Skip to comments.Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment
Posted on 11/04/2007 1:38:41 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBCs Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Heres 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." Heres what Thompson said about it lifted from todays Meet The Press transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your partys primary process, and thats 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 Amendments 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at cbn.com ...
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.
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?
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.
Frem the article: But heres 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 hasnt 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 doesnt 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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“FRED is still Pro-Life...despite the twisted position the headline puts him in!”
What twisted position? That is exactly what Thompson said.
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.
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.
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.
Pro-life must have a different meaning now-a-days than it used to then.
Actually (Dave Barry: “I’m not making this up!”) Ted Kennedy was pro-life once upon a time.
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.
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.
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!
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.