Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment
CBNnews.com ^ | November 4, 2007 | David Brody

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; abortion; cbn; elections; fred; fredthompson; huckabee; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-605 next last
MR. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But...

--snip--

1 posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:42 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

FRED is still Pro-Life...despite the twisted position the headline puts him in!


2 posted on 11/04/2007 1:41:02 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Fred has a “nuanced” view of certain things....


3 posted on 11/04/2007 1:41:04 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Samuel Alito reassured lawmakers that he would respect legal precedent on abortion rights and put his personal views aside.

John Roberts said that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court”.

So, how is this supposed to get better?


4 posted on 11/04/2007 1:43:22 PM PST by donna (If America is not a Christian nation, it will be part of the Islamic nation. Take your pick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Listen to the whole interview. Fred firmly believes now, since the birth of his little daughter, that life begins at conception. He admits this is very tricky to deal with politically, and needs to be on the state and local level once Roe v. Wade is overturned. Making young girls, families, and doctors criminals is a tricky thing. I also raised the question of how enforceable a federal law would even be. We have to be realistic about it.


5 posted on 11/04/2007 1:43:46 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with.

Choices are good, right?

7 posted on 11/04/2007 1:45:30 PM PST by redgirlinabluestate (Common sense conservatives unite 4 Mitt 2 defeat Rudy and then Hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Fred has a “nuanced” view of certain things....

Believing in the Constitution is "nuanced," eh?

The federal government has enumerated powers explicitly stated in the Constitution. All other powers belong to the states or the individual.

Which do you want? Limited, Constitutional government, or government by a "living" Constitution that can be transmogrified to mean whatever the party in power wants it to mean?

8 posted on 11/04/2007 1:47:23 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslims reserve the right to kill anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing; Politicalmom; SE Mom; jellybean; Clara Lou; Reagan Man
Ted Kennedy's view, to the letter.

Like hell it is.

9 posted on 11/04/2007 1:48:06 PM PST by Petronski (Here we go, Steelers. Here we go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Ted Kennedy’s view is that abortion should be on a State by State basis? Where in the world did you ever get that from?


10 posted on 11/04/2007 1:48:58 PM PST by aroundabout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
He admits this is very tricky to deal with politically.

It's only tricky if you're more concerned with getting votes.

I also raised the question of how enforceable a federal law would even be. We have to be realistic about it.

I've heard the same excuse in the immigration debate. Doesn't work either place.

11 posted on 11/04/2007 1:49:50 PM PST by phrogphlyer (Proud member of the contrarian fringe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
The impression I get from Fred's comments is that he is personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. He doesn't believe abortion is a crime.

An overly federalistic approach is a Pontius Pilate approach - washing your hands of responsibility while allowing evil to spread unchecked.

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” ~~~ Thomas Jefferson

12 posted on 11/04/2007 1:50:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (Romney Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions ...

If he will pledge to take power (and money) away from the Federal government, and give it back to the States (along with the money) that would be a gigantic step in the right direction.

As for leaving abortion as an issue to be ruled on 50 different ways, I see a lot of problems getting that done.

13 posted on 11/04/2007 1:50:57 PM PST by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Ted Kennedy's view, to the letter.

Interesting, I thought the libatious liberal was the furthest thing you can get from pro-life. Do tell.

14 posted on 11/04/2007 1:51:01 PM PST by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
re: 3

Fred has a “nuanced” view of certain things.... Please explain to me what that means.

15 posted on 11/04/2007 1:51:19 PM PST by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

SteveMcKing wrote: “Fred has a “nuanced” view of certain things....”

I’m not sure whether that’s intended to be a compliment or an insult, but I think Fred’s view is both pragmatic and moral. I know the platform calls for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, but how exactly would something like that be written? Even if one was written, how would it ever make it through 3/4 (2/3?) of the states?

Fred’s nuanced view is exactly what we need to actually fix the problem, which is federal encroachment into states-rights issues. Abortion is a very complex issue, and it doesn’t belong in the federal courts in the first place. This is clearly one of those things the states should be deciding, and conservatives won’t fix the problem by giving more power to the burgeoning federal government.

With our diverse beliefs, Federalism is the best means of saving the union. These political battles can then be fought where they were intended to be fought...in the states.


16 posted on 11/04/2007 1:53:31 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Yep. Federalism apparently trumps the constittional rights of the unborn. This will sink Freddy.


17 posted on 11/04/2007 1:57:30 PM PST by pissant (Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne

airborne wrote: “As for leaving abortion as an issue to be ruled on 50 different ways, I see a lot of problems getting that done.”

Except that’s exactly how it was handled for nearly 200 years of our nation’s history before Roe v Wade.


