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.
The courts are also what gave us Roe.
All three times they tried to kill her, including the last time when they succeeded.
No he did not. Read the transcript.
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Senator Fred Thompson is our guest.
Virginia Tech, last April 32 killed, terrible tragedy. You had a radio report back at that time, and I’d like to share it with you and our viewers. “Virginia Tech,” the “administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon,” on the “campus. Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. Whenever I’ve seen one of those ‘Gun-free zone’ signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at.”
My sense in reading that is that you would be in favor of licensed citizens of Virginia, students, including students, to carry concealed weapons on a college campus.
MR. THOMPSON: It would have to be consistent with campus rules. I don’t think that all students need to be carrying weapons on the school campus. What I would, I would feel more comfortable with, if a child of mine was on campus, when I read about these people, 30 people or so being lined up and systematically killed without anybody apparently around to do anything about it, I think some, some thought really needs to be given as to who should be properly qualified and permitted and, and armed on campuses and other places where large people gather. But...
MR. RUSSERT: But you would, you would allow a campus to bar their students from carrying concealed weapons?
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, it, it would have to be consistent with state law and, and, and school rules. And different schools would have, you know, the, the freedom to, to have their own rules as, as, as they see fit.
Here’s what Duncan Hunter said at the very first Republican debate:
“MR. MATTHEWS: Okay. Congressman, Bill Clinton back home.
REP. HUNTER: You know, Bill Clinton cut the U.S. Army by almost 50 percent. In this war against terror, he’s the wrong guy to have in there.
==>And incidentally, on the Schiavo case, you know Ronald Reagan said on the question of life, when there’s a question, error on the side of life. I think Congress did the right thing.”
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=5562636
Duncan Hunter could have just ignored the question about Terri, because he wasn’t asked about it, but he proudly showed the country that he supported Congress decision to help Terri, even though he had to add it while answering an entirely different question.
Not all people supported Terri, either because of ignorance, or they are actually antilife, but Hunter didn’t care.
The part I’m refering to is at the end of that transcript:
Russert: “But you would, you would allow a campus to bar their students from carrying concealed weapons?”
Thompson: “Yeah, it, it would have to be consistent with state law and, and, and school rules.”
He didn’t “support” it in the sense of advocating for it, but he did say “yes” in response to “you would allow a campus to bar their students from carrying concealed weapons”.
So it sound like he doesn’t think students have a 2nd amendment right to carry weapons for protection at a public school, because he says that if he supports allowing the state to pass a law barring it, or the college having a rule against it.
That’s what it looks like to me. What is the alternate explanation for what he said? It sounds like he is saying federalism includes allowing states to pass laws barring gun owners from carrying weapons.
That's the point I was trying to make.
It sounds like he is saying federalism includes allowing states to pass laws barring gun owners from carrying weapons.
As the law stands now, it does.
Yes, there are laws now which state this. The strong 2nd-amendment supporters think those laws are unconstitutional. Are they? I guess we’ll find out if the SC takes the DC case, where the appeals court found the DC law was unconstitutional.
I think if the state trusts someone to grant them a concealed carry permit, they shouldn’t then say those same people are not to be trusted if they are hanging around a large group of students.
If the guns are a danger to the students, why aren’t they a danger to me in a movie theater, or at the park, or in a shopping mall?
What is so special about schools that people who otherwise are trusted to carry guns can’t be trusted in schools?
I think we’re in complete agreement on post 67.
You’ve been given the direct transcript. Fred did NOT say what you keep insisting he did.
Pitiful that you would continue to spread lies about Fred because you support another candidate.
Visitors: we have chronicled this connection from the start here on the Terri Dailies threads as we saw from the start what others including Fred did not understand back then. We knew the MSM would attach to the Terri Legacy and just not let it go, and the Fred and Terri tar baby dailies were born to record this tie as it repeated most every day since.
Pinged from Terri Dailies
8mm
It was a fluke that I had Meet the Press on, I decided to watch and I saw and heard what was on my tv. That doesn't make me a liar. IMO, it's Fred's one liners that get him in hot water. Outside of that, I've never particularly dwelled on Fred Thompson.
By piling on me, it's just drawing attention to my assertions. My assertions regard the suppression of political dialogue.
We should all widen our horizons and not fear dialogue. I am for Duncan Hunter but I'm not running around doing threads about him or posting about him. If he says something I don't agree with, I'm sure I'd be questioning that.
I hope the new mantra isn't "If it's not on the internet, it can't be true". We seem to be there at this point.
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.