From 1970 to 2005 Massachusetts Mitt supported the liberal position on abortion. For 35 years Romney publicly supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land and believed abortion on demand was a woman's Constitutional right.
In 2005 Romney decided to run for POTUS in the next general election cycle. Romney realized his pro-Roe/pro-choice position would be a problem. So he told the world he had a political epiphany and was now pro-life. How convenient. Sounds more like Mitt decided to engage in some political expediency that would paper over his long time pro-abortion position.
Fred Thompson`s position has always been consistent and in line with his support for federalism. Fred's always been a pro-life conservative. He's always opposed Roe v Wade and abortion on demand. Fred wants to see RvW overturned and the issue sent back to the purview of the states. Where is resided for 200 years. Fred also believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life.
Btw, John Hawkins is a Duncan Hunter supporter and worked for several months on the Hunter campaign. Hawkins also wrote that fine article on Rudy Giuliani from August 2006, The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani. Hawkins is a good conservative and his right about this issue.
Oh...well that explains why he voted FOR a federal law banning Partial Birth Abortion and now is against a federal amendment which would affect the legality of abortion - because he is "consistent" in his federalism stance.
Hmmm...I wonder where Thompson would have stood on the issue of slavery. Should that be decided on a state-by-state basis? If it is OK for some states to allow the slaughter of one class of human life (those that have yet to be born) then it would stand to reason that it would also be OK for them to allow the enslavement of one class of human life too. Right?
Let's stretch that logic to extremes, shall we? Under your definition of "federalism" (and Thompson's and Hawkins') then it would be OK, on a state-by-state basis, for those unwanted human lives to instead of being aborted, to be enslaved after they are born. You've defined a class of human life to not be protected by laws protecting life, freedom, etc. Why not pay the mothers for their unwanted children and then enslave the children after they are born - on a state-by-state basis, of course? Would that be OK with you, Thompson, and Hawkins to allow to be implemented state-by-state?