Fred Thompson's blunder

pittsburghlive.com ^ | November 8, 2007 | Robert Novak

[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.

[gitmo]

Poll after poll after poll shows a majority of Americans supports legalized abortion.

And they show we want to stop Global Warming.

[lesser_satan]

If our choices come down to Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson, who do pro-lifers vote for? Or, who would they consider the most pro-life of the 3? I’m talking about those who would vote on the pro-life issue alone. Not immigration, not taxes, not the war in Iraq.

Sure as hell not Rudy. So you now have a choice between Fred and Mitt. On the one hand, Fred has a 100% pro-life voting record and wants Roe V. Wade overturned, but doesn't support the right-to life amendment on Federalist grounds. On the other, Mitt has no tangible pro-life history or record (on the contrary, he was pro-choice in the past), but became pro-life as soon as he decided to run for POTUS and now supports the right-to-life amendment. Your choice.

[ellery]

Looking at Thompson's record, he obviously does not believe in pure federalism on abortion -- he voted with Helms 100% of the time on abortion, including repeated votes to ban partial birth abortion on a federal level and even to use federal law to limit human fetal tissue (votes below).

In this case I believe overturning Roe v. Wade and returning abortion to the states is a way to immediately begin saving babies, and a way to deal with what is currently a very divided public on the issue. With Roe v. Wade, we're actually a step behind where we were with slavery -- it's as if slavery were mandated in every state. So turning it back to the states is a step forward. Even the Founders, who detested slavery (even the ones who owned slaves opposed the institution) initially allowed slavery to be a states' issue -- as a way to get the Constitution passed.

I see turning abortion back to the state legislatures in much the same light. One way or another, abortion is going to be a states' issue -- in order to pass a Constitutional Amendment, we would also need the states to agree. Historically the way to do that is to build up enough states where abortion is banned, and then go for the amendment.

----------

Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe "to provide for certain disclosures and limitations with respect to the transference of human fetal tissue" - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00338

Voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial-birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00277

Again voted with Helms, Thurmond, Santorum and Inhofe to to amend title 18, United States Code, to ban partial birth abortions - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00340

[samtheman]

It’s not my simplistic view of federalism that would allow a state to nullify the first amendment, it’s yours.

I never said they could do that. You’re saying that.

[samtheman]

So that right currently is protected by federal law and therefore the status quo is acceptable to you? Is that what you’re saying?

[ellery]

Thompson’s votes show he doesn’t believe in pure federalism on abortion — he voted for a federal ban on partial birth abortion and federal limitations on use of human fetal tissue.

[samtheman]

So how’s that theory working out for us, huh? When’s that fabled federal fetus-protection bill coming out of congress? Looking for that anytime soon?

The fact is, the only thing at the federal level is Roe V Wade, which PROHIBITS states from outlawing abortion.

So I guess you like the status quo. Why change something that’s working so perfectly. Is that what you’re saying?

[samtheman]

Like the freedom not to be killed in the womb?

Right now, that freedom exists NOWHERE. Period.

FT has a plan to allow it to exist SOMEWHERE, in some states.

But you and the other purists will accept nothing but an instant transformation to EVERYWHERE, which is a concept that's going nowhere, which leaves us right where we are now. Locked in a status quo that won't change and won't save anyone.

Good planning. Good strategy. But no, you can't do my landscaping.

[Tailgunner Joe]

What gets me is those here who nanny state everything. They don’t disagree with the tobacco and food nannies, they just don’t like their targets.

Actually, according to federalism, shouldn't the power to restrict tobacco and fat be left up to the states? Shouldn't the states have the power to restrict these things just like the states should have the power to restrict abortion? That's what you'll get with your "consistent federalism" so actually you are the one who agrees with the nannies. Me, I'd be all for banning any such restrictive food and tobacco laws on the federal level.

[N3WBI3]

"It’s not my simplistic view of federalism that would allow a state to nullify the first amendment, it’s yours."

Life is an inherent right, your view is that right should be abrogated to the states 'because of federalism'. If life can be doled out to the states why not speech?

[N3WBI3]

But you and the other purists will accept nothing but an instant transformation to EVERYWHERE

Yea funny how I dont think human rights should be violated in any US state.. Damn purists..

[ellery]

IMO, iterative steps are the only way to right this problem (the federal partial birth abortion ban, which Thompson voted for several times, is one such step; overturning Roe is another biggie). The reason iterative steps work is that people on the fence need time to adjust to each step forward. If you rhetorically get too far ahead of yourself, you hurt your chances of convincing people to agree to the next iterative step.

[americanflyer1234]

Fred is toast.

[ellery]

Go after the doctor, give clemency to the girl but for the love of G*d it *HAS TO BE ILLEGAL*

Absolutely. I think there's some confusion about the term "criminalization" here. There are many, many things that are illegal but are not "criminal" offenses (i.e., offenses that usually result in jail time and give you a criminal record). For example, DUI is often punished as a moving violation, not a criminal offense -- it's illegal, but it might not land you in prison and doesn't give you a criminal record.

It seems clear to me that that is what Thompson meant by his use of the term "criminalization," since he was discussing it in the context of imprisoning people. He's talking about how he would personally punish people in his state. He also kicked off the discussion by saying that states should have the power to deal with abortion (and that would obviously include the power to criminalize it).

[ellery]

From what I’ve read from various people here and elsewhere, every candidate in the race is toast. Time will tell.

And welcome to FreeRepublic.

[ellery]

Life is an immutable right! and the federal government can not abrogate to the states the ability to infringe on immutable rights.

I agree with you. Obviously Thompson agrees with this in principle, as well, since he voted multiple times for federal restrictions on abortion, use of fetal tissue, etc.

The question, though, is how we get there from here. Even our Founding Fathers, who hated slavery as an institution (even the ones who owned slaves), allowed the issue of slavery to reside with the states temporarily in order to get the Constitution through. Federalism in this case is a step forward.

[fluffdaddy]

And he was exactly right. That is precisely the result that would follow from enactment of a human life amendment. See my posts 91 and 143 on this thread.

Giuliani suggested that there was nothing a state could do to prohibit or otherwise limit abortions without throwing girls in jail. That, of course is a very different thing and something Fred never said.

Fred did say that the human life amendment would entail jailing young women (unarguably true) and that he was not in favor of that (totally reasonable and politically inescapable). Novak and a few wackos are imagining a controversy where none exist and you are trying to exploit that imaginary controversy on behalf of Mitt Romney’s ludicrous candidacy.

Give it up.

[fluffdaddy]

“Fred Thompson was defending his stance against the Human Life Amendment and in the process he characterized those who are for it as consequentially supporting the jailing of “young, young” girls.”

I meant to include this quote at the beginning of my last reply.

[DesScorp]

I really despise Robert Novak.

[John Valentine]

...27% of the GOP base will NOT vote for a pro-abort canidate.

Surely you are not referring to Fred Thompson as a "pro-abort" candidate, because if you are, you are nothing more than an outright liar. I'm sorry you didn't like my "purer-than-thou" remark, but I stick by it. You are a drag on the very ideal you profess. You would rather preen your self-riteous pride than to see progress on the very issue you hold dear. What's worse, you would sell out those who have been standing by you for years who have other concerns that are important to them, like national security, the borders, the tax burden we are building in to the econoy for coming generations. You are selfish. You are arrogant. And worse, you are ungrateful.