GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
CBN’s David Brody has received, from an undisclosed rival campaign, a Tennesseans for Choice questionnaire filled out by Fred Thompson circa 1996, in which the former senator from the Volunteer State responded to a question that asked him to summarize his personal philosophy on the issue of reproductive choice.
Thompson: “The Supreme Court has attempted to delineate the constitutionally appropriate roles for individual and governmental decision-making on the issue of abortion. Beyond that, I believe that the federal government should not interfere with individual convictions and actions in this area. I would make an exception to this general rule of governmental non-interference in a very limited number of cases where government has a compelling interest in promoting the public welfare. For instance, I believe that states should be allowed to impose various restrictions (i.e. parental notification, 24-hour waiting periods, etc.) if they so choose.”
In the questionnaire, Thompson also answers “no” when asked if he favors criminalizing abortion.
Furthermore, Thompson expressed support for public funding to pay for abortions of indigent families in circumstances where a pregnancy was due to rape or incest, and when a woman’s or girl’s life is threatened by her pregnancy.
When asked what services or programs he supports in order to minimize unplanned pregnancies, Thompson noted that he “voted to provide funding for Title X family planning programs.”
It is worth noting that David Brody, in his article, deliberately omitted the specific various restrictions to which Fred Thompson was referring in parentheses.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:28 am
This proves Fred is Pro-Life. He married when he could have done otherwise.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/175061.aspx
IN 1959, IN LAWRENCEBURG, TENN., Fred Thompson and Sarah Lindsey had a
problem. He was 16: a strapping athlete, not much of a student, son of a
devout but uneducated used-car salesman. She was 17, from the most prominent
political family in town, headed for college in Nashville. She was also
pregnant. They talked of eloping, but then the Lindsey council of elders
met. They ruled, reluctantly, that Sarah could marry — and Fred plunged
into proving that the Lindsey clan hadn’t made a mistake. Sarah tutored him
in 12th grade, and then he gained momentum: fine grades at Memphis State, a
scholarship to Vanderbilt Law, moot court. In only eight years he was back
home, father of three, practicing law in the Lindsey firm.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:30 am
All I’m saying is if this is the best the rival campaigns can do, then FDT’s sitting pretty.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Tommy,
It’s probably the first of what they will do.
I think Fred’s pro-life, but I don’t think he is going to embrace the cause and further the agenda.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:40 am
will the top tier candidate who has always been pro-life & does not cosponsor Senate bills with Ted Kennedy please step forward now?
June 14th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I’m not sure there was any question that Fred was pro-life with regards to his personal views and conduct. Nor is there any question that Fred has always been on the pro-life side w/r/t certain governmental restrictions (i.e. parental notification, PBA, waiting periods).
But here’s my question. When Fred says:
It sounds like he’s saying that the government should not interfere with personal convictions (i.e. choice) beyond the interference which already existed in RvW. Do I have that right? I’m just trying to parse things correctly here…
June 14th, 2007 at 11:42 am
At this point, I think that the evidence points to FDT holding the “Gilmore Position”. We will see if that survives his campaign rollout.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I think Jason is on a roll. Brody really made a valid point when he asked
“He looks to be treating the pro-life cause as a federalism type issue rather than a deeply held conviction. That may not be the case but the questionnaire raises the question: Just how much of a priority will the life issue be for a President Fred Thompson? Or is it just another Federalism issue?”
Fair criticism.
June 14th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Hey Tommy,
Any guesses to which undisclosed rival campaign is behind Brody’s fan mail on Fred’s record?
June 14th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“Just another federalism issue…”
Is that like just another Separation of Powers issue?
Since when does one’s deeply held conviction change the words in the Constitution?
If I have the deeply held conviction that people appointed for life make better policy than people elected for relatively brief terms, then do I get to ignore the Constitution’s delineation of roles and say, “hey Supreme Court, you legislate, and we’ll give the veto to Congress, and the president can review it to make sure i’s constitutional?”
