You've misunderstood what I posted. I never said that young girls should be jailed for obtaining abortions. Nor women who do so. Along with the Republican Party Platform, I'm not for that.
My point was that 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. Rudy Giuliani did the same thing in February and he was soundly condemned here. Let Thompson do it and he gets defended.
“You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate,” says Osteen. “You’d have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitutional], so it’s not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term — and of course, the president doesn’t have a vote.”
So the plan here is to attack Fred for something that won't be accomplished in the foreseeable future AND is out of his hands anyway, and all in support of a slippery governor of a liberal state with a 35 year pro-abortion history AND a convenient Road to Ames conversion.
THAT is the definition of sleazy.
Not at all. I heard you loud and clear. This is not about what you believe. Its about your attempt to obfuscate what Fred said in the MTP interview.
Even after McGruff posted the relevant passage to you [#126], showing what Fred said in context concerning the abortion issue. You had the audacity to come back linking Fred to the abortionist Giuliani. You even had even more audacity to then link Fred with NARAL! Now that is a fabrication of the first order. Especially since we all know Fred received a "0" (zero) rating from NARAL when he was in the Senate.
You are a huge hypocrite! You're guy Mitt Romney is the candidate most like Rudy Giuliani. Again, Mitt Boy supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land and abortion on demand as a woman's Constitutional right. For 35 years, Romney had the record of an abortionist. In 2005 Romney made a decision to run for POTUS. He knew he'd have to change his tune on the abortion issue. What did Mitt do? He became pro-life. IMO, Mitt's act was a dynamic shift to achieve the highest elected office in the land.
Fred`s 100% pro-life voting record is all the evidence that conservatives require to see exactly where Fred stands on the abortion issue. His strong support for federalism is a huge plus on ALL the issues. Not only did the Founding Fathers support federalism, so did Ronald Reagan.
OTOH, Mitt Romney has never shown he's held the same position on any issue during his entire life. We need a principle individual to lead America. Conservative Fred Thompson would be my choice. Not someone like Mitt Romney who uses political expediency to advance his liberal-centrist political agenda.
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.
I meant to include this quote at the beginning of my last reply.