Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Here’s what the 2004 GOP platform says:
"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions." Here’s what Thompson said about it lifted from today’s Meet The Press transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.
MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
I am ashamed to say that I would settle for overturning Roe and returning the issue to the states. It shouldn't be that way, and I would never say I am against a Life amendment, but I would take overturning Roe as a step forward. On the other hand, we are not so far gone on the marriage issue and we should learn from history and go for the amendment now, before the courts force us to work at overturning current law. We will be in a much worse postion with the marriage issue becuase we would have to nulify all the homosexual marriages if we won. The wider it spreads the harder it will be to end the practice. With abortion you can't bring dead babies back to life so there is nothing to undo. It is solely an issue about saving lives.
The federal constitution allows for amendments. Some act as though amending the constitution violates the constitution. It doesn't. It is a legitimate constitutional option.
What I meant by realistic is that you have to play chess with making abortion 100% illegal in all circumstances, and a federal crime.
(I said this in another post somewhere on FR today.) Think about a situation where a woman is 3-4 months pregnant and with all the checkups in her life now, is found to have cancer. Or severely dangerously high blood pressure. Suppose she has other children at home who need her desperately, and the medical recommendation is to end the pregnancy and the unborn’s life in order to save hers. I am strongly anti-abortion but I am wondering whether such a woman and her doctor deserve to be put in federal prison if they proceed.
And imagine if a woman wants an abortion for convenience and her doctor thinks that is hunky dory. Tell me they wouldn’t come up with a scenario like the one above.
That is what I am saying about realism. Not that we have to go with the flow, but you have to imagine whether it would be possible to even find out about abortions.
Here’s another scenario. Many women miscarry very early, but the dead baby remains inside. After two weeks of waiting for the sad flow to start naturally, many doctors want to reduce the risk of infection to the poor mom and opt to give her a D&C in a hospital(scraping and cleaning out the uterus so it can proceed to make ready for the next cycle and the heartbroken couple can try again). This is a common procedure.
Imagine that if the woman and her doctor choose to abort, they could say that she miscarried and then do a D&C. No one would ever know.
An illegal alien is outside the body and can be seen and asked about his papers. An unborn baby is a little harder to determine. I am anti-abortion. But I do see some problems with making it a federal crime. Someone here said today, then it would make killing your unborn embryo a harsher crime than shooting your two-year-old in the head. We need to be realistic in that sense.
upsdriver wrote: “You’ll have to if you are going to limit yourself to only those five candidates.”
I like Duncan Hunter, too, but he’s not a front runner, and I won’t have the opportunity to vote in a primary until it’s pretty much decided. So, we’ll see if Hunter lasts.
"Nuanced" is a funny way to spell "Federalist" doncha think?
I thought he showed a LOT of passion on this issue. Like many, including sages of old, he wasn’t sure when life began. A few years ago, he saw his baby daughter on the ultrasound screen. He instantly KNEW this was his little perfect baby.
I believe that this technology is changing hearts and minds. In one more generation, I believe we will see the great majority of people wondering WHY anyone would fight vehemently to protect a “right” to kill people who don’t happen to be born yet! I feel the tide changing but it won’t be overnight. The old birds of the 60s are still alive and cawing (see Hillary).
and Ron Paul is a “constitutionalist”
His position is not “pro-choice” it is pro-Constitution.
We have had enough of “big government conservatives” in the past several years, and its time for the party to get back to its federalist roots.
“This is exactly the same as Mitt Romney saying he’s always been against abortion, he just supports a woman’s right to choose.”
But he doesn’t support a woman’s right to choose.. or a state’s right to choose.
Slick Willy actually had a reasonable position on abortion while he was campaigning. Remember how he wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and rare? Unfortunately, he only concentrated on the “legal” aspect and did nothing to make it safer or rarer.
so it’s now against the constitution to be in favor of amending it?
Rudy, Fred, and Mitt are all on the same page.
The people are not nearly ready to consent to banning abortions. It is ludicrous to think that a candidate who (believeably) promised to work towards banning abortions could get elected dog catcher, much less President.
Getting Roe reversed is much more do-able.
But all this talk about getting a law, or an amendment, or a USSC decision to do away with abortions is nonsense.
The people are sovereign here, and they are not anywhere near doing away with abortions.
I kept scrolling and scrolling until I found one post that dared to state the obvious.
Listen up....picture it...a girl, barely twelve years of age, impregnated by her own father. She is denied an abortion.
Wow....what “60 Minutes” wouldn’t do with this.
Or how about this....a woman is brutally raped. She becomes pregnant. The state denies her, and that 12 year old, impregnated by her own father...an abortion.
Folks, no matter how zealous you feel about it, and I’m with you, but open up your head and insert some common sense. Those scenarios above ain’t gonna fly and if you think the libs won’t use those sight and sound bytes every day of every week of every month of every year until the American people hate conservatives and/or religious zealots and vote them out of office for the next thirty years, nasty white men who would deny that child and victim an abortion; who would force them to carry to term the child fathered by a rapist or one’s own father.
The best thing conservatives could hope for is an end to that abomination known as partial birth abortion. To eliminate abortion completely....ain’t gonna happen.
You don’t like it...move out of this country where the majority rules. That’s the way it is.
Oh....and picture the “60 Minutes” episode featuring the first woman thrown into jail for an abortion. Heh. What happens to the father of the baby? No, wait...he goes free.
Common sense.....don’t lose it completely.
I’m sure I’ll get flames but I’m not going to respond.
Argue amongst yourselves.
You can read the full transcript of Russert’s interview with Fred, including more Q&A related to abortion, than quoted in this article at the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21623208/page/4/
As mayor of New York-yes. As POTUS-No.
I definitely see it as against the spirit of the Constitution to take power away from the states and reassign it to the federal government.
Thompson’s position is also the only realistic and pragmatic one.
A Human Life Amendment is DOA in Congress, as it has been almost every year since Roe was decided.
Well, how many of the current amendments need to be rescinded?
Thanks Canticle_of_Deborah.
Dionysius... wrote: “So, it would not “hurt” him or his beloved Federalism to support the amendment.”
Based on the interview, that’s not his only reason for opposing the amendment. He’s a federalist, but it appears he also doesn’t want to make abortion a federal crime. In other words, he’s opposed to abortion but he’s not ready to turn even more power over to the federal government. I’m opposed to abortion, but I’m also not ready to execute or imprison women who have abortions as murderers. Yet, that’s what a constitutional amendment would require, isn’t it?
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.