Posted on 11/19/2007 1:08:36 PM PST by Tlaloc
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Fred Thompson set forth a more clear picture of his views on assisted suicide and euthanasia in a Sunday interview on ABC News. He said he would have supported Terri Schiavo's parents in their efforts to prevent their daughter's euthanasia death and he said courts should err on the side of life. Thompson said the motives behind the actions Terri's former husband took to subject her to a 13-day starvation and dehydration death were "suspect" and he said he would have backed the Schindlers' efforts to save her life.
"From what I know about the facts, or recall about it, I would side with the parents in, you know, keeping that child alive," Thompson said.
"Based on the notion that I can't imagine a parent or a spouse or a doctor deciding anything -- if there's any question that this person might live," he added.
His comments are a more pro-life presentation of his end-of-life views and could help him regain his footing with pro-life voters upset by earlier statements.
In an interview with "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the former Tennessee senator said that both courts and families should seek the protection of human life if there is any chance a patient might live.
Thompson said courts should only come into play if families can't come to an agreement about the care of a patient who can't make their own medical decisions.
"People have a right to make the laws in their own state to resolve these issues if families can't get together," he said. "If doctors and families can't stand at that bedside and make a decision, which, as I say, I hope would be always in favor of life if there is a chance for life -- if there is a chance for life. And if that can't be resolved, then it should go to the state court mechanism."
Thompson, an attorney and well-known actor, restated his opposition to a bill in Congress to allow the Schindler family to take their case to federal courts.
But, he said he supported actions in the state legislature to make sure that patients like Terri receive food and water as well as appropriate medical care.
"If the families can't get together, the first recourse needs to be the state government," he said.
"Congress took an extra step, said, 'We want you to have a federal hearing also.' The federal court, as I recall, came to the same conclusion the state court did. The point is, it is a family matter -- ought to be a family matter," he added.
That’s the FRed I expected!!!
I think he’s really starting to roll now.
An amendment just simply would not happen now, and abortion would continue as it is if you focused everthing on that route.
This way gets it done, and shows more immediate life saving:
1) Overturn RvW - some states quickly restrict/outlaw abortion. (less abortions instead of the same number, eh?)
2) Work state to state to get the restrictions & prohibitions.
3) When you get 3/4, go for the amendment.
This is Fred’s plan. I don’t really give a rip about a flag burning amendment.
He’s got his FRed On!!
Go Fred!
In the senate, Thompson voted repeatedly for federal restrictions on abortion, so he's obviously not a pure states' power guy on this issue.
I don't think it's correct to say that because Thompson supports a Constitutional amendment for issue A, but not for issue B, it follows that Thompson believes issue A is more important.
Federal balanced budgets and protection of the federal symbol of course reside at the federal level (Thompson *did not* introduce Constitutional amendments to ban the burning of state flags, or require the balancing of state budgets). Although most crime issues (including murder) do reside at the state level, life is an inalienable right and ultimately deserves federal protection.
However, when the country is too divided to agree on something on a federal level, it's appropriate to send it back to the states and then build from there. An amendment will be approved or not at the state level -- so either way, the states will decide.
Georgia is trying to do it right now even without waiting for Roe to be repealed.
Neither did a lot of people, why did Fred sponsor it then, compared with his other "federalist" ideas?
As to whether or not a constitutional amendment is viable "at this time" is really irrelevant. Why does Fred feel the need to poke his finger in the eye of those who do want it and have stood for it for more than 25 years?
Either he wants to pick a fight with those people and let the "mods" know that he's really on their side, or he's been listening to some bad reporting that social conservatives need to be shown the door in the Republican Party.
Either way, not at all politically savy for a savy guy.
While Fred is my man, I don’t think the government should be involved in this. I don’t have a problem with someone wanting to assume responsibility for this, but, the first and only government dollar should be to pull the plug.
Because it's what they live for. They're pro death, pro euthanasia, pro abortion, pro porn, pro sodomy, pro lowering the age of consent, pro drugs, pro swearing, pro filth in movies -- everything that is sordid and ugly in life, they are for.
Where did you get the idea that Libs were compassionate towards human beings? Libs are only compassionate towards non-human life, such as trees, fish, wildlife, etc.
They claim to be “compassionate” (with other people’s money, of course).
You have a big list there, but it can be summed up as supporting the destruction of everything traditional in our society,
with the goal of replacing those traditional values with their own authoritarian utopia.
Because they want a law that says “kill at will”. You know, kill all the people that are disabled, old, etc.
It doesn’t surprise me since they do not seem to value life.
I think it was because of his own daughter who actually may have been brain dead.
I’m glad he read up on it finally.
If only I could get Stephanopoulos, for one, to watch the videos of Terri, and then ask him, “Is that ‘brain dead?’ “
He (Steph.) did look so very insistent when he said it. Clearly thought it was right to starve her to death. People like Terri are nothings to liberals. Non-persons. Unworthy to remain unburied.
And liberals are such lovers of mankind. Great-hearted, mercy-minded humanitarians all. Phooey.
So, the pressure’s getting to Fred. I wish he would meet with the Schindlers in St. Pete before the cnn debate. He was for pulling Terri’s feeding tube on November 4, 2007. Hopefully, they looked at the links I sent them. If so, they know who all the crooks are... It’s the next Terri we are looking out for now. Anyway, he’s a flip flopper. I am still for Duncan Hunter who has never flip flopped on civil rights.
Thompson said "courts should only come into play if families can't come to an agreement about the care of a patient who can't make their own medical decisions."
COURTS SHOULD ONLY COME INTO PLAY. Well, courts did come into play and they killed Terri. Fred is still for the courts, whether they be corrupt or not????? Terri next will die too. (I got a phone call on that particular statement above. So, Judge Greer can kill again. Fred's giving it to the courts. He's deferring instead of protecting the people.
www.judgegeorgegreer.com
Fred would NOT HAVE rescued Terri. He’d be like a Jeb or a W who did not save Terri. This article is pure deception. If he won’t do better than Jeb or W, forget him. The National Right to Lifers try to rehab him. He’s as bad as the Bushes. Supporting Terri’s family didn’t help her one bit. She needed the FDLE and the Coast Guard which were BOTH CANCELLED. Thanks, Jeb and Alberto G. Fred would not save anybody. He’s just jibber jabbering to get votes.
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.