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."
Bingo...
It's not about what's right and what's wrong. It's about how the voters will react.
Well, there's no one any more pro-life than I and I've lost tons of respect for James Dobson. I don't need Dobson, or anyone else to tell me who to support at the caucus. It's like Dobson and some of these others are getting support from Soros. They make that much sense. Give me Fred anyday.
Show me where he said the words...”I want to keep abortion legal”.
You know your candidate is a two faced liar, when you find yourself having to lie to support him.
And HE (meaning Hunter/Tancredo/Whoever) WON’T WIN so it will mean NOTHING to President Hillary.
Am I saying a “solid, strong pro-life candidate who believes it to his very soul” is unelectable? No. However, in THIS election cycle, it is. Because nobody that is satisfactory on that issue to the absolutionist crowd has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning either the nomination or the election.
So, I suppose when you refuse to vote for a good man like Fred Thompson (who I know would believe as you do on a personal moral level if you sat at your kitchen table with him and talked with him) because he’s not “solid, strong pro-life candidate who believes it to his very soul” in your mind...I hope you’re happy when we continue to get invaded by terrorists...and our taxes go up. Hope you like Hillary’s national healthcare. Hope you like that.
He never said he wanted to keep abortion legal,
_______
You are right, but he did say this “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.”
If he does not want abortion criminalized, doesn’t that mean that it would be legal?
Hardly.
There’s a good reason to believe Fred will. There’s little reason to trust Rudy’s word on that.
There need be no Federal involvement WHATSOEVER in the areas they are not empowered to legislate, and FRed gets it right on this one.
Let the PEOPLE who retain THE RIGHTS to do so in the several States make their rightful decision as to what they want.
It is NOT the Federal Government's responsibility, and they (correctly) have NO POWER in the U.S. Constitution to do so, period.
Yes, they end up undermining what’s most important to them. What exactly do they think will happen under President Hillary?
I am ardently Prolife, but I also recognize the practicality of the situation we are in.
By your insulting statement of Dobson, I really really really have my doubts.
He did NOT say he “wants to keep abortion legal”; what he said was that the Federal Government has no business making laws that they are NOT empowered to do. It is the STATES and the PEOPLE in those States who should decide.
Buh-bye Fred
if you want small government you can have Ron Paul but don’t complain when islamic terrorists take over the world. or we are can be so cheap we won’t protect the border and let the illegals in. That is small government.
I believe in a government that protects life and liberty.
Yep. I could've been convinced into becoming a FredHead - until this....
It mimicks Guiliani's position far too closely for my comfort level.
(Not that my loss is going to be of any significant consequence to Fred either way.)
“Or he could have said: I will consider supporting an amendment if we can’t get Roe v. Wade overturned. That would have avoided a lot of problems.”
What he should have said, but he didn’t seek my wise counsel, was that him supporting such an amendment would have the same weigh as Tim Russert supporting or not supporting it. The president doesn’t get to vote on amendments to the constitution...
Since when has a Constitutional Amendment been deemed an assualt on the Constitution? Or Federalism?
Since Fred says so? I call BS on this fraud.
Well, he was all gung ho spinning his wheels and wasting time trying to amend the Constitution to tell states they must impose term limits on their congressman.
Fred is correct in his assessment. Abortion is NOT a federal issue. The constitution does not enforce criminal activity. That is a state issue not federal. He simply does not believe that the Federal government should take a stand financially or morally. This is moral issue not a federal issue. And if this is deemed criminal behavior, which I believe, then it will be enforced at the state level.
He is pro life. He is making the absolutely correct statement. brilliant
Fred Thompson is an infinitely better choice than Hillary Clinton - in fact, there is no comparison.
Roe v. Wade will be overturned, it will go back to the states, and eventually there will be a right to life amendment to the Constitution that puts an end to this legal genocide of innocent children - 40 million plus Americans dead and counting since 1973. It will take years to stop this mass murder but it WILL happen.
Let’s just have a look shall we at what the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary has to say about the heinous, murderous practice of abortion.
“ABORTION
The Bible places a high value on all human life, including that of the unborn. Biblical teaching declares that life is a sacred, God-given gift (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; Deut. 30:15-19; Job 1:21; Ps. 8:5; 1 Cor. 15:26), especially the life of children (Ps. 127:3-5; Luke 18:15-16), and condemns those who take it away (Exod. 20:13; 2 Kings 1:13; Amos 1:13-14). The development of unborn life is controlled by God (Job 31:15; Ps. 139:13-16; Eccles. 11:5; Isa. 44:2; 46:3; 49:5; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15; Gal. 1:15). The personhood of the fetus is clearly taught in Exod. 21:22 where the unborn is called a “child” (yeled) rather than a “fetus” (nephel or golem). Hos. 9:11 implies that life begins at conception, while Luke 1:41,44 recognizes the consciousness of an unborn child.
The high value placed on unborn human life in the Bible is consistent with the Mosaic law regarding negligent miscarriage (Exod. 21:22-25). This law can be compared to similar statutes in the Code of Hammurabi (nos. 209-214) in which the punishment exacted for acts of negligence that resulted in a woman’s miscarriage was dependent on the legal or social status of the mother, not the personhood (or supposed lack thereof) of her unborn child. Middle Assyrian law no. 53 (12th century b.c.) made a self-induced miscarriage (an abortion) a capital offense.”
It is also an assumption, on my behalf, that the press and supporters of other candidates, are purposely misstating his position.
I am aware of your choice for the nod and I am behind him 100%, but Fred is just as correct on this issue as is Hunter. People want to complain about the government becoming more and more invasive into personal freedoms but back-peddle when it some to certain issues. It is all or nothing and I refer them to stay out of it all so the law can be set by the voting public and not 9 people appointed by the useful idiots in the WH and rotunda.
It is a dream to think that an amendment would make it through Congress and the WH until they are all controlled by an overwhelming majority of conservatives, which will not happen anytime soon with the current voter apathy that resides in 50% of the public.
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.