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."
Then read the article and you will see that it is an intentional miss leading of Fred’s position.
This is a clear distortion of Fred’s position. The more I think about Fred and his stances, the more I believe we have a man here with clear opions and is willing to stand behind them. Fred Thompson is a man with a lot of depth and ability to reason deeply. I’m getting more pro-Fred each day.
I tried. I just couldn’t watch the whole thing.
I don’t believe he looks like death warmed over or that he’s too old and I won’t put anyone else down for supporting him.
Personally, I just don’t happen to trust him, that’s all.
To me, it kind of sounds like he wants it both ways.
But that’s just my opinion.
All he had to do is say he would support it if the congress makes it happen, but that it is not the most effective means to an end. Instead, he stepped in it.
He is already taking a nose dive in the polls. It's all or nothing on the abortion front. If Fred isn't 100% PRO-LIFE, he's toast. Hence, bye bye Fred.
Now we just have to figure out why McLame is still surging in the polls and get him out of the picture.
IMO, he started self destructing when he gave the ‘back hand’ to James Dobson, and ergo the millions who love him.
"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..."
This is an entirely Constitutional position for a prospective Executive candidate to take. If the GOP were to support an Amendment to the Constitution making abortion illegal, then so be it. Mere bills filed into Law violate Constitutional limits of power for Congress and the President.
End the funding for abortion mills, over turn Roe V Wade, let the States handle the rest. This is far an above more "conservative" a stance than Rudy, John, or Willard are purposing.
Read other threads and learn the truth. Fred is more likely to save more babies lives with his stand and also preserve the Constitution.
He will still get my vote, but he did step in it. All the way up to his knees.
you don’t see romney trying to change the GOP platform now. Fred is moving the other way now. why?
If you are 100% pro-life, and violate the Constitution, you are of no use to anyone...
No he wasn’t. It should be a state issue based on states rights. At the state level the abortion crowd cannot compete and have it held legal and it will effectively become unlawful. Can you people not extrapolate that there will never be a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion and Fred is offering the correct way to overturn bad law ( Roe v Wade )outlaw it?
Oh they're in such an extreme situation... We wouldn't want them to get a back-alley abortion... Anyone would do the same thing in their shoes... We can't put them in jail for that... /pro-choice
This is a willful distortion of what he said. Read the transcript, and form an informed opinion.
___________
From the article “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.”
How do you interpret that statement in the context of legal/illegal?
The assumption is that a Constitutional Amendment flies in the face of federalism and/or the Constitution. That is just utter nonsense.
Freudy Guiliompson?
While Romney indeed became pro life, and tries to make it sound like a Reaganesque conversion, even after having this epiphany he still backed pro choice stances public.
He himself said he was personally pro life to out of state audiences but still acted on pro choice initiatives where it counted, in policy where he had influence.
Romney ran for US Senate in 1994 pledging to keep abortion ''safe and legal in this country." As a 2002 candidate for governor, Romney said he would not change the state's abortion laws. But in recent months, he has described himself as ''personally prolife" to out-of-town political audiences.
Mitt Fakes a Pro Choice Stance
So like Romney?
Not quite.
Fred did not really have a stand one way or the other. Once he was in a position to effect policy and it became an issue to him he took the pro life stand and he has stuck to it where it counts, in policy. He is pro life regardless of the audience.
It should be overturned.
It should be returned to the states.
People should decide, not by judicial fiat.
That's Federalism in it's purist form. Decision by the PEOPLE, not the courts. To try and get an Amendment or modification to an existing amendment, you still need a majority in the House and Senate AND a number of the states for ratification.
It's not going to happen. The critters in Congress will not support it and there won't be a majority of the states to ratify it.
The BEST we can do is get Constructionist judges on the SCOTUS, the right case to bring to it, overturn RvW and send it back to the States to decide.....WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE BEGINING.
Now, if you've had ANY dealings with State government, you will find it is far easier to create and modify existing state laws than it is Federal law.
The best opportunity is to convince the local citizens of the rightness of banning abortion, which is far easier than getting the Federal legislation support.
This is the simplest way of explaining to the great unwashed here at FR how to go about getting RvW overturned.It's not an overnight process, it's a gradual piece by piece dismantling of the decision that the SCOTUS rendered incorrectly.
..and that's not negotiable!
That’s exactly what I mean.
I’m not supporting Rudy for that reason among MANY others, but I don’t have any reason to believe that Fred Thompson is anything but on our side.
Your attitude elects people like Bill, Hillary, and most of the dems in Congress.
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.