be prosecuted, but you support it being illegal to do so). Now, his inclusion of the "family doctor" in his list of those who would be "criminalized" could be taken to mean that he does not believe illegal abortionists should be prosecuted either, but he can probably explain that as a verbal misfire.
I would rather have a president who will actually do something, as opposed to just saying something. Most “pro-life” politicians just say something, and that’s the end of the story. Even cutting off money would be a huge victory. That money is used to ensure polticians keep it legal. People don’t realize how much abortion money makes it into the hands of Republicans. Out here in California, some of the most “pro-life” elected officials were getting money from Edward Allred, the states largest abortionist.
Well, then my memory failed me as to what it was called, for which I apologize. It actually was the Republican platform around 1990, and it did contain abolishing abortion, and it was discarded with the approval or recommendation of FDT.
Contrary to the protestations of Senator Thompson's remaining supporters, federalism does not equal conservatism and conservatism is far greater good than federalism. The Republican Party may already be the world's last hope for authentic freedom and real human rights. I will not compromise the future of the Republican Party by actively supporting a candidate who intends to undermine its most sacred ideal.
I agree, if it’s just a matter of who should be prosecuted, that could still be a pro-life position. I think you’re right that the “mainstream” pro-life position focuses on prosecuting the abortionist, not the mother.
As a matter of fact, Fred’s reference to criminalizing young girls in difficult circumstances is borrowing time-honored pro-abortion rhetoric, which is disturbing in itself.
Fred is in my top two or three among the GOP candidates ... in fact my tentative favorite. I’m trying to decide if he just made an exceptionally clumsy statement or if he has exposed himself as a “pro-life” fraud.
I don’t know about the doctor statement. I am inclined to think he was trying to say something else.
I have heard him say that women shouldn’t be imprisoned over an abortion, and that appears to be the “mainstream” pro-life position.
I guess I’m a hardliner, because I think we should throw’em all in jail, but Fred’s position is acceptable to me anyway, because I know that what I want can’t happen.
:)
The 1996 Republican Party Platform - "The unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."
1992 - We believe the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution,
1988 - That the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children
2000 - That is why 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 and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.
2004 - That is why 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 and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children
I have heard him say that women shouldn’t be imprisoned over an abortion, and that appears to be the “mainstream” pro-life position.
Perhaps he was referring to a family doctor who might have a perceived role in referring a girl for an abortion ... rather than the abortionist himself?
I personally don't have a problem with the "women shouldn't be imprisoned" doctrine. But the abortionist is another matter.
Given his strong pro-life voting record, I find it hard to believe Fred really meant that statement to be as pro-choice as it sounded.
I think I'll hold my fire till Fred's position is clarified.
I understand what you mean about being confused with regard to that particular quote. I am going to take a stab at it, within this interview and recent quotes from Fred Thompson. I think that he became fully pro-life when he saw his daughter’s sonogram. I think that he always intellectually believed that abortion was wrong, but it didn’t engage his heart. Now it has. However, he still has that intellectual portion wrestling within, the “what ifs” start sneaking in. I know this well, as I struggled with that for a long time. Yes, abortion is heinous and evil and should be outlawed, but did I really want this to mean that the woman or young woman (yes, teenagers get abortions; unfortunately, lots of them have had them :^( ) would be thrown into jail? At what age would I draw that line? How would this be enforced? All those kinds of questions. Perhaps that is where Fred is coming from.
I am a Christian, and those questions have troubled me as well. I know many—now women—who had abortions as teenagers. I know the price they have paid. I have prayed with them and cried with them. They believed the lie of abortion. All they had to do was go to the clinic less than a mile from school. Noone would ever have to know.
I know only too well how convincing the “pro-choice” argument is. This is a battle that is only going to be won in the hearts and minds of the general public. We are not going to win this argument with a sledgehammer. We just aren’t. I wish it were possible to pass an amendment RIGHT NOW that protects precious unborn babies, but it just won’t happen.
If Roe vs. Wade was returned back to the States, it would be an easier battle to fight locally. Hearts and minds can be won with a lot of education. It is easier to do this community by community. On a national scale, it just isn’t going to happen. This is a fight that is deeply personal to some people, and that is how this battle will be won. We must make this personal.
My husband and I volunteer at a Women’s Center that, by the Grace of God, saved 35 babies last month! Which means that 35 hearts were changed. It doesn’t sound like much, but to those mothers and those babies, it is everything.
If we give this back to the States, perhaps some will drive over to NY to get their abortions and some will not. This will cause many that normally could book an abortion that afternoon to actually have to THINK about it. This is where education comes in. Perhaps that woman won’t change her mind, but the woman two miles away does. Bottom line is, babies will be saved. One baby or a thousand babies at a time. God willing.
Pro-lifers better get to the polls on primary day and vote for a STRONG pro-life candidate!
