Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brody File Exclusive: Fred Thompson Abortion Questionnaire
CBN News ^ | June 14, 2007 | David Brody

Posted on 06/17/2007 9:14:40 PM PDT by monomaniac

The Brody File has in its' possession a Tennesseans for Choice questionnaire filled out by Fred Thompson. It was provided to The Brody File by a rival campaign. In it, he answers "no" when asked if he favors criminalizing abortion. This form was filled out by Thompson around 1996 though the exact date is unknown.

I know there are other questionnaires out there which Thompson filled out and which have already been reported. But this one is new.

Here's a key part:

Question: Please summarize your personal philosophy on the issue of reproductive choice

Thompson: The Supreme Court has attempted to delineate the constitutionally appropriate roles for individual and governmental decision-making on the issue of abortion. Beyond that, I believe that the federal government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area

I would make an exception to this general rule of governmental non-interference in a very limited number of cases where government has a compelling interest in promoting the public welfare. For instance, I believe that states should be allowed to impose various restrictions if they so choose.

Click here

( http://www.cbn.com/images4/cbnnews/blogs/TennesseansForChoiceQuestionnaire.pdf )

to view the whole questionnaire in Adobe Acrobat format.

The person from the rival campaign who furnished the document told me, "It's notable that in the entire questionnaire he never once says he's pro-life or says what he thinks about Roe."

It's an interesting point. Fred Thompson may have a perfect Senate score with the National Right to Life but when he enters the race, he'll need to explain questionnaires like this one and others. Where was the fervent pro-life talk? He will be challenged on this just like Romney was for his pro-choice comments in the 1990's. I'm not saying they are the same. I'm just saying that it'll be important for Thompson to show some passion for the pro-life cause in 2008. In the 1990's you don't see it.

He looks to be treating the pro-life cause as a federalism type issue rather than a deeply held conviction. That may not be the case but the questionnaire raises the question: Just how much of a priority will the life issue be for a President Fred Thompson? Or is it just another Federalism issue? Comments?


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: 2008; abortion; elections; fredthompson; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-225 next last
To: EternalVigilance

I am as Pro-life as they come, and I will tell you that Fred is the best pro-life candidate that the GOP has that’s electable. I hope that when he gets the nomination you and others here will support him.

As for getting everyone on board in regards to elected officials. It will be tough for Thompson if he should become President to appoint politicians in the many forms of government that can end abortion. I think most people here will agree that, if elected, Thompson would appoint strict constructionalist judges to the bench.


141 posted on 06/18/2007 6:08:54 AM PDT by ConservativeTerrapin (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

So what. In 1996, I was a *hell* of a lot more pro-abortion than Fred Thompson appears to be in this questionnaire.

Somewhere around 1999, I came to understand that I was completely, mortifyingly, 100% wrong.

I’d pick someone like Fred over someone like Rudy, who says he hates abortion but won’t say why, and promises to reduce the number of abortions, but won’t say how.


142 posted on 06/18/2007 6:11:10 AM PDT by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Of course there is, if you believe, as common sense dictates, that unborn babies are “persons.” They are then covered explicitly by the protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The 5th Amendment doesn't apply, as that refers to actions taken by the federal government to proactively deprive anyone of life.

The 14th Amendment might apply (I say might, because we still have the problem of the state proactively denying life vs. passively staying out of things altogether -- I'll let the legal scholars debate how far the Amendment applies). But even with the most pro-life interpretation, you would still seem to have no clue as to what that actually means. Each state still may make its own laws, but those laws would have to be subject to a 14th Amendment review. Nonetheless, it gives the federal government NO jurisdiction over the writing of, or enforcement of, those state laws.

For you to believe otherwise invokes the absurd example again -- should the UN, who otherwise has no authorization of the laws and the execution of those laws inside the US, be allowed to nevertheless impose and enforce laws on the US because of a universal truth? Of course not. Then why do you want the federal government to regulate the states when it has no authority to do so?

143 posted on 06/18/2007 6:13:59 AM PDT by kevkrom ("Government is too important to leave up to the government" - Fred Dalton Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
He certainly doesn't openly dispute the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. He seems to be in favor of allowing some state discretion in the matter.

I'm not a Fredhead (yet), but if Roe v Wade is overturned then abortion BECOMES a state matter. Overturning Roe v Wade will not make abortion illegal...it will make it a state matter rather than a federal matter.

Divide and conquer.

144 posted on 06/18/2007 6:20:33 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
and what ELECTABLE CANDIDATE will bring this about?

Hmmm...where have I heard THAT argument before...

Okay, then lets look at candidates who are ACTUALLY RUNNING and leave the "electability factor" out of it.

Duncan Hunter's real chance was to have a "grassroots" internet campaign that got his name out there. Hunter has a lot of supporters here on FR, but he has yet to pursue anything. I registered at his website and I've only gotten one e-mail. Hunter has no money to speak of, so to say that he is really campaigning would be a stretch.

So, of the candidates who are actually running, who should we support?

145 posted on 06/18/2007 6:58:16 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

Sorry, I meant to ping you to this.


