GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Let’s settle this once and for all.
Those claiming Fred Thompson has always been one-hundred-percent pro-life are not telling the whole truth. Similarly, those attempting to smear Sen. Thompson by claiming that he was pro-choice are also engaging in a bit of fibbing. Having done actual research on this subject to get to the truth, I’ve concluded that Sen. Thompson a) is, and has always been, opposed to the notion of a constitutional right to an abortion; b) is, and has always been, in favor of banning partial-birth abortion; c) is, and has always been, in favor of restrictions on most later-term abortions (post-first trimester); and d) is now across-the-board pro-life, but in the 1990s, was in favor of earlier-term abortions (first-trimester) remaining legal.
Whew! That was a mouthful. Let’s dissect the evidence.
First, here’s Fred Thompson’s recent statement on a constitutional right to an abortion:
I think Roe vs. Wade was bad law and bad medical science. And the way to address that is through good judges. I don’t think the court ought to wake up one day and make new social policy for the country. It’s contrary to what it’s been the past 200 years.
But has this always been Sen. Thompson’s position? The answer seems to be yes.
In 1994, Thompson’s first Senate run, National Right to Life deemed Thompson pro-life, but with an important caveat:
If you pick up the 1994 post-election edition of National Right to Life news, you’ll see a list of pro-life Senators elected in the class of ‘94. Thomspon was on the list, with a cross by it.
The cross stood for Thompson’s support for legal 1st Trimester abortion. He was generally pro-life, but supported abortion during the 1st trimester. National Right to Life, as an incrimentalist organization, would much more prefer to have a Senator who favored 1st Trimester abortions and would vote for them on the rest of the issues. However, he would be defined as pro-choice in some places and would be defined as moderately pro-choice by me. Of course, Thompson hasn’t had to deal with where he stands on 1st Trimester abortions since 1996.
I’ll have to take this blogger’s word for it that the “cross” is a tool utilized by Right to Life to signify support for first-trimester abortions. What this seems to suggest is that Thompson was pro-life during his first run for political office in every way except keeping these earlier-term abortions legal. According to the Philip Klein of AmSpec, Thompson’s voting record is consistent with this position:
St. Martin said that she went down to Tennessee in 1994 to speak with Thompson personally when he first ran for Senate, and that she determined he was against abortion.
“I interviewed him and on all of the questions I asked him, he opposed abortion,” St. Martin said. She told me that the group went on to support him in that election, and his record reinforced for her that their determination was correct.
“He has a consistent voting record that is pro-life,” she said.
On the NRLC website, they archive their congressional ratings back to 1997, so they include six of his eight years in the Senate. Thompson took the pro-life position on every vote he cast on the abortion issue. The only reason he didn’t have a 100% rating is that, as Jim pointed out, the ratings also include votes on campaign finance reform, which he supported.
I specifically pressed her on the 1994 National Review story that read: “On abortion, both Thompson and Cooper are pro-choice. But Thompson favors parental notification, Cooper voted against it.” I also asked her about the 1996 AP story mentioning Thompson’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
St. Martin said she was skeptical of such media reports, because they can be wrong as was her experience with stories in 2000 that George W. Bush had been pro-choice. She reiterated the fact that she knows Thompson opposed abortion because of her conversation with him, and that was reinforced by his subsequent voting record.
My emphasis. Now, here’s where close attention must be paid. Thompson’s support for keeping first-trimester abortions legal could be easily consistent with a perfect pro-life voting record in the Senate. As first-trimester abortions have quite expressly been protected by the Supreme Court’s present abortion regime, the U.S. Senate has not in recent years taken up legislation to prohibit them. The Senate has, on the other hand, voted to prohibit partial-birth abortion, voted to confirm judges to the federal bench who don’t believe a right to an abortion exists in the Constitution, and has taken a number of other measures impacting abortion-related issues other than the legality of first-trimester abortions. As such, Thompson’s voting record is consistent with his 1994 position: he’s pro-life on everything other than making first-trimester abortions illegal.
