Replies

100% Pro-Life? Please.

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.

This is the real pro-lifer in the race:

Romney told ABC News that he supports the GOP platform on abortion, which calls for a human life amendment that would afford full legal protection to unborn children.

"You know, I do support the Republican platform, and I support that being part of the Republican platform and I'm pro-life," he told ABC.

Thompson is opposed to amending the constitution, so you say he isn’t pro-life, but you say Romney is pro-life even though he has promised to “protect and preserve Roe v. Wade” and he has worked to raise money for NARL. (Interesting perspective you have there).

Funny, almost every single right to life organization seems to disagree with you, both on Thommpson and Romney.

You new to politics? Thompson correctly disdains the ridiculous notion of amending the Constitution. (If you believe that’s possible, you believe in the tooth fairy.) He is correctly focused on appointing justices who will do what is very possible: overturn Roe v. Wade. Then the states will be free to quickly take care of business on their own.

And Romney? Who cares what that liberal Massachusetts flip-flopper has to say?
He is completely untrustworthy.

You might post a little more of that interview.

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.