18 posted on 11/04/2007 1:57:33 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Can you explain how someone who believes abortion should be legal is pro-life?


But he {Thompson} also told the Eagle Forum in a 1994 questionnaire, “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”

In a candidate survey the same year for The Tennessean newspaper, Thompson said that states should have the right to impose “reasonable restrictions on abortions such as parental notification.” But he said, “The ultimate decision on abortion should be left with the woman and not the government.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289422,00.html

Documents The Tennessean located in Thompson’s Senate archive at the University of Tennessee show:

• On a 1996 Christian Coalition survey, he checked “opposed” to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution “protecting the sanctity of human life.”

• He included a handwritten clarification: “I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people.”

• In 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled “N/A.”


19 posted on 11/04/2007 1:59:00 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (Romney Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Ted Kennedy wants Roe v Wade overturned?

I don’t know his position, bu I find that hard to believe.

Do you have anything to support that?


20 posted on 11/04/2007 1:59:03 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
The morally correct, honest pro-life reply would have been "Although a pro-life amendment would be desirable, we pro-life people have very little chance of getting that done. If the matter is returned to the states, at least some unborn children's lives will be spared."

Fred may actually believe this.

He gave the politically expedient pro-life reply.

But throwing the cloak of federalist absolutism over a moral issue of life and death is not honest. You can't do it with the Second Amendment, or with marriage either. The practical reason why not is that there would be chaos. The moral reason why not is that if something is wrong, it's wrong in every state.

21 posted on 11/04/2007 1:59:10 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; SteveMcKing

Ah, the oft-deleted Steve McKing. I chose to ignore it’s post. Isn’t there a rule about lies and out-and-out liars around here?


22 posted on 11/04/2007 2:00:02 PM PST by Clara Lou (Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

We don’t need another amendment. We just need for the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, i.e. that the unborn child has the right to life.


23 posted on 11/04/2007 2:00:54 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
re: # 1

Frem the article: But here’s the issue. Is this too much federalism to the point of alienating social conservatives? Fred Thompson came into this presidential race as the one candidate social conservatives may be able to embrace. It hasn’t quite worked out that way. First there were problems with his position on the federal marriage amendment. He went with the federalism argument there. Then he ran into problems about his Church attendance (though that seemed too much of a big deal to me) and now he doesn’t support this human life amendment that is part of the GOP platform. Show me in the Constitution where the Federal Government has any business messing around in these three fields, and then I might be willing to discuss them with the so-called "social conservatuves" who are bitching abour Fred's stand. Only AFTER they have read that document -- which many of them obviously have not.

24 posted on 11/04/2007 2:02:15 PM PST by Turret Gunner A20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

As a “Romney Republican,” do you really want to get into a contest on the various candidates’ views on abortion ? You might pick your battles more carefully.


25 posted on 11/04/2007 2:02:40 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Right. I believe his personal conversion to the pro-life cause is genuine but Fred has to have the courage to be politically pro-life as well. To do nothing to stop the spread of evil is to become an accessory to it.


26 posted on 11/04/2007 2:03:21 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (Romney Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pissant
This will sink Freddy.
Green-envy speaking. And about your #2 choice!
27 posted on 11/04/2007 2:04:18 PM PST by Clara Lou (Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

And I think it would be the ideal way to handle many other issues - State by State.

Like I said, it would be difficult getting it done.

But I’m in favor of giving the States back their Constitutional powers that were taken from them and given to the Federal monster.


28 posted on 11/04/2007 2:06:12 PM PST by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Turret Gunner A20

“Show me in the Constitution where the Federal Government has any business messing around in these three fields,”

The problem is that the federal government already DID mess around in one of these are areas when Roe vs Wade was decided. Any action to void Roe vs Wade IS an act of getting the feds out of it.


29 posted on 11/04/2007 2:06:34 PM PST by Dreagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pissant; Reagan Man

You are correct. Free Republic has been buzzing with this discussion for several weeks now. Everyone looking to Fred to ride in on a white horse and save us all from a third party revolt.

Turns out Fred’s political position on abortion is the same as Rudy’s.

Better get those Moose Party buttons all handed out.


30 posted on 11/04/2007 2:06:51 PM PST by The Dude Abides (I'm an Achiever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

“FRED is still Pro-Life...despite the twisted position the headline puts him in!”

What twisted position? That is exactly what Thompson said.


31 posted on 11/04/2007 2:07:36 PM PST by upsdriver (DUNCAN HUNTER FOR PRESIDENT!!!! The steakiest steak in the race!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I don’t believe Mitt Romney is perfect on the pro-life issue but he is slightly better than Fred.

If I voted solely on pro-life I would vote for Alan Keyes, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter. Since being a one issue voter is not wise, I choose the most electable, well rounded candidate with the views closest to my own. Mitt Romney is a decent man and his spiritual and political growth is in the right direction. He is workable on the pro-life issue and that is good enough for me.