Has Thompson changed on this issue? It depends. During his interview with Chris Wallace recently, Thompson described himself as “pro-life” without mentioning any caveats. Now, it’s possible that Thompson simply considers himself pro-life given that he seems to fall more on the pro-life side of the issue for all the aforementioned reasons. And it’s possible that Thompson still supports the legality of first-trimester abortions, while also supporting overturning Roe, and allowing the states to prohibit abortions, and prohibiting later-term abortions. And, if that were the case, the whole thing is academic, as I can’t envision a plausible scenario where the next POTUS is sent a bill that bans first-trimester abortions at the federal level. Conversely, it also may be the case that Thompson has changed his view on first-trimester abortions and is now pro-life across the board.
What seems to be clear is that Thompson has never supported the constitutional right to an abortion, has never supported partial-birth abortion, and has never been opposed to restrictions on post-first-trimester abortions. Further, Thompson’s opposition to Roe means that he’d have no problem with states prohibiting or regulating first-trimester abortions. Thompson has only parted with pro-lifers on first-trimester abortions, a stance that a) may have since changed over the past decade and that b) is moot for all practical purposes, as sufficient political support for banning these abortions at the federal level just doesn’t exist regardless of what the Supreme Court does.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Should have added this:
March 27th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Thanks for doing this. I did similar research and found the same conclusions. People could accuse him of flip-flopping like Romney, but the fact of the matter is that he is more consistent and he evidently became more pro-life well before he had any presidential ambitions, unlike Romney.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
David. You’re rather worked up about this. Settle down and give ALL of the evidence. You basically restated what the AmSpec blog first brought up… only guess what. They changed their minds.
Here’s some light reading where the AmSpec blog (which raised the fuss in the first place) agrees with EFM:
Here is the evidence from Ramesh
DaveG. Thompson is a great guy and if he’s the candidate I’ll go with him! But don’t get all upset when we stick it back in your face refuting your vehement claims.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Geesh Justin… Was what Dave wrote really that bad?
March 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
OK… ok… vehement was the wrong adjective to end on.
I’m just turned off by any post that starts with “Let’s settle this once and for all.” and then fails to address the opposing substance for his point of contention. Let me be clear: I absolutely believe that Thompson is pro-life and I’ll leave it at that.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I know that the Romney people are scared out of their minds when it comes to a Fred Thompson candidacy for President. But this is one time where I will actually say something good about Romney. Even though Thompson takes away Romney’s main reason for running, he is “more conservative” than either Giuliani or McCain, Romney is still head and shoulders above Thompson as a candidate. His candidacy smacks of desperation and, in my opinion, can’t even be seen as valid. The guy has nothing to run on except, “I’m the guy fron Law and Order and I approved this message.”
March 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“David. You’re rather worked up about this.”
I’m worked up? Funny, it seemed to me that I wrote a rather dispassionate and logical analysis of the issue. Perhaps you’re projecting?
“But don’t get all upset when we stick it back in your face refuting your vehement claims.”
Now if I could only figure out a way to work the adjective “vehement” into my persona. Considering that I’ve already been deemed the Dread Pirate DaveG by some, and the dude with the Rudy pom-poms and cheerleader outfit by others, working “vehement” into the equation will be daunting. But I will most certainly give it a try.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
More and more it amazes me just how similar FDT and George Allen are. They both even have essentially the same track record on Abortion.
Basically, that’s how I see things shaking out if FDT enters the race. He assumes the George Allen role of the conservative challenger to the frontrunners who is both electable and able to raise copious amounts of cash.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
That’s true. Thompson is like the George Allen that never was in the race. When Allen first ran for Congress he was pro-abortion in the first trimester.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
“Vehement” does sound great in a pirate accent.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I should note that I don’t disagree with the conclusions of Ramesh and James Antle that Justin links to — I just differ with them on semantics.
Ramesh and Antle, in referring to Thompson’s pro-choice past, are using the same source material that I used in this piece. See Ramesh today as he links to the very same “pro-life with a cross” material that I used: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjNmYTU1OWJiYzU4N2ZlODhiYTQ2OTY1OWU3ZjU2NWE=
The difference is that Ramesh and Antle view this position as fundamentally pro-choice. I disagree. I think that a candidate who is against a constitutional right to an abortion, is against later-term abortions, is for regulation on abortion, and is for the rights of states to ban all abortions is basically a pro-lifer. I further think that, if you are to call such a candidate something other than pro-life, you basically have to spell out their entire position. Saying the candidate is pro-choice, as Ramesh and Antle are saying, doesn’t really cut it in my view.
