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 ...
I like your choice of words. We don't have a dictator in the United States who "allows" or does not "allow" states to enact laws. What we have are voters in each state. If they don't like the las enacted by the legislators they chose, they need to change them at the next election. And, frankly I don't even want to dignify your absurd examples with a response. Federalism is a means, not an end, as you say. You have that much right. It's just that I do not see the need, or the value, or even the possibility of federalizing this particular issue. It doesn't mean that I (or even Fred Thompson would advocate legalization of abortion at the state level. It is merely an acknowledgement that we are a federal democracy and voters in states don't need to check with mee, you, Fred Thompson, or anyone else to clear the laws they enact. All they need to do is make sure that they pass Constitutional muster.
I don't have any idea what Fred Thompson thinks on this matter, but I do know that no American appellate court, at either the State or Federal level, has ever so ruled.
And I am sure that the framers of the 14th never had the slightest intention that its provisions would cover a fetus. You may be loking for exactly the same kind of judicial activisim we find so objectionable when we find it in Democrats.
That's why I like to call people like you Democrats who just don't know it yet. You certainly are not conservatives.
Yes, Joe, this is the federalist positon. But Rome wasn't built in a day. We have a LOT of bricks to pry out of the Federal edifice.
I was cheered by Thompson’s remarks, too. Novak has never particularly impressed me, and he doesn’t now, either.
Fred Thompson is toast as far as I am concerned.
He is phoney and I don’t believe he is Pro-life at all.
It is too bad I had hoped Thompson was the guy since Duncan Hunter is not getting the support he needs to get the nomination.
oh bull doody, the framers of the 14th would have implicitly considered an unborn human to be just that *human*..
They do put them in jail if they kill the child right after giving birth. Would he recommend not procecuting those girls? After all, how can you put a young girl in jail?
You are monumentally wrong, even if you are right in the irrelevant way you have framed your comment.
What the framers would NOT have considered, even in a moment's reverie is that a fetus is a "person" subject to the protections of the Constitution. It is persons to whom the protections of the Constitution have always applied. It has only been in the last thirty or forty years that even the notion of granting rights to fetuses has even been considered or talked about seriously.
Whether the framers would have considered a human fetus "human" is trivial and moot. It is dishonest equivocating even to frame your comment in the way you did.
Amen. I just sent his campaign more money this morning. I hope thousands of others do the same, and I wish and pray that Thompson wins the primaries and the general election. Should Roe V Wade be overturned (and far and away the BEST chance of that happening is with Thompson), millions of the unborn will live. Those Republicans who STUPIDLY insist instead on all-or-nothing in terms of voting ONLY for a candidate who claims to seek a Federal prohibition on abortion, which the candidate will know full well has virtually zero approach of succeeding, will have the blood of millions of the unborn on their hands.
Some might even say those "pure" moral voters will have as much to answer for before God as stupid girls and women who get pregnant and opt for abortions and the doctors who presume that helping them is kindness. These holier-than-thou types will yelp and scream and protest loudly at the thought that they, too, are guilty of sin through the deaths that result from their own pride and arrogance. But maybe a few will heed the warning, look inward, and do the right thing -- vote for a Republican who espouses overturning Roe V Wade.
I remember reading somewhere that one of the most admirable things about the Amish was that they focused not on changing the world, but on changing themselves with regard to God's word. I like that. I wish self-proclaimed Rightous "Moral" Christians who ridiculously prattle that Thompson is "Pro-Abortion" would start focusing more on how to change and improve themselves and change others by their own good example, and LESS on using the Federal Governnment to try to prevent people from sinning.
Neither I nor anyone else on this forum has any place at all in what goes on between the heart of a sinner and God. Nor does the Federal government. Abortion is one of those things, and so-called "conservative" Christians who want to use the government to poke their judgememental noses into other people's relationships with their Maker are NOT politically conservative, and they hurt Christianity all around, IMO. The Founders came from an England where church attendance was mandated. Clearly they founded the U.S. on a premise that respects the truth that the government has zero place in trying to manipulate the sinner's someday answering to God for sins of stupidity, youth, rebellion, laziness, or plain wickedness.
See my post #269.
Well said. With some of the tactics of people who are “advocating” for the prolife movement on FR, I’m not all that suprised at the lack of overall success at changing hearts & minds.
That's not true. Romney took the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he faced while governor.
Mitt's pro-life record as governor has been posted several times and you can see it on Freeper UnmakedPackage's homepage. You must have missed it. Please click on the link if you truly want to know.
Additionally, prominent leaders of pro-life and pro-family groups in Massachusetts wrote an open letter praising Gov. Romney for his leadership and accomplishments in this area and attesting to his commitment to pro-life and pro-family causes. This letter is a MUST READ.
