GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Well, my attempt to end the debate over where Fred Thompson stands on abortion once and for all appears to have only exacerbated the issue further! Serves me right for trying to inject sanity into politics I guess. In any case, Philip Klein of AmSpec has a very telling piece up on the issue this evening. Klein thinks that the dueling memories of whether FDT was pro-choice or pro-life in the Senate may be due to FDT’s very strong respect for federalism. Money quote:
Thompson’s position on abortion in the mid-1990s continues to generate debate. On the one hand, we have numerous news reports from the time describing him as pro-choice, and it’s unlikely they all could have gotten the story wrong without prompting phone calls from the Thompson camp. On the other hand, we don’t yet have direct quotes of Thompson saying he’s pro-choice, the co-director of a prominent pro-life group told me that Thompson opposed abortion in 1994, and he has an eight-year record in the Senate to back her up.
How can we explain this contradiction? One possibility is that it could be a matter of semantics. According to news reports, Thompson opposed a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion. The statement on the partial birth ban I cited above suggests that Thompson was concerned about the use of federal government power. It’s quite possible that Thompson could have opposed a federal ban on abortion, but favored the overturning of Roe v. Wade so that states could be free to restrict it. Now, I’m still looking into the matter, and I cannot say for sure at this point whether this was the stance he took. But if he did hold such a view, would that have made him pro-life or pro-choice? Could this explain the different recollections concerning Thompson’s 1994 candidacy? I don’t know, but I’m curious to find out, and would be happy post evidence on either side.
Taken in conjunction with the evidence from my earlier piece, it appears the mystery may have been solved. And the whole issue is far simpler than it looks. In 1994, FDT ran as a candidate for Senate who believed states should make decisions regarding abortion laws, and who thus opposed Roe, and who also believed that abortion should be prohibited or restricted in the second and third trimesters. On the other hand, FDT’s strong respect for federalism put him in opposition to amending the Constitution to prohibit abortion, and he also believed that first trimester abortions should remain legal, meaning he wouldn’t support federal action to ban these abortions but also wouldn’t stop states from doing the same. Because the federal government almost exclusively deals with those areas of the abortion issue on which FDT was in complete agreement with pro-lifers, such as abortion funding, late-term abortions, and judges, FDT amassed an 8-year voting record that made NARAL wince and led to endorsements from pro-life groups. FDT now considers himself pro-life without any nuance to the position, meaning that at some point, he probably shifted to the right on first-trimester abortions, though he may still be opposed to a human life amendment (an issue which is moot for all practical purposes).
The only issue that really remains is trying to discern what turned FDT from a “pro-life, but…” candidate into a “pro-life” candidate. Given that this happened over the course of 11 years, and given that this same sort of evolution has taken place with innumerable national politicians over the last three decades, this whole discussion is hardly newsworthy and is only making the news due to the strange number of “abortion problems” in the GOP presidential field this time around. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I think it is time to up date the power rankings to take into account Sen. Thompson and the change in the polls regarding Sen. McCain.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Sounds to me like Klein is postulating that Thompson wanted to overturn RvW without pointing to any evidence. You call this a mystery being solved, DaveG? Were this in fact Thompson’s position, I’d comfortably call him “pro-life, but…”, but I’d like to see citations, not assumptions.
Absent that evidence, however, Thompson being in favor of 1st trimester abortions (when almost all abortions occur) is a “pro-choice, but…” position. And there’s no evidence that his shift happened over the course of 11 years rather than at a single defining moment during those 11 years. But there was a shift.
I agree that this is a tempest in a teapot. The same tempest, in fact, that Romney faces over his abortion shift. And I’d be comfortable with both men w/r/t abortion policy, but what really bothers me is the huge pass double standard being applied.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I agree with Murph on this one. Favoring abortion in the first trimester means that you have no problems with probably 95% of all abortions performed in the US!! That makes someone Pro-Choice in my book.
——
“and given that this same sort of evolution has taken place with innumerable national politicians over the last three decades, this whole discussion is hardly newsworthy and is only making the news due to the strange number of “abortion problems” in the GOP presidential field this time around. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.”
I am going to disagree on this point as well (gosh it feels weird to disagree with Dave). I think the rules changed after 2004 with the rise of the Blogosphere in the sense that (as Mark Halperin argues) the worst possible crime a candidate can now commit is a flip-flop.
Also, why should FDT get a pass when Romney’s feet have been held to the fire on this very issue?
March 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
LOL. It DOES feel weird. Maybe there’s a full moon out tonight or something
March 27th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Well, FWIW I don’t think it will become a pattern
March 27th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“In 1994, FDT ran as a candidate for Senate who believed states should make decisions regarding abortion laws, and who thus opposed Roe, and who also believed that abortion should be prohibited or restricted in the second and third trimesters. On the other hand, FDT’s strong respect for federalism put him in opposition to amending the Constitution to prohibit abortion, and he also believed that first trimester abortions should remain legal, meaning he wouldn’t support federal action to ban these abortions but also wouldn’t stop states from doing the same.”
I’d agree with Kavon and Murphy that, even if this was the position Thompson took, he’d be a “pro-choice but” candidate. But I haven’t been able to find any evidence that this is the case. I haven’t been able to find any statements on Roe one way or the other. I don’t quite understand how support for federalism automatically causes someone to oppose a constitutional amendment banning abortion. To be sure, federalism would rail against federal laws banning abortion (and I’d likely oppose them as unconstitutional), constitutional amendments are intimately intwined with the Democratic process on all levels. State legislatures, constitutional conventions, the House, the Senate; all are involved potentially. Indeed, the amendment process is one specifically designed to be receptive to questions of states rights. I can understand those who oppose a constitutional amendment to abortion on the grounds that they think society will function more smoothly in some way, by allowing diverse approaches to the issue or that amendments are inherently inflexible, but I hardly think amendments, of any kind, violate principles of federalism in any serious way.
March 28th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Matt,
How about a constitutional amendment that made explicit a woman’s right to choose?
Aside from the question of whether you would oppose it on policy grounds, do you think it would be a violation of federalism?
March 28th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Well, I generally oppose constitutional amendments which are too specific. I think they’re meant to be sort of broad. So I would be opposed to a constitutional amendment about abortion either way. I would however be supportive of a constitutional amendment that defined personhood (under the legal meaning of the word) as beginning at conception. I don’t know exactly what sort of equivalent pro-choice amendment there might be, but if somehow one could be devised, I wouldn’t oppose it on federalism grounds, no.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:02 am
[...] http://race42008.com/2007/03/27/update-thompson-and-abortion/Â Â by DaveGÂ 3-27-2007 [...]