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 ...
Where is Slick Willard’s call for criminalization of abortion? Where is the link to his statement that women, even teenage girls, who have an abortion must be imprisoned?
With all this indignation, that call from Willard is essential.
BINGO! Great point, Petronski!
What is your scenario for outlawing abortion at the federal level? How do you see that unfolding?
And you sir are ignorant of the history of the Republican Party and as well as the political history of the Unties States.
Politics is the art of the possible, not the pursuit of the impossible dream. Dreamers like you are nice to have around; just don’t try to keep us from succeeding in the real world.
And, incidentally, I am NOT anti-Christian, and such a slur is not only insulting, it is ignorant. And if any good does come out of the present election cycle, i.e. leveling a setback to the socialist takeover of the United States, it will be no thanks to you. You are counterproductive.
It’s straight out of Novak’s article about which this entire thread is discussing.
It figures.
The Prince of Darkness hates Fred. It’s a vendetta and it reads like one.
Dude, dude, dude! Whoa. I’m with you on this issue, your previous post just made me stop to think that even federal kidnapping and bank robbery statutes might be a similar overreach. I thought my post was clear on that.
~Fred Thompson on Abortion~
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science. (Jun 2007)
Appoint strict constructionist judges. (Jun 2007)
Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Your Fred could have said qoute actually is the Fred Thompson position, as far as I understand it. But you won’t find it expressed that way in one compact sound bite.
National Right to Life Praises Thompson’s voting record
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1922280/posts?page=25
Excerpt:
The head of National Right to life says he’s not troubled by Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s opposition to federal legislation ending abortion, and therefore right-to-life activists across the U.S. should not be troubled as well.
The former Tennessee senator has drawn the consternation of some, but not all pro-life activists after saying that even though he believes life begins at conception, he would not support a federal constitutional amendment banning abortions. Thompson stated Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press: “I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with.” Earlier, the founder and president of the Texas-based pro-life group Life Dynamics said the GOP presidential candidate’s comments indicate that he is a “pro-life pretender.” In contrast, David Osteen, director of National Right to Life, says he does not have a problem with Thompson’s stance because a human life amendment has been a “long-term” goal of the pro-life movement.
“You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate,” says Osteen. “You’d have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitutional], so it’s not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term — and of course, the president doesn’t have a vote.”
Whoops, sorry. I did read too quickly. I’m at work now and can’t spend as much time on this as I could earlier this morning.
On bank robbery, I would rather the federal insurance remains on bank accounts, so I can’t see how it’s not a federal crime to rob a bank in that case. You are stealing directly from the federal government.
On kidnapping, if you made it state jurisdiction you would be encouraging kidnappers to always cross state lines with their victims, to avoid apprehension.
So I think we’re stuck with those being federally enforced.
It’s already a crime to falsely imprison someone, and most states would extradite for the original kidnapping charge as well, so running across state lines shouldn’t shield kidnappers from arrest. I guess I wouldn’t mind a federal force doing the chasing for logistical and coordination reasons, as long as their empowerment came from the states.
As for deposit guarantees, I’m not sure what I think about them as a practical matter or from a Constitutional perspective. I’ll have to give it some thought. I guess the safety of funds encourages interstate trade, so it might actually be ONE place the commerce clause might properly apply.
Perhaps somebody can tell me which candidate DOES advocate murder charges and jail time for those who have had abortions.
In any event, I’m not a revolutionary. I don’t want to raze the system and start building from scratch. What I would like to do is take this one issue, abortion, move it out of federal purview and hand it back to the states.
I think there’s a lot of good solid constitutional basis for doing that and I think Fred Thompson is the person to make it happen.
When I asked that question directly, our resident Willardians up and disappeared.
Shocking! /sarc
I'm not necessarily one either. I like to discuss theory, but I can make decisions in pragmatic mode as well.
I don't want to raze the system and start building from scratch.
If I could restore the goverment of the Founders' vision tomorrow (and I don't think they viewed slavery as a desirable end), I would. I think we'd all be a lot better off. Even liberals, in some respects.
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.