Posted on 11/08/2007 12:03:44 PM PST by coca-cola kid
Fred Thompson was well into a prolonged dialogue about abortion with interviewer Tim Russert on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' on Sunday when he said something stunning for social conservatives: ''I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors.'' He went further: ''You can't have a [federal] law'' that ''would take young, young girls . . . and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail.''
Those comments sent e-mails flying across the country reflecting astonishment and rage by pro-life Republicans. No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents. Jailing women is a spurious issue raised by abortion rights activists.
Thompson's comments revealed astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue. Whether the candidate blurted out what he said or planned it, it reflects failure to realize how much his chances for the presidential nomination depend on social conservatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
doctor's doing dozens/day maybe, but not the girls themselves.
Hmmm, until now, Novak was pushing the same argument.
I think Fred was responding in a manner that opposes the radical side of the pro-life activists who may have suggested jail. He was saying that you cannot go to the extreme with any federal laws. At least that’s how I took it.
If you criminalize something, you must jail those that break the law.
I agree with FT that I do not want my wife or daughters criminalize.
I see no error. I agree with what Thompson said.
A law that punishes a person performing the abortion is neutral to the woman on which the abortion was performed.
Unless she does it herself...
America does not want to jail its mothers and daughters, and they know that.
Such a stance is best left alone until AFTER abortion has been made illegal, not before.
FDT knows this, sadly many who are also on the right side of the issue over all do not.
This is not about right and wrong at this point. It is about political reality and saving lives.
And because of stubbornness and lack of understanding political tactics, we are losing...
I’m pro-life. Thompson’s view that we should get strict constructionist judges, that Roe is bad law, and we should go back to the pre-Roe status quo . . . is good enough for me.
That said. Go Hunter. Breakout . . . that’s what I want.
Robert Novak,
Another old guard soldier groping for a kill shot on Thompson.
They all lose.
Further, this article is convoluted. Those opposing abortion rights often make clear (as Thompson did ) that they would not criminalize the mother's behavior. Further, abortion rights activists OFTEN accuse pro lifers of a plan to do just that.
Thompson's answer made perfect sense and was rather run of the mill. I feel very bad about the constant effort to savage everything he says.
I also don’t what to criminalize our health care system either.
Slightly different title, exact same article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922663/posts
An analogy: murder is a state offense, unless federal blah blah. Why should the age of the victim federalize the crime?
We have far too much federal intrusion into state and personal issues. Conservatives should not run roughshod over the Constitution just because we stand on high moral ground.
This is like what, the third anti-Fred column Novak has done? Why does he dislike Fred? I saw him walking down the srteet on my way to the bank (I work in DC) and was tempted to ask him about it.
You should.
The poor man's Bob Dole made a boo-boo. Too many years in Hollywood, perhaps? .... The guy's swimming like his pockets are filled with rocks.
I don’t disagree.
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.