Thompson Wouldn't Seek Abortion Ban Amendment

The New York Sun ^ | November 6, 2007 | Russell Berman

[Stars&StripesNE]

WASHINGTON — Breaking with his party on a key social issue, Fred Thompson says he will not run on a plank of the 2004 Republican platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. The former Tennessee senator cited his federalist views in opposing the amendment, saying he wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned and the question of abortion returned to the states.

[Saundra Duffy]

I demand an apology from all FredHeads.

I saw the Tim Russert interview. I just sat there with my mouth opened.

Fred does NOT want a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. He does NOT want a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. He DOES want the states to get stuck with these issues and he does not realize what a nightmare that would create. California (my state) and New York would be overrun by abortionists in a matter of days. And gay people who want to get married would be moving to those two states by the millions. The taxpayers of California and New York would fit the fill for all this horrible fallout.

I demand an apology!

[Saundra Duffy]

“At least Fred doesn’t pander to those who want certain sections of the constitution become a living breathing document...States Rights MUST prevail.”

When it comes to abortion, this will not cut it - same for gay rights.

Like I said, I demand an apology from FredHeads everywhere who tried to shove this guy down our throats.

I saw the interview! I am furious!!

[Def Conservative]

Fred is right on.

[Seruzawa]

Yikes. Do you even know what a conservative is? It isn’t someone who wants the govt involved in every aspect of society.

[BillM]

The beauty of States’ rights is that you can still live in America and choose a state with citizens of like mind.

If the federal government does it all, you would have to find another country.

Why should 50.1% of the people dominate 49.9%.

Fred’s plan (and the Founders) lets you join others like you.

[John Valentine]

Since murder, itself, is a matter of state law, so should abortion.

Precisely.

People who want to Federalize abortion law want to do so because they hate it so much. But, that is perhaps the worst reason to federalize something. I happen to really hate cannibalism, but I am not agitating for a Constitutional amendment banning it. I, like most people are quite content to let states handle such things.

[YankeeGirl]

I like him better & better. Abortion back to the states; government out of end-of-life family drama (where there is family consensus).

[John Valentine]

I also saw the interview, and it was like a breath of fresh air on a nice summer day.

I’d infinitely prefer a freedom loving federalist to a liberal statist in conservative clothing any day of the week.

And, Saundra, by “liberal statist” I’m talking about you. As far as I’m concerned you are the same as Hillary Clinton or any of her ilk, only of a different hue. You are both liberals under the classic definition: someone who believes that all the problems of society are mostly and mainly caused by the shortcomings of others.

[kevkrom]

I demand an apology!

I'm sorry that you're obviously not clued in enough to understand what the word "federalism" means and that you're foolish enough to follow Romney down the primrose path he's leading you on.

Good enough for you?

[Renderofveils]

Like I said, I demand an apology from FredHeads everywhere who tried to shove this guy down our throats

While you're at it, demand an apology from everyone that supports the politicians that shoved Washington beaurocracy down the American people's throats?

[MortMan]

You want Fred to apologize for a proper federalist viewpoint? (NOTE: I am using the term "proper" to mean that his views are consistent with a traditional federalist stance.)

Think about it this way... You are asking that Roe v. Wade be replaced with no less of a burdensome ruling from the other side. Instead of expecting to win on the strength of your ideas, you want Uncle Sugar to come galloping to the rescue.

I escaped New York. California has borders, too. If you cannot win on important state issues, perhaps you are in the wrong state.

[joebellis]

EXACTLY!

[John Valentine]

I’m sorry, but if you can’t control your own state, why should all the rest of us have to step in and bail you out at the cost of our own freedoms?

I’d say you either need to take back California, or move to Nebraska. Either way, stop your whining.

And Mitt? You’ve GOT to be kidding.

[festus]

Probably the part where he sounds like he’ll actually follow the constitution.

[ejonesie22]

I am sorry you support Mitt and have to deal with promoting an de facto liberal/moderate on a Conservative site...

Never say this “Fredhead” did not oblige...

[CHEE]

Is the crime of murder addressed in the U.S. Constitution? The answer is no because this is left for the individual states to handle. Abortions should be handled the same was with no question. The feds need to stick to national defense, interstate trade and a few other matters allowed by the Constitution.

[ari-freedom]

After all, State's rights!

[restornu]

Wow this is fastsinating to watch the real dance that they do while they have accused others of for endorsing the one who wants to over turn Roe vs Wade!

Now surfaces the truth of their version of pro life!

[Wonder Warthog]

"There goes the perfect candidate. What next?"

Although I prefer the Constitutional amendment, the "states rights" argument is acceptable. And it's not impossible that one will lead to the other.

[ari-freedom]

The beauty of States’ rights is that you can still live in America and choose a state with citizens of like mind.

unborn babies can't choose to be in pro-life states