Posted on 11/08/2007 12:00:05 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON -- Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion with interviewer Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday when he said something stunning for social conservatives: "I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors." He then went further: "You can't have a (federal) law" that "would take young, young girls ... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail."
Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country reflecting astonishment and rage by pro-life Republicans who had turned to Thompson as their best presidential bet for 2008. No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists. What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL.
Thompson's comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite Thompson's record favoring state's rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out what he said or planned it, it reflects failure to realize how much his chances for the presidential nomination depend on social conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
You sound like you are quoting Planned Parenthood brochures. During the debate over the PBA ban, it came to light that almost NONE of these procedures were based on serious risk to the physical health or life of the mother.
Yes. For a couple days while the gallows are built.
Since we got infiltrated.
Free markets, except where you disagree with the market, I guess.
One of the downfalls of the left is that they want to violate federalism for everything. One of the strengths of the right used to be that they want to uphold federalism.
Slavery was a little different - because that state issue was tearing apart the union. Slavery was abrogated on the federal level because to not deal with it at the fed level meant not preserving the union. If abortion rises to that same precipice, then it should be a federal issue.
Relying on the government, at any level, to be a moral arbiter is a very dangerous thing, IMO.
Let's try that same thinking by stating it like this:
Me three. Getting some actual federalism back would be worth letting the states decide the slavery question within their own borders.Does that work for you too?
Since you apparently didn't watch the interview or read the transcript here it is.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.
MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.
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. RUSSERT: You would not?
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.
MR. RUSSERT: I went back—we went back to your papers at the University of Tennessee and read through them. This is what you said back in 1994 as a candidate. Here’s the first one: “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I’m not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.”
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: So you yourself don’t know when life begins.
MR. THOMPSON: No. I didn’t know then.
MR. RUSSERT: You know now?
MR. THOMPSON: I, I, I—my head has always been the same place. My public position has always been the same. I’ve been 100 percent pro-life in every vote that I’ve ever cast in, in my service to the United States Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you say that you’re for states having...
MR. THOMPSON: Well, no...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me finish, because this is important. You’re for allowing states to have pro-abortion rights, and you yourself, and I have 10 different statements from you, say that you would not ban abortion, it’s a woman’s right, and you would not ban it in the first trimester.
MR. THOMPSON: No, no. Well, you just said two different things here. You know, it’s a complex issue concerning whether or not you’re going to have a federal law, whether or not you’re going to have a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody’s proposed a federal law on this. Nobody’s recently proposed a, a federal constitutional amendment. I, I, I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial birth abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and all that--100 percent pro-life.
But let me finish on my point, and, and, and my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion. When I saw—and again, all consistent with what I’ve said. I—people ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states. 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. I said those things are going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people. I’m probably a pretty good example of that. Although my, my, my head and my legislative record’s always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now four-year-old, it’s, it’s, it’s changed my heart. It’s changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when, when, when I, when I saw that. And I knew that, and I felt that. And that’s the way I feel today. And I think life begins at conception. I always—it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way. One of the, one of the maybe few advantages you have by getting a little bit older.
MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.
MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?
MR. THOMPSON: 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.
Thanks. He really did say that. That’s not going to help him much, is it...
Make that... two.
Is this Intrade stuff like gambling? This is like the equivelant of betting on horses no?
When abortion does indeed becmome illegal, then we damn well should, they are then breaking the law.
We have to get there first...
Fred didn’t do himself any favors with most pro-life voters with these remarks.
The Democrats, on the other hand, will not. Support the GOP nominee.
That doesn't freak me out either -- we put the doctors performing abortions in jail - just like we used to do.
How close are we to a Right to Life amendment again?
We need to attack on all fronts.
TJ...give it up.
This is about your 87th post on this non-story in three days.
Chill out, have a beer, relax.
So?
In August and Sept. he was in the 30s.
So was Intrade right then or is it right now? What about a month from now? Intrade is volatile by its very nature.
So? There will be more progress towards eliminating abortion under Fred than under any nonelectable but “perfect” candidate. And definitely better than Rudy or probably Romney as well.
BTW his pro-life voting record ought to mean something...
See my tagline. It applies very well to Huckabee and a lot of other so-called conservatives too.
(Not saying you’re a Huck supporter...but he was the inspiration for my tagline)
That doesn't freak me out either -- we put the doctors performing abortions in jail - just like we used to do.
You’d support throwing a 16 year old girl in jail?
The doctors?
Sure...after Roe v. Wade is repealed and in states that outlaw it after that, yeah.
I am not cheered by a man who is falling in the polls because he doesn’t undertand that the GOP cannot win without the “purer than thou wing”
Your comment shows your ignorance of both them and Fred.
What is so hard for you anti-Christians to understand about this? If a person believes with all of their being that abortion is murder, and will not vote for someone who supports abortion (meaning that THEY say exactly what they mean and mean what they say...something you claim to admire....they don’t dance to anyone’s tune on this matter), it is called CONVICTION...but you confuse it with a false assertion that they claim the purer than you.
No such claim is made...but they will stay true to the conscience...and if the GOP drops the pro-life platform..you will NEVER see a GOP president again.
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.