Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment

CBNnews.com ^ | November 4, 2007 | David Brody

[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--

[Reagan Man]

Attacking the abortion rights issue on multiple pro-life fronts is a good idea. I’m just not sold on the advertising aspect. Too much in your face propaganda could have an adverse effect. Unlike Bush43, however, I think a POTUS like Fred Thompson could have significant influence in overturning RvW. After all, its an issue that goes to the very heart of states rights and federalism. All we need is one more conservative on the high court and RvW will be history. IMO, a President Thompson would give us the best chance of that happening.

[Clara Lou]

Some folk are deranged.

[Rudder]

I don’t care WHAT Rudy says.

Then it's easy not to be confused by facts. I hope you don't plan to vote.

[Sola Veritas]

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

I agree with your statement. While I agree in principle that many issues are best handled at the state, or lower, level. There are certain fundamental rights (and prohibitions) that need to be universal to all states of the union. That requires they be in federal level law - the constitution being the highest law, it is logical that it be ammended because of SCOTUS decisions. Personally I think the founding fathers would be horrified that abortion is being practiced in this country because of an “interpretation” of the constitution. In the same way, I think they would be also horrified that same-sex marriage was being practiced, and that sodomy laws were being struct down as “unconstitutional.”

Fred is killing his chances by sticking to extreme federalism that allows zero pragmatism. He is alienating the moral base of the GOP, and it will cost him the nomination. I consider this a great shame, because he has the potential to be a formidible candidate to face Mrs. Clinton.

The tired old statement, “I’m personnally against abortion, but won’t keep others from having one” is just plain cowardice or double talk. If it is taking an innocent human life, it needs to be stopped, just like slavery was. It IS a federal issue. There has to be some middle ground he can take beyond what he has....he has to accommodate the base in some way.

[shhrubbery!]

So, you’d make it a federal crime to intentionally terminate a new life for any reason at any time? That’s complete nonsense!

Where do you get the idea that an amendment would make it a "federal crime" to "terminate" kill an unborn child for any reason?

There are several versions of the Human Life Amendment (see them quoted at Wikipedia entry here).

I don't see any proposed amendment with language that would ban ALL abortions, even those necessary to save the life of the mother.

[RockinRight]

I do plan to vote. For Fred in the primary, and if Rudy gets the nod...so be it, he gets my vote unless Zell Miller were the Dem nominee. What’s your point?

[ellery]

Megachurch pastor Don Wilton, former president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and Dr. John Willke, a founder and past president of the National Right to Life Committee, had also signed onto the Romney bandwagon.

I'm not about to try to predict whether evangelicals can or can't get behind any candidate -- but for the record, Don Wilton retracted his endorsement of Romney.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304576,00.html

[prairiebreeze]

Fred is a fatuous fraud.

Let's see, I can't remember if you are a rabid Mittwit or a rabid Duncanista. Regardless you've demonstrated an inability to judge Fred objectively from his earliest water-testing period.

Just providing some context here for your posts, as a convenience for those reading.

[bjs1779]

Some folk are deranged.

Why don't you say something? You sound like some liberal sound bite on a radio station.

[WFTR]

Fred Thompson's not my favorite candidate, but I don't have a big problem with his answers here. The sad reality is that most abortions are still going to be legal in this country four years from now regardless of who is elected president. Even under best case conditions, I think many abortions will be legal in eight years regardless of how the next two elections go.

I think any of the Republican candidates except Rudy Giuliani and John McCain would nominate judges who will generally be willing to rule against abortion as being a Constitutional right. If the judiciary changes so that abortion is no longer seen as a Constitutional right, then we can start passing laws to stop late and middle term abortions. Eventually, we'll be able to pass laws against most early term abortions, but the difference between Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson in this election is not going to change when that happens.

Fred Thompson's answers will cost him some votes in the South. Maybe he won't win quite as many delegates in the southern states as we had believed, but he may also pull some votes from people who were planning to support Rudy Giuliani. I'd be thrilled to think that our choice will come down to Mitt versus Fred instead of one of them versus Rudy.

Bill

[dschapin]

Yes, but Congress has been delegated power under the 14th Amendment to pass legislation to ensure that no person is deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Pro-lifers have always argued that unborn children are persons too unless you reject this argument then the 14th Amendment provides the federal government with the power to prohibit abortion. Not to mention the fact, that a constitutional amendment can never violate the 10th Amendment.

[Clara Lou]

I can see that you have great and repeated difficulty reading in context. Don’t bother to post to me again, because I won’t respond. Good evening.

[Grunthor]

“As mayor of New York-yes. As POTUS-No.”

Oh really? For your perusal;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8

[Grunthor]

“You said he wouldn’t, but you really don’t know. This is intellectually dishonest on your part.”

Rudy flat out said that he would, do I need to source that for you because you know that I wouldn’t ask if I didn’t have the goods.

[Rudder]

What’s your point?

People who vote should be informed rather than refuse to be. (recall: "I don't care what Rudy says.")

[RockinRight]

I’m quite informed, thank you.

I just don’t trust Rudy.

[ari-freedom]

I think romney would also appoint similar judges. I think both romney and fred are basically equivalent on this issue...but romney does have the best chance at beating rudy and that means a lot to me.

[phrogphlyer]

I’ll agree with you about the Supreme Court.

And nobody is forced into it. There is always an option, it just may not be the easy one.

[nickcarraway]

It’s interesting that that is in the platform. Do any of the presidential candidate support a Human Life Ammendment. I have never heardx President Bush say he supported it. I wonder how long this will last in the platform, no matter who wins the nomination.

[dschapin]

So, if Fred thinks that it is a violation of federalist principles to pass a human life amendment then why did he vote for a federal partial birth abortion ban. A federal law restricting abortion could theoretically violate the 10th amendment unlike a Constitutional Amendment which is by definition constitutional. I think the truth is that a partial birth abortion ban was wildly popular whereas a human life amendment is more controversial. The fact that Fred voted for a partial birth abortion ban but opposes a human life amendment shows that his opposition is based on politics not on principle.