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 ...
he was a federalist. Let the people rule! right? we should let states allow slavery?
You did not answer my question about Roe V Wade, and instead want to talk about slavery.
Am I right, or am I wrong, when I say that overturning Roe V Wade is a necessary first step in any change in any law regarding abortion in America.
Agree? Not agree?
Sigh.
All I can say with assurance is that I know who I am NOT going to vote for in the primary (Giuliani, Paul, McLame)... and that’s about it.
Tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Would you take the abolition of abortion if no one got on their high horse to proclaim it morally wrong? Would you take the abolition of abortion if the Supreme Court didn't rule on its sinfulness but just said "Hey, its not constitutionally protected" and would you accept it if afterward 30 of the 50 states banned it?I guess I've been typing in Spanish or Russian. I'm going to try again:
I want Roe V Wade overturned.
I want the issue to go back to the states.
I would vote for pro-life measures in my state.
I would vote for a pro-life constitutional amendment, by voting in my state for state officials who would vote for that amendment in the state legislature.
I want this to be handled constitutionally, by state legislatures.
This message comes to you in the English language. Please to not mis-translate.
I think we are on the same side here and I don’t think I sent that post to you. No problem.
Do you consider all federal law to be basically unconstitutional?
yes I agree it’s a first step to major change. But there are other things we can do even at the federal level to reduce abortion...I don’t see why we should be opposed to such efforts if we can save more lives faster that way
normy, I’m from NY so I don’t think anything will happen to abortion here unless the feds somehow get involved. I can try to do my part (beating Rudy in the NY primaries is the mother of long shots) but I’m really counting on all the red states.
The point is that throwing those who have or perform abortions in jail is exactly the purpose and likely effect of the human life amendment which is why that amendment is such a bad idea. It would lead to bad results, results nobody should want to see. That’s what Thompson said, very clearly, on MTP. Anyone who finds his point upsetting is a fool.
If the unborn had the full protection of persons under the 14th Amendment, equal protection would require that killing them be treated as intentional homicide, in other words as a serious crime. We send people to jail for serious crimes. No distinction between abortionists and the women who pay them would be sustainable. You couldn’t punish the former and not the latter any more than you could punish the hit man but not the Mafia Don who hired him.
Sometimes I despair of the pro-life movement. Victory is close at hand, but many pro-lifers seem too childish to grasp it.
Do you consider all federal law to be basically unconstitutional?No. But I would consider a federal law against murder, enforced by the FBI, to be unconstitutional. And unnecessary. Every state outlaws murder.
Bank robbery, kidnapping, those are special cases that involve federal insurance of funds and crossing of interstate lines that have called for federal laws.
In this case, the first step, is to return the issue to the states. We have much more chance of outlawing abortion in a few states at first and more later and maybe even a constitutional amendment later, than we do of getting a federal law against abortion now.
I'll say this, even if it gets me banned from FR: anyone who honestly believes that there is any chance of a full-fledged federal law banning all abortions, anytime in the next 20 years, is stupid. Just plain stupid. I'm sorry. If you really think that's going to happen, you are stupid.
And if you're willing to ignore all other issues to the exclusion of pushing this single 100% impossibility, then I say again: You Are Stupid.
And FreePoster, this is not directed to you personally. I am using the general "you" referring to anyone who believes that there is any chance at all, in this generation, of passing a major, all-inclusive law at the federal level banning all abortions.
Huckabee is a phony. Mitt was pro choice. No one likes McCain and Hunter can't get traction.
I have never been a Fred Head but I am really starting to lean his way.
Do you consider all federal law to be basically unconstitutional?Anyway, I'm not talking about "unconstitutional" in the sense I want the supreme court to step in and take over.
I'm arguing for a different approach to government. The approach Fred advocates.
Returning as much as possible to the states.
Do you consider all federal law to be basically unconstitutional?I want less activism from the federal bench, not more activism. You seem to be interpreting my remarks the other way. I am not in favor of the supreme court looking over the shoulder of the US congress on every law they pass. But I do want Roe V Wade, as an expression of the federal judge activism that I hate, to be overturned.
I think it is a serious crime. But anyway, we don’t have a one-size-fits-all punishment for homicides as it is.
If the unborn had the full protection of persons under the 14th Amendment, equal protection would require that killing them be treated as intentional homicide, in other words as a serious crime. We send people to jail for serious crimes. No distinction between abortionists and the women who pay them would be sustainable. You couldn’t punish the former and not the latter any more than you could punish the hit man but not the Mafia Don who hired him.They will only vote for someone who will advocate the impossible. They demand that the first step be one that is not going to be taken in this country.Sometimes I despair of the pro-life movement. Victory is close at hand, but many pro-lifers seem too childish to grasp it.
Rather than looking at the big picture, and the overturning of Roe V Wade as the important first step in that big picture, they'd rather hold their breath and demand instant gratification.
it’s a complicated decision because Rudy will win NY anyway and winner takes all. if that’s the case I should vote for Hunter to send a clear voice of conscience. but if I was in Iowa and I had to be a bit more pragmatic...it’s really between Fred and Mitt. It really depends on how much you trust Romney. I think I’ll let the voters there make that decision.
Most true conservatives were. Novak is not our friend. He's the msm's pet conservative, reliable for putting down conservatism when it counts.
Notice his supine attitude during the plame/blame/game. W/ conservatives like him we'll be out in the wilderness for another generation.
Not only that but he's usually wrong w/ his "sage" advice. Like this point he is 180 degrees out of phase.
Fred is exactly right. The females having these abortions are just about as much victims as the fetuses. The people to focus on are the abortion providers--not EITHER of the victims.
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.