Yes, but Fred seems to say that he does NOT want abortion to be illegal at the federal OR state level.
Isn't that what this says? That Fred WANTS ABORTION TO REMAIN LEGAL at both the federal AND state level?
Someone either give me an alternate interpretation of Fred's words, or tell me how this is consistent with being pro-life at all:
"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."
That is what read from this.
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.
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.