Further, as to the constituent letter from 1997 that Jason referenced above, I’ve worked on Capitol Hill and, trust me, constituent mail is written by low-level staffers who are encouraged to nuance the legislator’s positions in order to meet the constituent halfway. Most legislators just don’t have the time to do much more than sign their mail (some have a stamp that the staffers use to sign it). When discerning whether a legislator supports a given position, their votes on the issue are far, far, far more telling than some constituent letter that was prepared by an underpaid 25-year-old between refreshes on the Drudge Report.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
The pro-life view is that it’s wrong to take a human life, even an unborn one. The pro-choice view is that it’s sometimes ok to have an abortion, even if some abortions would be wrong. Very few pro-choicers think every abortion is ok. Some restrict it to the first trimester. Thompson and Allen apparently are among that breed of pro-choicer. Now it turns out those two might agree with pro-lifers on most issues that might come before the Senate or a president, but that doesn’t mean the position is pro-life. The pro-life position takes abortion to be generally wrong, not to be wrong only in certain restricted cases.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
What I don’t quite understand is why a nominal pro-choicer from Tennessee, gets cut more slack then a nominal pro-choicer from Massachusetts (and Romney, just like Thompson, never referred to himself as pro-choice). What exactly does a Republican politician from Tennessee, a charismatic actor to boot, need to even give the impression of being pro-choice (which he clearly did, as I can’t find a single article referring to him as pro-life)? The man won the 1994 election by 22 points. With Romney there’s at least the sense of playing in extraodinarily difficult political terrain. Soft-pedaling ones conservative believes in such an environment is not only understandable, but expected. Thompson ran as a moderate Republican in dreadfully conservative-friendly terrain. And there’s simply no reason to believe that’s not exactly what he is.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Can we agree that history shows quite clearly that pro-life, conservative Republican primary voters will support a GOP presidential candidate as long as the person on the ballot is currently pro-life, even if they have previously been pro-choice?
I think the only way that this issue has any significant resonance, as it may in the case of Governor Romney, is if the newly pro-life candidate in question has flip-flopping problems on too many other important policy issues, at which point the problem is more about whether the candidate is someone of convictions and not so much about that there is an abortion policy problem. How many is too many? Enough such that the candidate starts getting labelled a flip-flopper in the media and by opponents.
So I don’t think that there is any question, despite the facts that they may have previously leaned pro-choice, that 2008 GOP voters will accept Brownback, Fred Thompson, and Romney as bona fide pro-life adherents. But Romney may have a convictions problem due to the number of policy flip-flops in his record overall.
Mayor Giuliani will have an abortion issue with pro-life conservatives because he has previously called for public funding of abortion, defended a woman’s right to choose, and supported the legalization of partial-birth abortion - even though those policy positions have ostensibly evolved toward the right over time. But the difference is that Mayor Giuliani still refers to himself as pro-choice. So anyone who fails to believe that the McCain and Romney campaigns have contrast ads in the can where Mayor Giuliani is quoted and shown speaking about the importance of a woman’s right to choose, the need for public funding of abortion, and his support for keeping partial-birth abortion legal is not in tune to what is coming next in this campaign. What I am unsure of is whether such negative ads are going to work as well in this election cycle - I think there is grave danger that voters don’t want to hear it and that such ads may backfire.
March 27th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
(and Romney, just like Thompson, never referred to himself as pro-choice).
Unfortunately, and I know this is a thread about Thompson, Mitt Romney said that he, “doesn’t accept the label of either pro-life or pro-choice”. So, just like with gay rights, stem cells, etc. Mitt Romney wants to have it both ways, thats not leadership, its politics.
But with regard to Thompson, I can understand why all the Romney people want to chip away at Thompson’s conservative credentials, if he enters the race, Romney becomes statistically irrelevant in the polls, but I do find it to be a bit hypocritical. Especially when Romney isn’t exactly a beacon, or consistent model even, for abortion rights. Moreover, I dont know of one person Republican, or especially independent, who would take Fred Thompson seriously. Not only is the man not qualified to be president, he makes John McCain look young and energetic!!
