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."
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.))
I totally agree, and my sense in this case is "shame on him". :) I don't see Thompson lifting a finger beyond getting Roe overturned. But, is that a deal breaker? For me it's not because if Roe was actually overturned I would be doing so many hand springs and cartwheels that I wouldn't care who was President! :) At that time, an Amendment would at least be on the table, it isn't now. Given this round's viable crop, I don't see how we're going to do better than this.
However, I don't want to give the impression that I am an official FredHead. :) I will be voting on Super Tuesday on 2/5, and right now my leanings are toward Huckabee, if there is any chance that it might mean something since I am in the border state of MO.
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 Amendment if Roe was overturned and there were states that were pro-life.
No doubt about it, I agree in full. THEN an effective movement can start for an Amendment.
No, Fred wants the states to make up their own minds. I stopped reading after this slur.
I think Thompson’s a little over your head. You should pick someone like Romney or McCain. They don’t try to complicate issues with minor details like the constitutionality of their proposals.
You DEFINITELY don’t have a clue.
Isn’t it amazing that the “right to vote” is a Constitutional issue, yet an innocent person’s right to live is not?
You are correct in a perfect world where voters actually vote their beliefs. Unfortunately, there are still many in BOTH parties who vote for a letter next to a name and completely ignore what a candidate really believes and stands for.
There should be no nuance when it comes to this issue. It is this namby pamby attitude by too many conservatives that keeps us from making swift and definitive progress.
And bad news for all conservatives and anyone who really loves this country and what it stands for.
If that were to be true, then we’ve already lost the country.
Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.
I have written a message to Thompson's campaign. I want clarification. Was the statement an accurate reflection of his position.
I want the truth.
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.