32 posted on 11/04/2007 2:07:53 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (Romney Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Ted Kennedy's view, to the letter.

Oh puh_leeeze. Fred Thompson and Ted Kennedy have never voted on the same side on ANY abortion vote. That is about as intellectually dishonest of an argument I have seen in a long while.

33 posted on 11/04/2007 2:08:05 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Ask any old Ob/Gyn and they will confirm that abortion was effectively legal pre-Roe v. Wade.

Women routinely had Menstrual Extractions or a D & C because of “residue” from an “incomplete period,” “idiopatahic abdominal pain” or other such “problems”.

Everyone know. Don’t ask. Don’t tell.

34 posted on 11/04/2007 2:08:12 PM PST by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in Vietnam meant never having to say I was sorry......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Pro-life must have a different meaning now-a-days than it used to then.


35 posted on 11/04/2007 2:08:54 PM PST by The Dude Abides (I'm an Achiever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Actually (Dave Barry: “I’m not making this up!”) Ted Kennedy was pro-life once upon a time.


36 posted on 11/04/2007 2:09:02 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Dude Abides
Turns out Fred’s political position on abortion is the same as Rudy’s.

Like hell.

37 posted on 11/04/2007 2:09:29 PM PST by Petronski (Here we go, Steelers. Here we go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: phrogphlyer

The federal govt has no business being involved in abortion in anyway, shape or form. It is a state issue, and the SCOTUS messed up by sticking their beaks into it. Roe v Wade needs to go away, and have the issue returned to the states where it belongs. Thompson was correct with that opinion.


38 posted on 11/04/2007 2:09:34 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Can you explain how someone who believes abortion should be legal is pro-life?

Can you explain Fred Thompson's 100% pro-life voting record. Fred may not be the most rabid pro-lifer out there, but he is solidly pro-life.

39 posted on 11/04/2007 2:10:10 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Blood of Tyrants wrote: “We just need for the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment applies to the unborn, i.e. that the unborn child has the right to life.”

That’s easy to write but not so easy to enforce. So, you’d make it a federal crime to intentionally terminate a new life for any reason at any time? That’s complete nonsense!


40 posted on 11/04/2007 2:11:57 PM PST by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

see #19.


41 posted on 11/04/2007 2:12:00 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah (Romney Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Slick Willard was pro-abortion as late as 2005, just before running for president.

Now he claims he’s pro-life. Riiiiiiiight.


42 posted on 11/04/2007 2:12:15 PM PST by Petronski (Here we go, Steelers. Here we go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to an abortion. According to the 10th amendment, abortion is a states issue. Fred wants to see Roe v Wade ended and abortion on demand abolished as the national policy of the US government. That means returning the issue of abortion back to the states, were it resided for 200 years. Fred believes life begins at conception and abortion is the taking of a human life.

Fred doesn’t support a right to life amendment. But even if he did support such an amendment, the chances of it becoming law anytime soon are slim to none. Besides, the POTUS has no say in the amendment process. That power belongs to the Congress and to the states.


43 posted on 11/04/2007 2:13:15 PM PST by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

i don’t think a baby deserves to die simply by being in the wrong state at the wrong time. Now if I don’t like what my state does I can either vote the bums out or move if I don’t get my way. but a baby can’t make that choice and his rights must be protected by all states.


44 posted on 11/04/2007 2:13:23 PM PST by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

The federal government has as much business prohibiting abortion as it does prohibiting murder. Because it’s the same thing.


45 posted on 11/04/2007 2:13:45 PM PST by phrogphlyer (Proud member of the contrarian fringe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

“Besides, the POTUS has no say in the amendment process. That power belongs to the Congress and to the states.”

Good point!


46 posted on 11/04/2007 2:14:08 PM PST by Constantine XIII (THE CAKE IS A LIE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Let’s say that again: POTUS has no constitutional role in constitutional amendment. NONE.


47 posted on 11/04/2007 2:14:14 PM PST by Petronski (Here we go, Steelers. Here we go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Ted Kennedy and Fred Thompson have one thing in common- they have both been US Senators. Ted, to our distress, still is one :(

Thanks for the ping:)


48 posted on 11/04/2007 2:14:31 PM PST by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Come now... there is only one Slick Willy.

I guess it depends on what the definition of is.... is.

:-)


49 posted on 11/04/2007 2:15:06 PM PST by The Dude Abides (I'm an Achiever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I have still not decided but the more I hear of FT the less I want to hear


50 posted on 11/04/2007 2:15:25 PM PST by italianquaker (Is there anything Ron Paul doesn't blame the USA for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-605 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson