Posted on 11/12/2007 9:52:42 AM PST by jaybeegee
Fred Thompson will pick up the support of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) tomorrow, according to two Republicans familar with the decision.
For a candidate who came up empty-handed last week when three prominent Christian conservatives endorsed GOP hopefuls and is falling in both national and early state polls, the move comes at a critical time.
NRLC is the most prominent anti-abortion group in the country, with affiliates in all 50 states and over 3,000 local chapters.
A spokesperson for the organization declined to comment on their endorsement decision, but Thompson was likely rewarded for his strong pro-life voting record in the Senate. As Thompson frequently touts on the stump, he rated out at 100% on the group's report card.
More...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I’ll agree with you in part, but amending the Constitution isn’t tossing it out or being as bad as the liberals. The Human Life Amendment and the Federal Marriage Amendment are legitimate proposed constitutional amendments. It’s very unfair to accuse proponents of those amendments of being in the same league as people who want to find imaginary things in an imaginary “penumbra” allegedly “surrounding” the Constitution.
No no. you have it all wrong. Conservatism has evolved over the last few years. True "conservatism" is now simply a different way to use the overbearing power of govt to bring about a different totalitarian result than the liberals are after. That seems to be the majority opinion even here any more. The govt has become the solution for everything.
Sell out? Nope. Not even close. Abortion was a state issue when the Constitution was written and should be now.
So now what Mr Bopp???
Seems your client does not agree with you.
Guess jumping in back in January was a tick too soon...
;)
I really want FRED to WANT to be President!!!
LOL
Oh please...
They want to win and save babies, and 2-3% won’t get there, no matter how good Duncan is on the issues...
I am SO sorry. I don’t know what gets into me.....
Support for the Human Life Amendment will stay in the GOP platform and Fred will endorse it if he’s the nominee.
I agree its unfair to characterize those who support an amendment against abortion as being in the same league as those who want to twist the meaning of the constitution. That said, very few here really want the 9th and 10th Amendments to mean what they really say. Simply put, we have a bajillion more rights than those enumerated in the Constitution.
Yeah, like slavery (rolls eyes)
National Right to Life isn’t pro-life enough??
I suspect you’re missing the /sarcasm tag? But seriously, you have a point. Liberty is what is worth fighting and dying for, not a big overbearing government. And yes a persons rights stop where another’s begin.
Anyone can criticize Fred for not being “anti” enough all they want. But of Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson, Thompson by far has the best pro-life credentials. While I wasn’t completely satisfied with his answers to Tim Russert, the one answer that isn’t getting any air play is the one he gave regarding when life begins. He unequivicollay stated that he now believes that life begins at conception after seeing the sonogram of his little girl. I will take his pro-life credentials over the other 2 aforementioned any day.
Perhaps NRTL has common sense and knows that before anything can change at the state level Roe V Wade has to be overturned?
They might even know that a Constitutional amendment will likely never happen but Fred is smart enough to give us some USSC judges to undo this mess.
Your ignorance is showing. Again.
You do the candidate you support a disservice when you fail to post the whole context of his answer. Since you didn't I will.
MR. RUSSERT: This 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?
MR. THOMPSON: No.
MR. RUSSERT: You would not?
MR. THOMPSON: No. 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...
MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. 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.
MR. RUSSERT: I went back—we went back to your papers at the University of Tennessee and read through them. This is what you said back in 1994 as a candidate. Here’s the first one: “I’m not willing to support laws that prohibit early-term abortions. I’m not suddenly upon election as a senator going to know when life begins and where that place ought to be exactly. It comes down to whether you believe life begins at conception. I don’t know in my own mind if that is the case so I don’t feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people.”
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: So you yourself don’t know when life begins.
MR. THOMPSON: No. I didn’t know then.
MR. RUSSERT: You know now?
MR. THOMPSON: I, I, I—my head has always been the same place. My public position has always been the same. I’ve been 100 percent pro-life in every vote that I’ve ever cast in, in my service to the United States Senate.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, you say that you’re for states having...
MR. THOMPSON: Well, no...
MR. RUSSERT: Let me finish, because this is important. You’re for allowing states to have pro-abortion rights, and you yourself, and I have 10 different statements from you, say that you would not ban abortion, it’s a woman’s right, and you would not ban it in the first trimester.
MR. THOMPSON: No, no. Well, you just said two different things here. You know, it’s a complex issue concerning whether or not you’re going to have a federal law, whether or not you’re going to have a federal constitutional amendment, those kinds of things. Nobody’s proposed a federal law on this. Nobody’s recently proposed a, a federal constitutional amendment. I, I, I had an opportunity to vote on an array of things over eight years, whether it be partial birth abortion, whether it be Mexico City policy, whether it be transporting young girls across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and all that—100 percent pro-life.
But let me finish on my point, and, and, and my legal record is there, and that’s the way I would govern if I was president. I would take those same positions. No federal funding for abortion, no nothing that would in any way encourage abortion. When I saw—and again, all consistent with what I’ve said. I—people ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states. 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. I said those things are going to be ultimately won in the hearts and minds of people. I’m probably a pretty good example of that. Although my, my, my head and my legislative record’s always been the same, when I saw that sonogram of my little now four-year-old, it’s, it’s, it’s changed my heart. It’s changed the way I look at things. I was looking at my child when, when, when I, when I saw that. And I knew that, and I felt that. And that’s the way I feel today. And I think life begins at conception. I always—it was abstract to me before. I was a father earlier when I was very young. I was busy. I went about my way. One of the, one of the maybe few advantages you have by getting a little bit older.
MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.
MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?
MR. THOMPSON: 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.
MR. RUSSERT: And also with gay marriage, according to the Associated Press: “Thompson favors a constitutional amendment that bars judges from legalizing gay marriage, but also leaves open the door for state legislatures to approve the practice.” So if a state said, “We want to have gay marriages in our state,” you would be OK with that?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes. This, this, this—the—marriage is between a man and a woman. Nobody ever thought that that was contested until recently, and we’ve had a couple judges in a couple states decide to turn all that on its head. So we’ve, we’ve had, again, a judge-created problem. I would support a constitutional amendment that addresses this judge-created problem. But at the end of—and, and say judges can’t do that. But, at the end of the day, if a state legislature and a governor decide that that’s what they want to do, yes, they should have, they, they should have the freedom to do what Fred Thompson thinks is a very bad idea.
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.