March 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“I think the only way that this issue has any significant resonance, as it may in the case of Governor Romney, is if the newly pro-life candidate in question has flip-flopping problems on too many other important policy issues. How many is too many? Enough such that the candidate starts getting labelled a flip-flopper in the media and by opponents.”
If you say so Republius. The odd thing about labels is, when they’re conjured up by industrious, persistent, saboteurs, they’re only likely to hold up if the person they’re directed at is inept. Thus far, Romney has done a poor job at rebutting the flip-flop label. But the vast majority of his supposed flips are so terrifically easy to rebut, that one assumes eventually he’ll get with the program. Romney’s biggest flaw, in terms of campaigning, has been his inability to be aggressive. This is true this election cycle and it was true in his previous races. Romney’s first debate with Shannon O’Brien was widely considered average. He barely looked at her, and sat by meekly during her aggressive attacks. By the third debate, Romney was lambasting her conduct as unbecoming and gaining 34 points among independent voters in the process. Once Romney gets past his initial tendencies to be “Mr. Nice Guy”, he’s one of the most compelling actors in the political arena. Indeed, the best response Romney’s had during these flip-flop charges came with his videotaped response to the first abortion video. He seemed to get visibly angry and it went down brilliantly. I don’t know if Romney’s reluctance is a product of his personality, or simply a tendency towards calm following his father’s vaunted loss of temper during his presidential run. Either way, he’s more then capable of getting past it and becoming the sort of rhetorical force that can create his own labels.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Republius,
One of the first pieces I ever wrote for this site was making the exact point you just made regarding abortion, which is as long as a candidate is currently Pro-Life, they will get a pass.
Since then, I have to say that I have changed my mind due mainly to the points made by Mark Halperin in his book “The Way to Win“.
Halperin contends that in a post 2004-John Kerry-flip flop world, candidates will be held to the fire over contradictions between their current and past views by the New Media that do not have a compelling explanation. I have to say that I agree with him considering what has already happened to Gov. Romney in this race. I also believe that this is why you have Rudy campaigning the way he is.
Geoff,
Underestimate Thompson at your peril. If he inherits Frist’s formidable fundraising network, the “Big Three” becomes Rudy, McCain, and Thompson IMHO.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Shouldn’t this all wait until Thompsom is actually a declared candidate? But KN’s right: Fred will be formidable if he gets Frist’s backers on board.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
March 27th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I don’t understand why Frist had any backers to begin with. Ever. What sort of person wants to support Bill Frist for president?
March 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Lot of Frist people are working for Romney. Not saying none left, but it’s not like it will be handed over to Thompson in total.
March 27th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Matt-
“What sort of person wants to support Bill Frist for president?”
Perhaps the kind who want a public servant that has done something besides give nice speeches and then blame everybody else when the promises aren’t met.
Say what you want about Frist, but I don’t think having someone in the Senate or White House who has done something as important as becoming a renowned heart surgeon would necessarily be a bad thing.
March 27th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Oh no question, Frist is a great guy. But he was a disastrous Majority Leader who’s ineffectiveness on judicial nominations prevented the existence of a justice Estrada. Not that I’m disappointed by Alito, but a 45 year old justice is substantially more valuable then a 55 year old. And I agree that life experience beyond politics is significant, but I want someone with substantial successes in the political arena as well.
March 27th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
[...] 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 [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 10:46 am
This is not meant to sound hostile, or rude or anything else. I am not EVER going to comment on articles poststed about Abortion, Gay Rights and Gun Control because these are not the critical issues facing our country right now. My preferred candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has promised to appoint the right judges, and that will take care of that. i am far too concerned right now with national security, illegal immigration, Iran, North Korea, nukes in the hands of terrorisdts, the economy, jobs, taxes, crime, clean streets, national pride and patriotism, socialist policies of the dems, and most important of all: STOPPING HILLARY FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT - - AND IT MAY VERY WELL HAPPEN.!!