Posted on 11/05/2007 7:42:06 AM PST by pissant
(CNSNews.com) - Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Sunday he does not support the pro-life plank that has been included in the Republican National Platform since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Thompson told host Tim Russert that he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that took the issue of abortion away from the states by declaring abortion a constitutional right. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.
"People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states," said Thompson. "Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law."
If abortions are not "criminalized" even for doctors who are paid to perform them, they will remain legal.
The Republican National Platform has included language endorsing a human life amendment since 1976, the first presidential election following the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
Since 1984, the year President Ronald Reagan ran for re-election, each quadrennial Republican platform has included the same pro-life language, calling for both a human life amendment and for legislation making clear that the 14th Amendment, which includes the right to equal protection of the law, extends to unborn babies.
On "Meet the Press," Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican "pro-life" plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.
"This," said Russert, "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?"
"No," said Thompson.
"You would not?" said Russert.
"No," said Thompson. "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..."
"Each state would make their own abortion laws?" Russert asked.
"Yeah," said Thompson. "But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling -- going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go."
Thompson told Russert that since he ran for the Senate in 1994, he has changed his mind about whether human life begins at conception.
Back then, he did not know the answer, he said. Now, especially in light of having seen the sonogram of his four-year-old child, he has changed his mind -- and now believes human life does begin at conception.
Still, he does not favor "criminalizing" the taking of a human life through abortion. Russert challenged him on the consistency of this position.
"So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?" said Russert.
"Yes, I, I, I, I do," said Thompson.
"You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?" asked Russert.
"I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially -- you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do.
"It cannot change the way I feel about it morally -- but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind," said Thompson.
In an interview with Fox News Monday morning, Thompson said he's been pro-life all his career -- "and always will be."
Thompson insisted that he's been consistent on the issue, unlike other Republicans.
"Look at what I did for eight years in the United States Senate. I mean, we had votes on federal funding for abortion, we had votes on partial birth abortion, we had votes on the Mexico City policy, we had votes on cloning, we had votes to prohibit people taking young girls across state lines to avoid parental consent laws -- that's what I did. Those are the issues that face the federal government," Thompson said.
"I would have done the same policies as president that I did when I was in the United States Senate, which is one hundred percent pro-life," he said.
"I can't reach into every person to change their hearts and minds in America, but I can certainly make sure where, for example, federal tax dollars go."
LLS
Perhaps but it has gone from ‘Duncan Who?’ early last year to him handily winning the last member poll on FR:
(10/23) Who would you vote for if you were not afraid that your candidate might not win?
Hunter: 37.4 (923 votes)
Fred: 24.8 (612)
Rudy: 7.0 (174)
Well, I hope Fred does not get the chance to do any battles except for his contracts with NBC. Hunter all the way, baby.
“Hunter Duncan is a fine conservative who desperately needs a better class of supporter.”
He deserves the support of every conservative. He’s the only candidate who deserves that support based on his consistent positions. Instead, so many people on here are backing Thompson because they think he can win because he was in Hunt for Red October. They’ve even become pro-choice in order to keep him afloat.
If it goes back to the states, as he wants it, and he is POTUS, he has nothing to do with the decisions of state legislatures.
You don’t think these things should be left up to the states?
>FDT was intrumental in ditching the GOP’s “Contract with America”<
>>I’d like to see you try to prove that.<<
FYI, this is a forum of ideas (see my #213) not a court of law, nor am I on trial here. I do not make idle statements. Take it or leave it.
I want a balanced government, where the federal protects rights that states want to take away and where the states protect rights that the federal wants to take away.
First, that’s on FR, pissant. Don’t confuse FR political knowledge/exuberance for national figures.
Secondly, ejonesie22 is right when he says Hunter is too ‘stone club’ for this issue at this time. If we’re going to win this fight we have to fight smart. And smart to me means first overturning RvW; with the accent on FIRST.
There are other people in the PRIMARIES AND I EMPHASIZE PRIMARY.
“So then you look at their position in total on the subject.”
And the liklihood of that candidate being in the running when it comes time to vote. I can tell you straight up, if Duncan is STILL at 1% when the first votes are cast in Iowa, he is NOT going to win anything. Then we have a choice between a liberal, a RINO and Fred.
I’m not voting for the RINO or the Liberal.
If it were MY world, there would never be another abortion.
That isn’t realistic.
Fred said states should decide. It’s a lot easier for activists to affect state laws than national ones. He voted for every restriction he had a chance to vote on.
I personally feel that overturning Roe V Wade with good judges (Which FRed WILL appoint) is the way to save the most lives as fast as possible.
An amendment will never pass at this time. Maybe later, as more and more technology proves that babies are BABIES so nobody can argue against it.
You are so correct!
So you just made it up and have no intention of offering proof.
In fact, you seem to be saying you don’t feel bound by minor things like proof. All you offer is your promise that you do not make “idle statements.”
Gotcha.
Except that without proof, they ARE idle statements.
It is interesting how the MSM never asks Barack Hussein Obama, Breck Girl or Hitlery about their stand on abortion: abortions for anyone at any time.
I’ll leave it at that...
States Rights... either believe in them or not. I would not live in a State where abortion is legal. You could move to a place that fits your beliefs or change where you live.
-
why do you have to move? you’re not going to be aborted. The unborn can’t move. Those who want abortions will simply drive over to a pro-abortion state.
Hunter has every intention of overturning RvW. Through legislative action, appointing pro-life judges and through the amendment process. But this is not the only issue that differentiates the two men. So all I can tell you is good luck. I got lotsa people to convince to vote for Hunter. Not just on FR, obviously.
I'm not sure I understand. FRed wants states rights, though he is opposed to amendments against child murder and pervert marriage there's not much he can do to obstruct their making. Troubling I know.
Read posts #9 and #11.
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.