AmericanPapist Comments
RedState.com has the details behind the NRLC's reasoning for choosing Thompson.
For an evangelist, Pat Robertson is a pretty good politician.
He likes to stay relevant, and hitching his wagon to a rising star, especially pre-convention, is his attempt to make sure he stays relevant.
WAC
Fred Thompson is NOT pro-life! This is yet another betrayal to the cause by NRLC.
Did you not hear him on Meet the Press? Not only does he not support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution (which is what needs to be done to rid this land of abortion, recognize the unborn child as a "person" deserving of protections), but he doesn't support "criminilizing" it.
Michelle, you can be pro-life and at the same time believe a Human Life Amendment is an unrealistic goal not worth expenditure of political capital (especially with a Democratic Congress). This is Thompson's position - he has said that he supports and will work to accomplish the goals of such an amendment (and is thus able to save face after saying he doesn't uphold the GOP plank on the issue), but he doesn't think that it is prudent to promote it as the solution to the problem of abortion in America.
While the "criminalization" language he used on Meet the Press seemed dated and out-of-touch with the current state of the abortion debate at best, I do think the clarification issued by his campaign and his subsequent reiterations of it demonstrate a level of nuance and prudence on the issue that no other candidate has matched at this point.
And you'll have to demonstrate how a man with a 100% pro-life voting record (is anyone contesting this?) can emphatically NOT be pro-life.
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear Thompson is pro-life, but he does also seem to be rather uninformed about the nature of the current abortion debate at times. See CNA:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co...new.php?
n=10897
Thom, while watching him on Meet the Press and hearing him trot out the "criminalizing young girls" bit, I thought, "He's still using language from like 20 years ago. Someone needs to sit down with him and bring him up to speed on the abortion debate." My hope is that the good folks at NRLC have done so. Whether or not a major candidate in the GOP race should need that kind of education on such a key issue (especially at this point in the race), is something people can disagree about...even if it shouldn't be necessary, it seems to me he's taken it to heart, which can only be a good thing.
Yes, fair enough.
"Yeah, I think it's pretty clear Thompson is pro-life, but he does also seem to be rather uninformed about the nature of the current abortion debate at times. See CNA:http://www.catholicnewsagency.co...new.php? n=10897"
Is that right? I'm sorry to tell this to you but Thompson is pro-abortion!
We do not need another confused candidate in office.
I'm disputing his 100% pro-life voting record, because in the years he served, they didn't vote on ending abortion. You can regulate it all you want, but if you have no intention of "criminilizing" it, and don't think it ought to be, then by definition, you are "pro-choice" on the matter.
I doubt that the National Right to Life is getting him up to speed on anything except on how to appease us. They have a record of being a front organization for the GOP, and they put party above principle.
I'm a pro-life activist who has studied there moves in the last several years, and have talked to several leaders who believe the same as I do on this.
Michelle, I think your way off base on this. He said he didn't support criminalizing women who chose to have abortions, he never talked about doctors.
The mother is always the second victim of the abortion. The Doctor is the one to be jailed. Nuance and compassion are important.
As for the HLA, a person can be pro-life and not support the HLA.
Disappointing. They should be rallying behind someone like Mike Huckabee, who has a solid pro-life record, and is rising in the polls.
There's a poll to be released tomorrow that shows Huckabee second in Iowa, trailing only Romney.
Quite right, LCB.
Anti-abortion laws prior to Roe never punished the mothers. In Thompson's America, when the legal situation is rolled back to status quo ante-1972, the states that criminalize abortion will punish only doctors who perform the procedure.
WAC
Direct quote from Fred Thompson in the Meet the Press interview:
"People ask me hypothetically, okay, you know, it goes back to the states. Somebody comes up with a bill and they say we're going to outlaw this 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 and perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about, it's not the sense of the Senate. Your talking about potential criminal law."
I have no argument with the mother being the second victim. I agree. I don't propose punishing the woman in most cases. But in the above quote, Fred Thompson goes so far to say we shouldn't criminilize even the "family physician," applying a much cozier term than "doctor" or "abortionist". Now there's "nuance" for ya, that could have been written by NARAL.
The strategy of using a HLA is to establish personhood for preborn children, a direct assault on Roe vs Wade. In the decision itself, Blackmun wrote, "If personhood is established, this case collapses."
Simply overturning Roe, and pushing it back to the states, is just like leaving the issue of slavery up to the states.
The strategy of using a HLA is to establish personhood for preborn children, a direct assault on Roe vs Wade. . . . Simply overturning Roe, and pushing it back to the states, is just like leaving the issue of slavery up to the states.
But Michelle, passing the HLA is "leaving it up to the states" as well. Passage of a constitutional amendment requires the approval of the states, not merely the Congress.
But Michelle, passing the HLA is "leaving it up to the states" as well. Passage of a constitutional amendment requires the approval of the states, not merely the Congress.
There is a fundamental difference between 2/3's of the states ratifying a Constitutional Amendment that would ban abortion in ALL states, and leaving it up to each individual state to decide for themselves whether abortion is legal or not.
"There is a fundamental difference between 2/3's of the states ratifying a Constitutional Amendment that would ban abortion in ALL states, and leaving it up to each individual state to decide for themselves whether abortion is legal or not."
Michelle, you're right. There are several fundamental differences between these two courses of action. Both would drastically reduce the number of abortions performed in this country. But I suspect that only the latter course is politically achievable in the United States today, while the other is most likely a pipe dream.
We can argue the strategy about HLA vs. giving each state the right to decide its own morality, but the real issue is, Fred Thompson is pro-choice. While he believes that life begins at conception, he still doesn't think abortion ought to be illegal (though he concedes that some states might disagree with him). Read the transcript of the interview.
Commenting by HaloScan
