Fred Thompson and the NRLC (Washington Times Editorial(11/15/07))

The Washinton Times ^ | November 15, 2007 | Editorial Board

[dschapin]

Fred Thompson and the NRLC

It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group, voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.

...

Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.

However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter. Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

....

[dschapin]

This is an excerpt from an excellent editorial by the Washington Times which does a great job of summing up my concerns with the National Right to Life Committee endorsing Fred Thompson. Please check out the rest of the editorial at the following link. http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071115/EDITORIAL/111150008/1013

[CharlesWayneCT]

I disagree somewhat on the flag burning, in that the flag is a federal responsibility, and if there ARE going to be rules about it, they should apply equally, not be decided by states.

But since I also think abortion is a violation of a basic inalienable right of all people to life, I think that a federal prohibition would not violate what the founding fathers considered state’s perogatives.

[lesser_satan]

ping

[Petronski]

However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

It is the national flag.

If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.

The states could not do that without a reversal of the court decision; that was the purpose of the constitutional amendment. But why would a ban on burning the national flag be a question of state law anyway?

Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments...

I don't believe he said that was his concern.

...he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Again, it is the national budget. How do states rights fit into balancing the federal budget? What state remedy is there?

This is a pretty sophomoric line of arguments from the Washington Times.

...voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate...

Oh really? Which ones are those?

It's hard to believe they published this trash.

[LibLieSlayer]

The FLAG represents the FEDERAL UNION and as such... is a FEDERAL ISSUE! The States have their own FLAGS.

LLS

[KDD]

Whatever the reason they had to endorse Fred matters little.

It is a key endorsement by one of, if not the biggest, Right to Life Group.
Congratulations to Fred Thompson.

[Politicalmom]

[Fred]

Let me put your fears to rest

IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 5, 2007

Five Questions for Fred Thompson

Pro-choice Americans call on Thompson to explain how his anti-choice views would impact women’s freedom and privacy

Washington, DC – As former Sen. Fred Thompson prepares to formally enter the Republican presidential primary, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that his anti-choice record, including his call for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, represents another disappointing option for voters.

"Fred Thompson has made clear that he supports taking away a woman's right to choose," Keenan said. "Sadly, his out-of-the mainstream views make him the rule, rather than the exception, in a GOP field of candidates that is openly hostile to the American values of freedom and privacy. Voters want a leader who has a vision of unifying this country behind policies that improve women's health-care options, not another president, like George Bush, who will use the government's power to take away our personal freedoms. Fred Thompson is not a candidate who will unify this country."

During his eight years in the U.S. Senate, Thompson voted anti-choice 44 out of 46 times on choice-related issues. He has called Roe v. Wade "bad law" and received the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement in his bid for Senate.

Keenan said Thompson, along with other leading GOP candidates, has taken the hypocritical stance of refusing to support commonsense prevention proposals while trying to make abortion more difficult and dangerous. Keenan called on Thompson to clarify his views and answer the following five questions on a woman's right to choose:

1. You support overturning Roe v. Wade. Doesn't that mean you support government interference in personal, private medical decisions that should be made between a woman, her family, and her doctor?

2. If you believe abortion should be outlawed and that doctors who provide abortion care should face criminal charges, then do you also believe women should be sent to prison for terminating a pregnancy?

3. Ninety-nine percent of Americans believe it is appropriate for young people to have information about STDs, and 94 percent of Americans think it is appropriate to teach young people about birth control. Do you support honest, realistic, age-appropriate sex education?

4. Do you think it's okay for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a woman's prescription for birth control based on an employee's personal views against contraception?

5. Do you believe hospital emergency rooms should be allowed to withhold information from a sexual-assault survivor about emergency contraception — which can help to prevent a pregnancy if taken soon after the assault?

NARAL Pro-Choice America is committed to making sure voters know all presidential candidates' positions on choice. For more information, please visit www.ProChoiceAmerica.org/elections/.

Contact: Ted Miller, 202.973.3032

If you want to fear someone or something fear Giuliani and or Romney.

[zerosix]

Thompson is going to really have to decide for himself and make some definitive statements or he will be an asterisk -- is he pro-life or NOT.

Is he a Federalist or NOT

[Petronski]

He’s both and his statements on both are already definitive.

[Petronski]

As far as the HLA goes:

“You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate,” says Dr. O'Steen [of NRLC]. “You’d have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitution], so it’s not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term — and of course, the president doesn’t have a vote.”

[Calpernia]

bump

[EternalVigilance]

I support the flag-burning amendment. It’s our national symbol, which stands for the principles embodied by the United States of America.

However, one of those principles, in fact the foremost principle, is that our rights to life and liberty are God-given, and therefore unalienable.

All persons are made in God’s image. That’s why each and every one has infinite value.

It’s nonsensical to think that a piece of cloth that represents these priceless principles is more valuable, more worthy of protection, than the principles themselves.

A living human being deserves more protection than a symbol. You can make a new flag, but you can never replace a single unique individual person.

[Texas Federalist]

The concerns regarding Fred are minutia. He is facing a devout liberal, a liberal in denial (who may or may not be an android), and a pro-life liberal. Fred is the ONLY candidate in the race with a conservative RECORD. Regardless of any perceived deviations at times, he is the only candidate who has been at all consistent.

[Calpernia]

Good post

[RockinRight]

You’re right. And I don’t believe that Thompson feels differently than you.

He’s acknowledging the harsh reality that he HLA cannot be passed at the current time, but we have a reasonable chance of getting a couple more justices on the SCOTUS that would be in favor of overturning Roe.

Sometimes the effectiveness of a position is what you have to be concerned about.

[Texas Federalist]

Thompson has made countless definative statements - he is not only pro-life and a devout federalist, but is also the only one in the race.

[sitetest]

Dear Petronski,

Good post. Mr. Thompson supported constitutional amendments for national and federal issues. Traditionally, criminal law has mostly been the province of the states.

Myself, I will not rest until explicit protection of the unborn is enshrined in the Constitution. However, I can respect and count as allies for now those who prefer only to overturn Roe and return the matter to the states.

The editorial line of the Washington Times is often like this. A lot of times, they just don’t really get it.

sitetest

[Route66]

It seems this campaign has boiled down to counting up perceived dents and dings in Fred Thompson and making the biggest possible mountains of even the most insignificant. The biggest issue seems to be his personal position on the Life amendment, which is a difference of opinion on the method we pursue against abortion, not a difference of intentions concerning abortion itself. He has already said he would not object to the Life amendment plank staying the platform and the NRLC does not see it as a problem because they know it’s the least likely of the possible solutions to the abortion problem.

I wonder who, among the front runners, the editorial board at the Washington Times thinks should have been given the nod? Maybe the editors should add up the dents and dings for all the front runners on the issue of abortion as well as other issues of importance to the majority of conservatives and see who looks least like an acne scarred teenager. I have, and I think Fred looks really good in comparison.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Trying to pull down a conservative candidate to prop up your one percenter does neither him nor Senator Thompson any favors, and makes it that much more likely that Rudy “Sanctuary City” Giuliani, Mitt “Gay Marriage” Romney or Mike “Open Borders for Jesus” Huckabee is the nominee. Is that what you want?! BTW, I understand that Fred and Duncan are friends. Did you know that?