146 posted on 06/18/2007 6:59:11 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

good question. you know, i prefer reality to fantasy. if fred doesn’t get in the race, i would def vote for Hunter.


147 posted on 06/18/2007 7:05:35 AM PDT by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

Hunter’s big problem is that he doesn’t have any money and I don’t see him doing anything to go out and raise any. Four years ago, Howard Dean launched an incredibly effective grassroots campaign over the internet and he only lost because people saw how insane he really is. Hunter could have easily followed Dean’s model, but he hasn’t and now it’s probably too late.


148 posted on 06/18/2007 7:15:08 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

You’re making the same error that another poster already made on this thread, which misunderstanding was dealt with in detail last night.

The Bill of Rights does not just limit the federal government. It protects unalienable rights. That’s why it is called “the Bill of Rights.”


149 posted on 06/18/2007 7:19:15 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So, of the candidates who are actually running, who should we support?

If you really care about the unalienable right to life, there are only two of these candidates who are acceptable: Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

If you make the judgment that they can't win because of whatever factor, a very subjective and most often self-fulfilling exercise, then we better hope that someone gets in who gets it, and who has what it takes to win.

Otherwise, at best we're going to get the status quo. And that's unacceptable when you consider that 3 to 4 thousand babies continue to die every day.

150 posted on 06/18/2007 7:33:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Then let’s get back to what I said before. What are Hunter and Tancredo doing to raise money to get themselves elected? Either of them should have started last year using the same model that Howard Dean used in 2004 to create a huge grassroots support and financial base; however, neither Hunter nor Tancredo has done this.

I haven’t made any judgment that they “can’t win,” but I am making an observation that they really don’t seem to be doing what is necessary to win.


151 posted on 06/18/2007 7:39:05 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Divide and conquer.

The problem is, it is pro-lifers who are being divided and conquered with the fallacy that States have a right under our Constitution to kill babies.

First of all, this argument removes the entire moral and intellectual argument against overturning Roe to begin with. If a baby is not a person, Roe stands.

Secondly, even if you did manage to overturn Roe, even without the benefit of the only moral and intellectual arguments against it that exist, and pushed it through by purely political means, you will have also removed the only moral, intellectual and constitutional arguments that are possible to overturn it at the state level.

Those who are making this argument, whether they will admit it or not, are accomplishing NOTHING but the continuation of the status quo.

You know the old definition for insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.

It's past time for pro-life folks to argue this from the proper basis, and to reject politicians who propagate fallacies.

152 posted on 06/18/2007 7:40:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The Bill of Rights does not just limit the federal government. It protects unalienable rights.

What more do you want? The 14th Amendment arguably covers this at the state level. But nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to write or execute state laws. The states are free to write any law they wish, but those laws must pass 14th Amendment muster.

We're not that far apart on this -- the only difference is that you see this as a federal government issue, and I see it as a state government issue. At either level, they're still constrained by the same set of Constitutional guidelines.

153 posted on 06/18/2007 7:46:53 AM PDT by kevkrom ("Government is too important to leave up to the government" - Fred Dalton Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I don’t disagree with you. And I probably have more information about why than most.


154 posted on 06/18/2007 7:48:18 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

You can’t read the founding paragraph of the Declaration, the Preamble to the Constitution, or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to that document, and conclude reasonably that any State or individual has the right to alienate the God-given right to life, anywhere in the territory of the United States.


155 posted on 06/18/2007 7:50:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
At either level, they're still constrained by the same set of Constitutional guidelines.

Indeed. Every one of the States' constitutions open with a clause that protects the unalienable right to life. The only way you can get around that, just as in our federal Constitution, is to argue, insensibly, that unborn babies are not persons.

156 posted on 06/18/2007 7:52:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You can’t read the founding paragraph of the Declaration, the Preamble to the Constitution, or the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to that document, and conclude reasonably that any State or individual has the right to alienate the God-given right to life, anywhere in the territory of the United States.

Who said I'm saying that? You're twisting my words when I'm agreeing with you on the fundamental point -- our only disagreement is on the role of the federal government.

You can't read the same documents and tell me that the federal government can write and enforce state laws. But, and I repeat myself again, because you seem to be intentionally missing the point, those state laws must pass 14th Amendment muster.

157 posted on 06/18/2007 7:53:40 AM PDT by kevkrom ("Government is too important to leave up to the government" - Fred Dalton Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
those state laws must pass 14th Amendment muster.

Okay. Now what?

158 posted on 06/18/2007 7:59:12 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

By the way, that is not the position of Fred Thompson, or that of a number of other candidates in this field. They are arguing that abortion is entirely a State matter.


159 posted on 06/18/2007 8:00:56 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Another comment, while I’m awaiting your reply to the other.

Overturning Roe simply gets us back to pre-Roe status...the one directly before it was decided...a situation in which several States had decided they had the right to allow the killing of babies in their jurisdictions. Without a declaration of the personhood of the unborn, we’re in a bigger mess than ever, with more people completely confused, and with no basis left to fight against this holocaust.


160 posted on 06/18/2007 8:04:08 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("You will have your bipartisanship." - Fred Thompson, May 4, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-225 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson