--snip--
FRED is still Pro-Life...despite the twisted position the headline puts him in!
Fred has a “nuanced” view of certain things....
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?
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.
Choices are good, right?
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.
Yep. Federalism apparently trumps the constittional rights of the unborn. This will sink Freddy.
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.
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 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.
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.
But, but, but, but, but Fred’s the authentic conservative, isn’t he? Unlike that flippin’ floppin’ Johnny-come-lately Mitt feller. Fred’s the real deal, isn’t he? He’s the one we all have to hold out to which is why we can’t coalesce around Mitt in order to stave off a Julieannie disaster, isn’t he?
Fred Thompson on Abortion
Former Republican Senator (TN)
Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad science
On the issue of abortion Thompson was unequivocal: “Prolife.” Asked if he supported overturning Roe v. Wade, Thompson was equally unequivocal: “I think Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad medical science And the way to address that is through good judges. I don’t think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It’s contrary to what it’s been the past 200 years... That’s what happened in this case [Roe v. Wade]. I think it was wrong.”
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.143-144 Jun 3, 2007
Appoint strict constructionist judges
As President, Thompson would appoint strict constructionist judges like the man he helped through the confirmation process to the position of Chief Justice, John Roberts.
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.162 Jun 3, 2007
Has never been pro-choice despite 1994 news reports
Some news reports from Thompson’s 1994 campaign classified him as pro-choice. Thompson confesses to being perplexed over the confusion about his position on the issue: “I have read these accounts [about me being pro-choice] and tried to think back 13 years ago as to what may have given rise to them, although I don’t remember it.”
But, he adds: “I was interviewed and rated pro-life by the National Right to Life folks in 1994, and I had a 100% voting record on abortion issues while in the Senate.” Planned Parenthood gave him a ZERO rating because of his pro-life voting record. NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) gave him an “F” rating when considering potential vice-presidential candidates in 2000.
Ultimately, however, Thompson is motivated on the issue from a personal level, not just a legalistic or moralistic viewpoint. He has said the issue “means more’’ to him now because he has had two children in recent years. “I have seen the sonograms of my babies.’’
Source: The Fred Factor, by Steve Gill, p.159-160 Jun 3, 2007
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities.
Reference: Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions.
This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights].
Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3
Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999
Voted YES on banning human cloning.
This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning].
I can live with that.
Fred’s answer sounds fine. Some of us don’t care about the abortion issue either way, and letting the states decide about it - and many other things - would be a good idea.
Maybe states will decide to start executing all boys under the age of two.
Human life says “NO” to Thompson.
The premise that says abortion is wrong because it murders an innocent human being is the same premise that should deny ANY government, just as any individual, authority to take innocent life.
If people want to make a choice to have an abortion that Fred disagrees with, "that’s what freedom is all about."
Hooray for diversity. Down with intolerance.
Another objection to this type of amendment is that it might make it impossible to terminate pregnancies where the child is horribly defective, in cases of rape, and so on.
I think it should be opposed on those grounds alone.
Fred Thompson ‘08!