Fred Thompson in '08!
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 ...
Well, no. Fred’s making a valid practical point.
True...up to a point. For some the ‘movement’ can be defined by anyone who voices a pro-life opinion. I understand where you are coming from though.
Yes, I agree. My wife agrees with Fred all the way. I can see his point. I predict ultra-sound 4D will solve the issue for most fence sitters — As it did with Fred.
Thompson Shows High Level of Integrity Jonathan Stein over at MotherJones Blog is on point when it comes to his analysis of Bob Novak's latest article attacking Fred Thompson.
In his post entitled "Bob Novak Sees Everything Through a Political Lens", it is game, set, match for Stein,
Bob Novak is claiming that social conservatives have had just about enough of Fred Thompson and his moderate views. On a recent Meet the Press appearance, Thompson opposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, opposed the congressional intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, and opposed a constitutional amendment to ban abortions (though such an amendment has been part of the Republican Party platform since 1980).And it's this last that is really getting people. On abortion, Thompson said, "You can't have a [federal] law" that "would take young, young girls... and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail." Despite his 100 percent pro-life voting record, Thompson is clearly just not avid enough. Here's Novak:
Thompson's comments revealed an astounding lack of sensitivity about abortion. He surely anticipated that Russert would cite his record favoring states' rights on abortion. Whether the candidate just blurted out his statement or had planned it, it suggested a failure to realize how much his chances for the Republican nomination depend on social conservatives.
Here's what I want to point out. As should be obvious, Thompson's comments revealed a lack of sensitivity about politics; they showed a high level of integrity about abortion. Novak can't distinguish between the two. For him, evaluating a stand or a position on principle is a non-starter, a moot point. A position can only be evaluated based on politics, and how it will help election chances. Blergh.
With your attitude, our side can forget about gaining any ground on the abortion debate. What is worth more to you: trying to stop all abortions and not stopping one, or trying to stop most and, indeed, stopping most?
These factors make it quite impossible to protect a baby unless his mother has both the power and the sill to save him. His insecurity is absolute when his mother can make an end of him with a handful of birth control pills and the flush of a toilet.
The results of an early self-abortion such as this cannot be distinguished from a natural miscarriage. There's no way to prove it was an abortion unless you want to do a forensic autopsy of all baby parts found in vaginally bleeding women in the ER. And even then, the proof would be iffy.
Therefore (ahem: dealing with concrete details, not over-intellectualizing here) it is futile to try to stop abortion by focusing punitive measures on the mother.
Most women do not abort by self-administering OC's or prostaglandin suppositories or pennyroyal and blue cohosh tea, or anything of the sort. Most women go to abortionists. The only practical way to stop (most) abortions is to shut down he abortion industry, which requires successfully eliciting the cooperation of women who HAD abortions, who can testify against the abortionist. They will not do so if they think they can be prosecuted.
That is why starting in the mid-19th century, all 50 states eventually made the decision to fashion their laws against the laws against the professional criminal abortionist, the doctor, and did not prosecute the women. How many states again? Fifty out of fifty.
There's a reason for that. Think about it.
i'm getting scared that fred will not get the nomination. once you leave FR and look at the general population, fred just doesn't seem to have the momentum of other candidates.
My view of the death penalty is the same as that of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (follow link and see first result.)
But I suppose you'd say the Catholic Church is not authentically pro-life. Too funny.
The person that has the abortion is a murderer, just like the so called doctor. Punishment should be the same for both.
And then there are some who only run their mouth.
Of the who have actually DONE something, I can honestly say I have never met one who wanted to put women who have had abortions in jail. Most of us would consider it a literally jaw-droppingly obtuse idea.
He's not making it well. Why bring up the red letter that he doesent want to criminalize girls who get abortions? Isnt that the kind of misdirection liberals use to end debate?
The right thing to say is you overturn Roe v Wade and send it back to the States and then you work on restrictions at the state level, and you leave it at that. He acts like hes brainstorming for some article hes going to write, and not running for President. Unprepared, unserious, off his game, and old.
That's what they do with the female school teachers who seduce those little boys ~ LOOKS COUNT. Never forget it.
Fred Thompson in '08!
Why do we care what this back-stabbing tool says, again?
Creepy post is creepy
Internet weirdos. :p
A point that needs to be pointed out more often!
Well it gives congress the power and what could would it be if they are no penalties
It would be up to Congress. Even then, Congress usually only exercises its authority if states fail to do so. For example, the 19th Amendment gives women the vote. Every state complied with it, so Congress has never had any reason to legislate in that area, even though the amendment authorizes them to do so.
One area where they have exercised their authority is voting rights for blacks. Some states tried to keep blacks from voting after the 15th Amendment was passed. In 1965, Congress exercised their enforcement authority and passed the Voting Rights Act. In fact, they’ve overstepped their bounds in this area by going far beyond simply protecting black voting rights. The VRA also bans literacy tests and poll taxes in non-federal elections, neither of which Congress has the authority to do. It also requires states to draw district lines to try to guarantee certain racial results in elections. Again, that exceeds Congress’ authority. And the VRA requires the states to provide bilingual ballots, which yet again exceeds Congress’ 15th Amendment powers.
The Supreme Court has let them get away with all this using “affirmative action” type reasoning. More blacks flunk literacy tests per capita than whites, therefore it “denies blacks the right to vote” to have such a test. Of course, that’s a nonsensical argument but it’s typical in our PC age.
But there’s no reason to expect any state or Congress would throw women in jail. It never happened before Roe, even with no active pro-life groups around. Today there are active pro-life groups and they all oppose jailing women. So where would the constituency be for supporting such a thing?
The reason we see absurd excesses on racial issues is because of the electoral benefit to liberals from allowing illiterate people, illegal aliens, and so forth, to vote.
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.