Also, Massachusetts Citizens for Life recently gave Gov. Romney their 2007 Mullins Award for Outstanding Political Leadership presented at the Mother's Day Pioneer Valley Dinner where Romney delivered the keynote speech.
Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis: "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "An Early Massachusetts Primary," National Review, 1/10/07)
Massachusetts Citizens For Life Pioneer Valley Chapter Chairman Kevin Jourdain: "Mitt Romney was a great Governor, who served with honor and distinction. But most importantly, he was a pro-life Governor. He vetoed a number of pro-abortion pieces of legislation and made many pro-life appointments. He was always there for us." (Kevin Jourdain, Remarks, Agawam, MA, 5/10/07)
_______________
So, contrary to your post, Mitt has a pro-life record AND he supports the life amendment and is willing to champion the cause to end abortion on demand.
I’m all for leaving the federal gov’t out of most everything except defense and border control and letting the states decide how they want to regualte these things. At least that way I can move to a state with people of similar values.
Bully :D ...This is even better, being frank with friends/foes alike (He's not sugar-coating the issues)....He is being very pragmatic.
John Valentine wrote:
like your choice of words. We don’t have a dictator in the United States who “allows” or does not “allow” states to enact laws. What we have are voters in each state. If they don’t like the las enacted by the legislators they chose, they need to change them at the next election. And, frankly I don’t even want to dignify your absurd examples with a response. Federalism is a means, not an end, as you say. You have that much right. It’s just that I do not see the need, or the value, or even the possibility of federalizing this particular issue. It doesn’t mean that I (or even Fred Thompson would advocate legalization of abortion at the state level. It is merely an acknowledgement that we are a federal democracy and voters in states don’t need to check with mee, you, Fred Thompson, or anyone else to clear the laws they enact. All they need to do is make sure that they pass Constitutional muster.
. x . x . x .
Absurb example?
We passed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the basic liberties of people by outlawing slavery, no matter what a given sovereign state, its legislature or its voters want.
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The above amendment trampled all over state sovereignty. This is one of those very rare instances where state sovereignty SHOULD have been trampled on.
A human life amendment would do the same sort of thing, except that instead of protecting people from slavery, it would protect unborn persons from being murdered, carved up like chopped liver, vacuumed out and tossed into the garbage like yesterday’s leftovers.
Along with separation of powers, federalism is our most important constitutional safeguard against government tyranny. Federalism must be protected. But it also must not be abused.
Again, federalism and other aspects of our governmental structure are not intrinsically important. If human nature weren’t so corruptible by power and wealth, we wouldn’t even need federalism.
Or to take it a step further, we wouldn’t need GOVERNMENT at all.
As James Madison, chief architect of the Constitition said in Federalist 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” And he added: “IF angels were to govern men neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
But men are not angels and we desperately need federalism, separation of powers, and the other checks and balances installed by the Founders into our Constitution.
But federalism is not our goal. Our goals are life, liberty, secure property, and pursuit of happiness. Federalism is the means.
As for your comment about “allowing” the states to enact laws . . . let me clarify my points:
1. Per the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
2. Per the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “No loss of life, liberty, or property without due process.”
3. Per the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Whether you like it or not, the U.S. Constitution protects the lives of citizens from having a State take it from them without due process.
Our nation denied slaves of African ancestry their basic human rights on a state-by-state basis. It clearly was a grossly evil institution. It nearly destroyed the nation to resolve the legal problem — and now, 150 years later, we’re still suffering from the consequences of that moral rot.
I’m a Southerner, a conservative, and a very strong proponent of federalism. But a State can be wrong. In fact, a State can be so wrong that it can pass a law that runs afoul of the Creator-endowed, inalienable rights secured by our federal constitution.
If and when that happens, federalism is no longer securing our inalienable rights, but instead is securing a State law that is violating those rights.
At that point, an internal conflict is generated within the U.S. Constitution and the higher principle must prevail over the lower. I.e., our inalienable rights trump the principle of federalism.
Show me where Romney said he wants 13 year old abortionist to go to jail?
The Romneys gave money to Planned Parenthood in the early 90’s. That money probably helped some 13 year old girl kill her child. So should the Romneys go to jail for assisted murder?
I think an intellegent person who reads what he says will see it is. You think we should pass a law making abortion illegal and then not prosecute anyone? No punishment? Or do you think it makes sense to prosecute a 14 year old who has an abortion? That is the choice. You may not like it, or that someone disagrees with you, but the idea is certainly coherent.
I appreciate your comment. It is an issue - call it collateral damage - that must be recognized and addressed; if a 14 year old has an abortion, you must either prosecute her or ignore it. To ignore it is like not haveing a law. To prosecute is, well, to prosecute. I think that is one reason the solution is not as clear to some people as to others.
I think it is the equivalent of that. Folks betting on a different kind of horse.
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.