Fred Thompson just disqualified himself
Up until 30 minutes ago, Fred Thompson was one of the Republican presidential candidates I would have accepted – not perfect, but pro-life.
No longer.
He said yesterday in a Meet the Press interview with Tim Russert that he does not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution:
As my friend Bill fleshed out in an email about this clip….
Most pro-life Republicans believe in overturning Roe vs. Wade, which kicks it back to the states, but also including federal Human Life Amendment language in the platform as an aspiration that one day there will not be abortion. Fred disagrees with this. His position is to kick it back to the states, and then let the states have abortion if they wish, but with no aspiration for a Constitutional amendment protecting human life.
This is the Stephen Douglas approach to the sanctity of life. Douglas ran against Lincoln on the platform of letting each state decide whether it wanted slavery.
The next clip from the same Meet the Press interview renders Thompson’s aforementioned position unconscionable. In it he says he believes life begins at conception. Then how could he agree to let states kill preborn children?
In this clip, Russert confronts Thompson with past statements about not wanting to prohibit early-term abortions. Fred gives a meandering response and makes the Rudy Giuliani argument that young pregnant girls should not be thrown in jail. By the end of this clip, I wasn’t even sure Thompson had changed his position on early abortions. I thought not, actually.
I just scratched Thompson off my list of possibilities. Am down to 3.
[HT: friend Bill]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This story was THE BIG DUSTUP on FreeRepublic yesterday.
The Fredheads were SO disappointed…
Really? He lost support from his own peeps?
I saw part of this interview. He really doesn’t make much sense to me. He’s trying to have it both ways. One more off my list too. I have more respect for people who take a stand on issues,even if I don’t agree with them.That way at least you know who you are dealing with. He doesn’t have the cache that Guiliani does so I think it is going make it harder for people to overlook his wishy-washy position.
Next!
Frankly, I think it is more evil to say that life begins at conception, but I don’t want to impose that view on states than for someone to say I believe life doesn’t begin at conception so I therefore support abortion. Does this make sense?
Ha.
He sucked on Law and Order and now he’s really sucked it up big time in his presidential bid.
And this is why actors should not run for office. Any office (this goes for you too, Al Franken!).
Really? He lost support from his own peeps?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 5, 2007 10:21 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hoooooo Yeah!
You really should check it out in the “pro-life” and “abortion” sections on FreeRepublic.
(You should also check it out because it IS the Mother of All Conservative Sites, and you have two BIG TIME fans that link to this site all the time…)
Fred, you’re all done.
Here ‘ya go –
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1920905/posts
There are 5-6 new rabid threads that have been launched since I was there last night.
@Jasper: I found another funny shirt you should take a look at:
http://www.threadless.com/product/1034/Down_With_CAPITALISM
Hi Carrie.
“Frankly, I think it is more evil to say that life begins at conception, but I don’t want to impose that view on states than for someone to say I believe life doesn’t begin at conception so I therefore support abortion. Does this make sense?”
No, because it’s anti-science. According to science, human life begins at conception. We need laws based on science, not ideology. God love you, Carrie.
Whats crazy about this thread is that about two weeks ago I was talking to two individuals about the very topic of slavery and abortion.
Bobby, that makes sense. By the way, that isn’t how I view it. I was just comtemplating the two different viewpoints to figure out which made more sense.
The mans showing some intelligence at long last –
“Bobby, that makes sense. By the way, that isn’t how I view it. I was just comtemplating the two different viewpoints to figure out which made more sense.”
Oh okay, Carrie.
should read *contemplating*
Fred Thompson Rejects GOP’s Pro-Life Platform Plank
By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
November 05, 2007
(CNSNews.com) – Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Sunday he does not support the pro-life plank that has been included in the Republican National Platform since the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Thompson told host Tim Russert that he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that took the issue of abortion away from the states by declaring abortion a constitutional right. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.
“People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states,” said Thompson. “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.”
If abortions are not “criminalized” even for doctors who are paid to perform them, they will remain legal.
The Republican National Platform has included language endorsing a human life amendment since 1976, the first presidential election following the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.
Since 1984, the year President Ronald Reagan ran for re-election, each quadrennial Republican platform has included the same pro-life language, calling for both a human life amendment and for legislation making clear that the 14th Amendment, which includes the right to equal protection of the law, extends to unborn babies.
On “Meet the Press,” Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican “pro-life” plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.
“This,” said Russert, “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?”
“No,” said Thompson.
“You would not?” said Russert.
“No,” said Thompson. “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…”
“Each state would make their own abortion laws?” Russert asked.
“Yeah,” said Thompson. “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.”
Thompson told Russert that since he ran for the Senate in 1994, he has changed his mind about whether human life begins at conception.
Back then, he did not know the answer, he said. Now, especially in light of having seen the sonogram of his four-year-old child, he has changed his mind — and now believes human life does begin at conception.
Still, he does not favor “criminalizing” the taking of a human life through abortion. Russert challenged him on the consistency of this position.
“So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?” said Russert.
“Yes, I, I, I, I do,” said Thompson.
“You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?” asked Russert.
“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,” said Thompson.
In an interview with Fox News Monday morning, Thompson said he’s been pro-life all his career — “and always will be.”
Thompson insisted that he’s been consistent on the issue, unlike other Republicans.
“Look at what I did for eight years in the United States Senate. I mean, we had votes on federal funding for abortion, we had votes on partial birth abortion, we had votes on the Mexico City policy, we had votes on cloning, we had votes to prohibit people taking young girls across state lines to avoid parental consent laws — that’s what I did. Those are the issues that face the federal government,” Thompson said.
“I would have done the same policies as president that I did when I was in the United States Senate, which is one hundred percent pro-life,” he said.
“I can’t reach into every person to change their hearts and minds in America, but I can certainly make sure where, for example, federal tax dollars go.”
I miss Sam.
Thanks, Laura. I like the title of that piece.
Sam is still there, little Jacque. It will be great if the rumor’s true and he runs for guv.
I agree, Jill. I just never thought I’d love a man with used car salesman/game show host hair… :(
I know that I am about to walk into a minefield here. But many Human Life Amendments actually would return abortion decisions to the states (depending on how they are drafted).
Most Human Life Amendments define life as starting as conception. This would have the effect of overturning Roe vs. Wade because it would give states a compelling interest to protect the unborn. However, it would still be up to the states enact and enforce bans.
Furthermore even if the Federal Government did somehow ban abortions, it would still be up to the states to enforce the ban. The states and localities have police power, the federal government (generally) does not.
Thompson came down wrong on Terri, too
I blogged earlier today that Fred Thompson lost any hope of my vote on Meet the Press yesterday by saying he opposed a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, also a plank of the Republican platform. Thompson also spoke incoherently…
TCR, maybe you need to move your feet around more, to stir up some of those mines.
Doug
TCR-
I agree with you. Sorry.
It’s the principle I care about, not the practice.
You are totally right. I felt the same way when I saw the clips, which is before I read your post.
When he said, “As you know, it’s a complex issue…”
What the hell’s complex about it? If life begins at conception — and he says it does — you’re killing a human being if you have an abortion.
Ergo, Fred Thompson opposes a constitutional amendment to ban the killing of human beings. He believes each individual state should be able to decide for itself whether to allow parents to kill their children or not.
It seems simple enough to me.
You folks are real honest-to-goodness hammerheads, aren’t you??
You have no understanding of Federalism and you couldn’t care less because you’re having way too much fun in wanting what you want, when you want it and to hell with the consequences, right??
Wake up and smell what you’re shoveling!