Senator Fred Thompson on Abortion

I didn't hear number 3, as I listened. I did hear him say that it should be left to the states, as it was before Roe v. Wade. I did hear him say that young girls shouldn't be considered criminals for having an abortion. I didn't hear him say that states shouldn't make laws forbidding abortion.

I didn't hear double-talk. I heard someone who has been working through the issue - and while he has, has been consistently pro-life whenever he has had to vote on the issue.

I agree. This clip really frustrated me. This is definitely double speak hiding behind "frederalism".

Jim,

I pulled the transcript. Here is the relevant section:

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. (Emphasis mine)

Thompson goes on to describe how moving it was to see the sonogram of his child. But notice, Jim, he does not want states passing laws which make performing (or having) an abortion a crime. That would be to "outlaw this, that or the other." It would be to "criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician." In other words, he does not want states to pass laws that could jeopardize a physician's career for performing an abortion. I don't know how else to read that statement. It sounds like he wants to have it both ways. "I'm pro-life, but I won't force my conscience on others."

I regret any implication that I thought you were misrepresenting what Thompson said. I read you regularly and very much respect both your judgment and your principles and can't remember ever disagreeing with you.

I live in a state where, were Roe v. Wade to be overturned, abortion would immediately be illegal - that law has never been repealed. But the woman was never treated as a criminal - the abortionist was. Thompson says nothing about not prosecuting abortionists.

But suppose he would oppose that. I agree that what he says is ambiguous. I understand him to be saying that he favors overturning Roe. Then its up to the states. If that happens it is up to you and me and everyone else who finds abortion an abomination to do everything we can to make sure its illegal.

He is perfectly right when he says that ultimately the cause will be won in the hearts and minds of people.

As to the "federalism" point. It's important. [And its something Thompson is consistent about.] Criminal and family law is almost entirely state law. There was no federal law outlawing abortion before Roe, and there isn't likely to be one anytime soon. Reversing Roe, which will require justices none of the Democrats would appoint, would send the decision back to the states. I am confident that any of the potential GOP candidates would be more likely to make such appointments than any of the Democrats.

Jim,

Thanks for this discussion. And I appreciate your clarification on your perspective of the federalism issue.

Thompson's remarks: As to who would be prosecuted in the case of an illegal abortion, I'm interpreting "physician" as "abortionist." Maybe I'm mistaken?

How else would a young girl, her parents, or her physician be construed as "aiders and abettors"? Sounds like the girl (in Thompson's example) has had an abortion (perhaps on the advice of her parents and/or physician). And Thompson is saying he would not want that act to be criminal--for the sake of the girl, her parents, or the "physician" (who may have also performed the procedure).

I think it should be criminal, in all 50 states. I imagine you'd agree with that. But I don't think this needs to be done at the state level. Rather, the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Given rampant judicial activism in our day (responsible for the wrongly decided Roe v. Wade), a human life amendment to the Constitution seems warranted, in my judgment (as was explicitly stated in the 2004 GOP platform).

I've always supported a human life amendment. I think there is a long way to go politically before that becomes possible. In the meantime the best we can expect is a reversal in the Supreme Court creating the status quo ante - and that makes the Presidency and the Senate terribly important.

Your interpretation of Thompson may be correct. I doubt that it will take very long for him to clarify the point.

This is a good discussion. I like Thompson for his Reagan-like view of the role of the federal government. But taking this stance early in the life of our country would have made the Bill of Rights unnecessary. The Human Life Amendment is affirming the right of the unborn to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness. We don't need an amendment for that, I guess. I haven't heard all sides of the argument. Fred says a lot of good things, and if it comes down to Fred and anyone else from the Dem side, I will gladly cast my vote for him.

I just posted on this from http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/11/national_right_to_life_praises.php
"The head of National Right to life says he's not troubled by Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's opposition to federal legislation ending abortion, and therefore right-to-life activists across the U.S. should not be troubled as well.

The former Tennessee senator has drawn the consternation of some, but not all pro-life activists after saying that even though he believes life begins at conception, he would not support a federal constitutional amendment banning abortions. Thompson stated Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with." ....

"You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate," says Osteen [director of National Right to Life] "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 Constitutional], 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."

Osteen says "what's more important" is that Thompson had a solid pro-life record while in the Senate, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and would appoint judges who would reverse Roe. "He's pro-life, he's got a strong pro-life voting record in the Senate, [he] was a consistent vote for the pro-life side during the eight years he served in the U.S. Senate - and I think his record speaks for itself," he claims."

Jim,

You may know more than I do on this one, but did Fred Thompson really lobby for a pro-choice abortion-rights group in the early 1990s? I keep hearing that.