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 ...
I consider myself a social conservative, as well as a fiscal conservative and a security conservative. I was CHEERED by Thompson’s remarks. I like a man who says he doesn’t dance to anyone’s tune and means it, even when he talking about the purer than thou wing of the Republican Party. For me, more than ever, Fred’s the MAN. And I know others who feel exactly the same way.I agree with you 100%. The forces lined up against Western Civilization and the American Way of life are huge and are both inside and outside our borders. The self-defined purists would have us sit in our homes, and sit on our hands, while our enemies tear apart what's left of our nation and our freedoms, all in the name of enforcing ideological purity on a single issue.
I never liked Novak and I liked him less after he caused that whole Plame nonsense and I like him even less now.
I don’t think it is so clear cut either way. but does that really matter? A law, even if passed by a slim majority, will still officially represent America. I think the partial abortion ban that was passed sends an important message.
Getting some actual federalism back would be worth letting the states decide the abortion question within their own borders.Which is why Fred is so consistent on this and many other issues. States should have the right to ban abortions, even the right to lock up 13 year old girls if a majority of voters believe that's the best way to enforce the law. But to make it a federal crime is to do what the leftists do: rule everyone in America from the on-high sanctuary of Washington DC. Fred's against that. So am I.
so you have no problem with allowing abortion in states that don’t do anything about it?
You're missing the point.
The point is, pro-lifers aren't looking to throw 13 year-old girls into prison either--and Fred, like Rudy, KNOWS it.
This is a classic strawman argument cynically used by the abortion industry and its minions to generate emotion and anger among voters.
The point is, Fred has adopted the phony-baloney fear mongering of the abortion industry to justify his do-nothing fence-straddling stance on abortion. He's hiding his true laissez-faire pro-abort intentions behind a federalism fig leaf--just LIKE Rudy.
The point cannot be stressed enough: for all intents and purposes, the stances of Fred and Rudy on abortion are indistinguishable.
What part of the concept of federalism are you having trouble comprehending? If I live in a state whose laws I don’t like (and I do), I try to change them. If I can’t and I find the situation intolerable, I can move to another state. But in most cases, and this is one of them, I’d rather the feds pick their noses than pick my state’s laws. It’s why I like Fred.
but fred has a pro-life record. that means he voted for federal laws against abortion. how could this be if he is 1) believes in federalism and 2) just like Rudy
but unborn babies can’t move to another state. they’ll just get killed
Federalism is not a fig leaf. Federalism is a concept born of the great minds that built our nation. Disregard for the concept of federalism is at the root of most evil in this country. An evil that many “conservatives” are willing to rush into just because they are 100% sure that their pet cause is more important than Hillary’s pet causes, or Obama’s pet causes, or the pet cause of the leftist lunatic homeless guy on the corner.
Everyone has pet causes. The Framers knew that. Hence: federalism.
Federalism pre-dated the pro-life movement and if our country survives it will be because federalism, in one form or another, manages to survive the onslaught of the various forms of Collectivism and Centralism that plague modern America.
That was a symbolic gesture, basically "throwing a bone" to the base. PBAs are a rarely-performed procedure, the vast majority of which happen when the pregnant woman experiences traumatic medical complications and her life is in danger. The myth of mobs of 8-month pregnant women rushing to Planned Parenthood because they were depressed over their inability to fit in their prom dresses was exactly that, a myth.
Most Americans will support some limitations on abortion, I'm not denying that. But if the question is simply, "Does a woman have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy?" the consensus in this country is yes.
Most Americans will support some limitations on abortion, I’m not denying that.
-
planned parenthood denies it. even rudy said he is in favor of a parental notification law
Change the law in your state. If you can’t do that, it means the majority doesn’t agree with you.
What Fred is saying (I think, I don’t know the guy, just going by what I’ve read and heard) is that we should go back to this dual concept:
1) legislatures make law, not judges
2) state legislatures make most law, not the US congress
It’s amazing that here on a conservative website, populated by people who I agree with most of the time, I have to spend my time explaining what is certainly the most fundamental bedrock concept of American freedom. I feel like I’m explaining basics to the readers of Salon or DU.
The people here should KNOW this stuff. Like the back of their hands.
Fred's "consistency" is that all fifty states should have the right to enshrine Roe v. Wade into law. Without leadership and a clear voice at the top--the presidency--that is more of a possibility than the alternative that you describe.
Fred is completely unwilling to offer leadership on this point. As general, he wants to abandon the field of battle and allow the fractured individual battalions to be overwhelmed one-by-one by the enemy.
Abortion, like slavery, is too important an evil to ignore at the federal level.
I am 100% sure that my ‘pet cause’ is more important than Hillary’s. I’m not a moral relativist.
federalism is an important concept but we’re not just talking about a pet cause here and I think it is moral equivalence to try to compare to one of Hillary’s nutty ideas.
we’re talking about lots of babies getting killed.
Now if every state wanted to do something about abortion then I would absolutely agree: there is no need for a federal law. But since this is not the case, we have to treat abortion the same way we treated slavery
But if the question is simply, "Does a woman have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy?" the consensus in this country is yes.Yes in some states, no in others. And that's where it should be decided (after Roe V Wade is overturned): at the state level.
I would bet that after Roe V Wade is overturned (and I look for that to happen if a Republican wins in '08), initially only a few states will outlaw abortion. Over time, over a long time, and according to the skill and civility of those pushing changes in the law, other states will than follow. I doubt, however, that a majority of Americans will ever live in states where abortion is completely illegal. The west coast, the northeast and some other blue states will probably never pass the laws that some people want. But that doesn't stop anyone who lives in any of those states from trying.
So you’re saying that if the voters in California (for example) pass a law saying that abortion shall be legal in their state, and that they pass the law by a margin of 70%-30%, that you would advocate what? Federal marshals coming in and doing what? What exactly do you envision happening? And do you really, in a million years, imagine a president of any party (and I’m not talking lunatic fringe here, I’m talking about those with at least a 1% chance of being elected) would actually do whatever it is you imagine (in your wildest dreams) the federal government doing in the scenario I just proposed?
And, by the way, nobody thinks his or her pet cause is a pet cause. Every pet cause is considered holy writ by the holder of the pet cause.
So yes, by that definition, pro-abortion and gay-rights are both pet causes. They are both single issues held by people with strong emotional feelings towards that single issue, to the exclusion of everything else, including the logic and framework of the Constitution of the United States.
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.