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 ...
Yes, indeed. Both the Supreme Court overturning R v W and a constitutional amendment return the issue to the states and are consistent with federalism. One could argue that the debate that would ensue around ratifying a constitutional amendment would be less sharply focused than state-by-state debates about specific anti-abortion legislation and that thus a judicial overturning of R v W is better than a constitutional amendment, but what’s the harm at trying for both? We might never get either one but we certainly won’t get one of the two if Pubbie candidates mistakenly believe constitutional amendments are anti-federalist.
If I recall correctly, a Supreme Court decision enshrined slavery (Dred Scott) and it was overturned by a constitutional amendment (14th). Then the Court messed up again with Plessy v Ferguson, enshrining Jim Crow laws. It strikes me that the track record of the judiciary in undoing it’s stupidities is far worse than the track record of Congress amending the Constitution to make up for the Court’s stupidities.
And somehow I think the Founders would say, “but of course”—we designed the amendment process to permit the people via congress to have a recourse to overturn bad court decisions.
So a Human Life Amendment would in fact return the issue to the states (as ratifiers), where it always belonged. It would be better if the Court overturned itself and thus permitted states individually to write their own pro- or anti-abortion legislation and debate it.
But for God’s sake, what’s the harm in trying both routes, Fred? The harm certainly can’t be what you say it is, namely, anti-federalism.
Sorry, but under the US Constitution, life begins at birth. From the 14th amendment, I quote, “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.”
Note: protections are afforded to persons “born or naturalized”.
A Life Amendment would modify this to the unborn. Frankly, I don’t know how you prove life begins at conception. I agree with my high school biology teacher, who argued that if we cannot know with certainty, shouldn’t we err, if we err, on the side of life rather than death?
But that is why many are uncomfortable with criminalizing women who seek abortions - if we cannot be certain, then shouldn’t we also err, if we err, on individuals making their own decisions, and answering for it before God?
However, it is perfectly reasonable for someone who believes in limited government to say that these decisions, in common with rules about murder, should be left with the states. I respect Fred for his position, and his honesty in stating it.
I agree it is the most pragmatic. Actually the most pragmatic approach towards reducing abortion would probably be to have some ad campaign explaining the problem with abortion. That doesn’t even require ending roe v wade.
Nevertheless when it comes to protecting life, no option should be taken off the table.
Slick Willard was pro-abortion as late as 2005, just before running for president. Now he claims he’s pro-life. Riiiiiiiight.
Don't sound like you would have a problem murdering illegal immigrants either.
Then to stake the outcome of a national election on this issue is clearly foolish. Or, to refuse to vote for a popular GOP POTUS candidate because of his position on abortion is like throwing a childish tantrum.
Should murder be a federal offense? Abortion is the same thing. Any party to an abortion should be subject to the same punishment as anybody who shoots a two-year-old (or any other person) in the head. Can we catch every one of them and prove them guilty in a court of law? No, but that’s no reason to give up before we start.
I’m not trying to argue with you. I think my views are pretty close to yours. I understand your “realism” argument, and I also realize that this country will never implement what I consider the perfect legal response to abortion. But that won’t change my opinion.
These are such utterly ridiculous red herrings that I can’t believe you put them forward as serious arguments.
All pro-lifers assume the legitimacy of exceptions for the life of the mother. (Ideally, an effort should be made to sav both the mother and the baby but double-effect may lead to the baby’s death and that would not be murder.) Can this exception clause be abused? Of course. But so can any law. If a law is not to be passed simply because you can think up some way people will abuse it, then no laws would ever get passed.
Your other examples are of the same type. Specious. A constitutional amendment does not write federal laws. The proposed one simply clarifies who is a person under the 14th Amendment. Specific laws about the cases you describe would have to be debated and passed by each state. Exactly what and how they criminalize which actions would be up to them and their legislation would be subject to judicial review at all levels. All an amendment would do would be to establish some parameters: an unborn child is a human person and enjoys the protections of the 14th Amendment. Exactly how that protection translates into state laws, well, that—in good federalist fashion—would be up to the states to decide, with judicial review as a check on any efforts to undermine or obstruct the Human Life Amendment.
Which, incidentally, is exactly the way it works with laws about violating any other person’s 14th Amendment rights.
The amendment has little to do with “criminalizing” and far more to do with protecting an as of yet unprotected and cruelly victimized class of persons. Something more or less like what the 14th amendment did for African American slaves. What’s not to like about that?
Please read my post right below yours.
We can’t lose our common sense here.
I’d settle for banning partial birth abortion and believe the public is with us on this.
And if all else fails, how about that thing “for the health of the mother”. Sheesh, I was a pretty young thing when Roe versus Wade became law but I was around before and it was small matter to get some medico to declare an abortion required for the health of the mother. Even if it was for the mother’s mental health, some doctor or another would sign the paper. It’s why the libs always stick this language in any law about abortion.
First trimester abortion will never be stopped in this country, or should it frankly.
Instead of arguing the impossible it is far better to try to do something that WILL work.
Here in my neck of the woods there’s a non-profit agency that will help young woman have their babies instead of aborting it. This has been very sucessful and has saved many unborn babies’ lives.
Making abortion illegal will save very few unborn lives and might do more damage than it will ever repair.
Can you document for us where Thompson said that? We'd appreciate it.-Clara Lou
8mm, do you have that article handy?
Illegal immigrants are not citizens. They are, under the laws of all 50 states, covered against murder. If anyone tried to change that, I would oppose them strongly. But murder is a matter for states to deal with - for example, some allow the death penalty, and others do not. The federal government has no part in punishing murder. Nor does it have a role in abolishing abortion.
If returned to the states, most would allow some abortions. A few would allow all, and a few might ban all. I suspect, on the whole, more states would restrict abortions than current laws do.
FRED also reminded Russert that he voted for a Bill banning anyone transporting an under-aged girl across a state line to have an abortion. Pretty plain and makes it remain a State’s Rights issue! If the NorthEast Libs want to vote in abortion in their little states then let them live with it, but enforce the law about taking a girl across state line to one of those abortion states.
no state should be allowed to legalize murder. That doesn’t mean federal police and courts to deal with murder. Same should apply for abortion.
“If returned to the states, most would allow some abortions. A few would allow all, and a few might ban all. I suspect, on the whole, more states would restrict abortions than current laws do.”
I agree. I really believe if it becomes a states’ issue that a most of the states would only allow abortions for the saving of a mother, rape, or incest. That certainly would restrict abortions more than current laws do.
I may be wrong, but I think the ban on murder is specifically delegated to the individual States as a State’s Right.
The poster stated that only rights should be granted to the "born and naturalized". We kill the unborn, so what is illogical about killing the illegal immigrants then?
Uh, last time I checked an amendment by itself does not create laws. Congress could follow up on an amendment and make abortion a federal crime. But they’d need to pass specific laws, just as many laws, state and federal have been passed in the wake of Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v Board etc.
Or they could be good federalists and leave legislation to the states. If Fred says that the amendment by itself criminalizes, he’s wrong. Passage and ratification of the amendment is very unlikely anyway, but even if it did get ratified, federal legislation following up on it is even less likely. So that’s a red herring. I’m willing to grant Fred the benefit of the doubt and say he just didn’t think it through rather than that he was being disingenous.
Or is your objection to states making abortion a state crime? A good federalist would let the states criminalize what they wish to (subject as always to judicial review)?
Look, if you are for the overturning of R v W then you are for at least the opportunity to criminalize abortion, either as a federal or a state crime.
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.