Posted on 11/05/2007 8:52:54 AM PST by Reagan Man
This week-end, Fred Thompson did Meet the Press and unlike Hillary, he bore up well under Russert's questioning. However, there was one thing that Thompson said that raised a few eyebrows. Here's the passage in question,
MR. RUSSERT: This 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?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
...
MR. THOMPSON: No. 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...
MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. 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.
Two things.
#1) Unfortunately, a lot of people who are serious about Federalism tend to oppose very reasonable Constitutional Amendments because they think it will take power away from the states. Although it's a very common argument, I've never thought it held any water. After all, 38 states have to approve for a Constitutional Amendment to become law, so it's not as if the states aren't being fairly represented in the process.
#2) Anyone who has ever read RWN knows that I am adamantly pro-life. It's a very big issue for me and I have to admit that I would not mind seeing a Constitutional Amendment passed that banned abortion except in the case of the mother's life being endangered.
However, as I've written before, that's simply not going to happen,
...Republicans can't ban abortion outright because of Roe v. Wade. We could try for a constitutional amendment to get around that, but it would be futile, because they couldn't get enough support for it. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned (and we'd need to replace at least one more judge after Alito gets on the court to do it), we're stuck.
That's why I don't find Thompson's position on this issue to be troubling. To the contrary, it's actually a little reassuring in a roundabout way (Pay close attention to this next paragraph or you'll get confused).
Let me tell you why: since we can't get a constitutional ban on abortion passed, we lose nothing if Thompson gets elected and doesn't support it. That being said, it would have been politically advantageous for him, with social conservatives, to say that he supports the Amendment. The fact that he isn't supporting it is another strong indication that he means what he says about Federalism. That's great news for people who are pro-life, because it means he will likely keep his promise to appoint an originalist judge who respects the Federalist principles in the Constitution and any such judge would certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Granted, if Thompson said he supported the Constitutional Amendment, it would also be another indicator he was going to appoint a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade, but still -- any candidate who really believes in Federalism will move the ball forward for those of us who are conservatives -- and not just on pro-life issues.
Good article. Thanks.
All the Hunterites are beating up on Thompson on pissant’s thread about this. They’re getting about as mouthy as the Ron Paul critters.
I’m with Thompson on this one. I don’t want to ban abortion as much as to make it and thousands of other issues, as they properly are, state issues.
Poor Fred.
I agree with that. Our federal government has never been provided the privilege to legislate abortion issues. Nor have they been provided the thousands of other privileges they exercise with each piece of new unconstitutional legislation.
This is one issue is actually disagree with Fred on, but not for Pro-Life reasons:
The affording of rights of citizenship is reserved for the Federal government. To declare a fetus protected the same as a “born” individual means to afford it the right of citizenship.
I maintain that the abortion issue’s resolution SHOULD NOT BE solely centered around personal freedom or religious convictions, it is the decision resides with CONGRESS.
So much for the idea that Thompson was the answer for true Conservatives.
it would appear you are in the minority...you actually understand how this govenment is supposed to function..
You're saying that Hawkins is correct on opposition to the Human Life Amendment.
Personally, I think that I'll go with Ronald Reagan's support for the Human Life Amendment before I go with something some apologist for Thompson has to say to try to soften Thompson's opposition to the pro-life plank of the Republican Party Platform:
"Well now, we come to a family issue that we must have the courage to confront. Tonight, I call America – a good nation, a moral people – to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman's right to control of her own body – can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all federal funding for abortion – and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense." - Ronald Reagan, January 25, 1988
You know pissant, people like this poster, and Paperdoll, really do Hunter a disservice. All I did was respond to Paperdoll nicely and she comes back on me, calling me childish. She also claims we're comparable to Pelosi/Reid. Then there's the above.
If you Hunter fans want honest discourse, you're not getting any help from these two. If anyone's acting like Paulettes, it's them.
Me too. Criminal law is the purview of the States. One of the movements most dangerous to our freedom is the creation of a parallel Federal criminal code.
Congress’ legitimate powers are enumerated in Article I, Section 8. The ratification conferences specifically told the states that the federal gov would have NO OTHER POWERS.
Abortion isn’t listed, so Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction, and neither does the USSC.
Why? Because he’s correct about the issue?
Why complain to me? I battle politely with those who are polite and battle bare knuckles with those who prefer that method. I’m comfortable with either, though I prefer the former.
Not complaining, just pointing out. I sent Paperdoll her notice, didn't I?
But my point is, Hunter fans seem to be getting far more combative than ever. What's wrong? There was a time when we could discourse without it getting out of hand. That time seems past. Not sure why, but I haven't seen it come from our end.
And, as one of the more open and operative Hunter supporters, I just thought you should know one person's observation.
Rights aren’t really decided on a whim, or in Congress. They are individual, and inherent to all humans. We happen to live in a country that acknowledges these individual, inherent rights. But to have them acknowledged, you must be a citizen of this country. To be a citizen, you must first be born into this country.
IMO, all of our individual, inherent rights are derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, fundamentally, our own bodies. We either own our own bodies, or we rent them from the state.
But I will agree that we no longer have an acknowledged, individual, inherent right to own our own bodies. There are countless pieces of legislation that supports that assertion.
So since precedence shows we do not truly own our own bodies, and that we rent them from the state, then the state does have the privilege to legislate any property rights issues, including the property which is your body.
That being the case, there would really be no Constitutional amendment needed. Congress just passes a law that prohibits abortion across the board. Because the federal government does indeed own our bodies. If the federal government doesn’t own our bodies, then there is alot of legislation that needs overturned. But since the federal government does own our own bodies, then it’s up to them.
Please name an individual, inherent right which is not derived from our individual, inherent right to own property, fundamentally, our own bodies.
I know it sucks that anyone would even ever consider an abortion. It really, truly does. But legislating against that cuts at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to our rights. If you have to choose between losing all of your rights, just to put those abortionists in jail, or not, would you really give up all of your rights ?
Because that’s exactly what that does. It pushes us in the opposite direction. It further strengthens the state’s view that they own our bodies. Which they don’t. That’s why America exists. Because our forefathers realized that without property rights, there are no other rights.
Again, it’s sad and disgusting that one would ever choose abortion. It’s horrible that Planned Parenthood is now having record profits. But if you don’t own your body, then you have no gun rights either. Right ? If you can’t own yourself, then you don’t get any rights, as who would they go to ? The rights you would think you have, would be forwarded up the chain to the state.
Not just abortion, but every single political issue that exists today. If you are against hypocrisy, and the Democrat’s notion that whatever sounds good at the time is good, then you should seriously consider if your opinions are aligned properly. It makes sense to start with the self, i.e., that first and foremost we have an individual, inherent right to own our own minds and bodies. Then, other rights can be derived from that. When thinking of any issue, first go back to the top of the hierarchy, and check yourself. This does go against the mentality of “freedom is only freedom for things I agree with”, but that’s not really freedom at all, is it ?
I believe Fred's voting record speaks strongly for his pro-life position. Those who try to discredit him by misrepresenting his statements may be acting out of desperation, but they still shame themselves and their candidate.
People have been complaining about Hunter supporters, Romney supporters, Rudy supporters, Fred supporters, Paul supporters, etc since the primary first started moving. Nature of the beast.
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.