I’m voting Duncan Hunter who has a 26-year pro-life history - no flip flopping - and wrote the personhood-at-conception bill.
Thanks for the ping, CP. I saw Fred's interview and I think you may be being a little too hard on him. :) I see him as taking a legal approach to this as opposed to a moral one. He's a lawyer after all. :)
Anyway, what we all say is that we want strict constructionists on the bench. On this issue we say that because we know that Roe was an aberration, an abomination, strictly from a LEGAL perspective. No true strict constructionist could in good conscience uphold Roe, precedent be damned. I think Thompson is fully on board with us on this.
Now, another question to consider is whether it would be proper for a strict constructionist to vote that abortion itself is unconstitutional. Thompson says "no" and I am FORCED to agree with him, and Justice Scalia for that matter. Of course it comes down to the Constitutional definition of "personhood". Scalia has said that it does not include the unborn. I think he is correct because the drafters obviously never considered it. When they wrote of "persons" they meant persons who have been born. That was their intent at the time, so I believe a true strict constructionist would be forced to honor that.
OK, so what's left? A Constitutional Amendment, which I of course strongly favor. To get rid of abortion forever, I believe the strict constructionist has to agree that this is the proper vehicle. It is proper because it resolves a critical issue to the American way of life and the drafters did not consider it, no fault on them. So, Thompson leaves us here so he doesn't get an A+. However, if we can get Roe overturned, which he supports and could influence, I would still give him an A- :). As you know, the Amendment process doesn't really involve the President anyway, (although support from the White House would always be helpful) so we would not have to worry about his "veto". I also doubt he would speak against an Amendment if it seriously came up.
“Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal”
BYE BYE FRED! #3
Exactly !...Cross him off.......
Next !
I will vote for Hunter if he is still in the race by the time of the March 4 Texas primary. I think he will have dropped out more than a month earlier than that. But Ron Paul will still be on the ballot! Tancredo will be gone before Hunter probably, as people don’t seem to buy his immigration message after all.
Think of this as the U.S.' war in the Pacific. The U.S. didn't try to win the war in one battle, they went island by island. I think cp's article makes a similar point. There is much more likely to be an Ammendment if Roe was overturned and there were states that were pro-life.
Think of this as the U.S.’ war in the Pacific. The U.S. didn’t try to win the war in one battle, they went island by island.
***I have used the analogy of the Civil War in the past as a segway into a proposal to extend rights of protection to as many unborn babies as society can muster.
I think that would be wonderful to pass the amendment. However, I don’t see that we would have enough support to get the human life amendment passed, so that’s why I even bother with the 3 tiered compromise in the first place. The analogy I’ve used before is that it’s as if we were in the civil war and we didn’t have the resources to end it triumphantly, both sides were stuck. If one side is making tons of progress, they won’t be negotiating for an end to hostilities.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917001/posts?page=53#53
To: CheyennePress
but at that point, if you declare a fetus a living human, a fetus is entitled to the protections granted under the US Constitution.
***Isn’t there a biblical approach to a possible compromise? For instance, my oblique understanding of the old testament law is that if a pregnant woman gets injured, it’s an eye for an eye to repay her. But if her unborn baby gets killed or injured, the payment is less.
Perhaps it is time to start considering extending the rights of protection to unborn babies who are at least viable, and a plan to extend societal resources to those unborn who are not yet viable.
I believe a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under the law from being killed. That unborn human deserves protection extended by the state.
Perhaps it is time to consider a 3 tiered system of protection.
Tier 1: Living, viable, late term baby which will not be aborted unless the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 2: Living, not-yet-viable pre-born human who should have the right to protection and life and a safe womb to which it can attain viability. Cannot be aborted unless there is an open rape case associated with the pregnancy or the life of the mother is at stake.
Tier 3: Living, early stage, not yet viable pre-born human for whom we do not extend the rights of life in this society because of a historical snag where we once considered such tissue not to be a baby. We as a society thought it was best to consider it a private decision. I personally do not believe in Tier3 abortions, but I can understand that there are many who think it is a “right to choose” at this stage. It may be time to consider a program where the woman declares her pregnancy and intent to abort. Our societal function at this point would be to provide a family that is willing to adopt this baby and to put up this woman for 6-8 months in a safe environment so the baby can grow and maybe the woman can learn some life skills. If our society cannot muster the forces necessary to save this baby, the woman has the sickening “right” to abort this pregnancy. Time for us to put up or shut up.
With a 3-tiered plan in place, women would stop using abortion as a means of birth control. Millions of lives would be saved. We would extend the right to life to every human that we have resources to save. Unfortunately, if we cannot put up the resources to save the Tier3 babies, we still would have this horrible practice staining our nation’s soul.
88 posted on 10/14/2007 10:36:52 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq— via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.))
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.