And the constitution be damned…
An subject matter isn’t just a “federalism issue.” The constitution is pretty clear on where political determinations about various matters are to be made (although people conveniently discard those clear rules when they don’t like the OUTCOME). Abortion matters should be decided at the state level, because nowhere in the Constitution does it say “Hey federal government, this is one of the enumerated powers that you possess.”
Since the federal government isn’t granted it in the Constitution, it is the province of the states should be able to regulate abortion (or not regulate abortion) as they see fit.
Saying that abortion is “just another federalism issue” belies an underlying lack of understanding or outright contempt for the document that defines the role of government - a small role that this Party is ostensibly the torchbearer for.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“I think Fred’s pro-life, but I don’t think he is going to embrace the cause and further the agenda.”
While thats not a positive for the strong pro-life movement, quite frankly that it is wonderful news for me. I am very much pro-life but at this point in time that issue is very low on my issue list for 2008, and I imagine a large part of the electorate feels the same way. Furthermore that issue I’ve almost come to grips with the fact that issue is not going to change anytime soon. Even if Roe is overturned most states are likely to keep it legal in some form (i.e. South Dakota). I guess I feel sadly that the time has come and gone on that issue.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
pb,
That’s certainly true in terms of federal legislation. I don’t think the federal government has the power to ban abortion through the legislature. I don’t even think the partial-birth abortion ban ought to be considered a legitimate use of Congress’ commerce clause powers. But, there’s this wild process called amending the constitution, which doesn’t actually relate to clearly delineated powers of the federal government, or federalism more generally. Those who use federalism to oppose a human life amendment, are really pretty perplexing. No is arguing that Congress can ban abortion, merely that hte people can, and ought to, begin a process intimately bound up in the Democratic tradition, at all levels of government, to amend the constitution to ban abortion.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Matt, you make a fair statement. A human life amendment would be an appropriate option, and I can understand how some might feel that opposing it SOLELY on the basis of federalism would make no sense. For myself, I would oppose that amendment for the same reason I oppose the federal government’s current policy (via Roe v. Wade) sanctioning abortion: that is, that I think our country would be better off if people who felt one way would live in a state that reflects their views, while people with a different opinion could do the same. That’s the policy that I would set - it is one that comports both with our constitutional framework, our framer’s conception of the role of the states in national debates of this character, and with a pretty widely held view that good people can disagree on this issue.
Personally, I don’t think that government at any level should be involved in the matter. I understand how and why many people feel differently as well. At least we can all agree that Roe is a travesty.
June 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
The “personally pro-life” argument has no validity anymore. Shades of John Kerry and Rudy Giuliani is what it is.
Oh yeah, what does his personal life have to do with this? Abortion wasn’t legal in 1959. Let’s concentrate on issues.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Each of the candidates has committed to nominating only strict constructionist judges. Thereby when a Republican is elected President in 08 he will likely be presiding over a post- Roe v. Wade America. Any decisions or restrictions regarding abortion will be decided at the state level..
Therefore voters who are concerned about the abortion issue and wish to abolish the practice have two choices:
1. Vote for a presidential candidate that approves of and will pursue a constitutional amendment banning the procedure or an executive order doing the same. (I don’t think any of our top tier candidates have committed to this although I could be wrong about that).
2. Work to elect Pro-Life State legislators and Governors.
Thereby I believe the abortion issue may be a moot point for presidential politics and that choices should be made on the basis of other issues and factors. Am I wrong about this? Because if I am not there is a lot of back and forth on an issue that may or may not be that relevant as far as the executive branch is concerned.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
We are hardly living in a “post-Roe” country.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
This is the tip of the iceberg. Thompson is not even in it yet and he is facing attacks - my guess is that this is from the McCain or Brownback camp. We will see, but I doubt Thompson can continue his great run of the past few weeks when his stances on, not only abortion, but also Campaign Finance and Tort Reform start to be revealed. Like I said, we will see, but I don’t think the Thompson Campiagn has a bright future, at leastr in the short term.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I agree with Peter. Pro-life forces really took it last year. Pro-choice candidates (obviously Dems) won a lot of elections last year. I think the most significant blow was the defeat of the abortion law in South Dakota. If you can’t pass something like that there what chance would you have in any other red state besides Utah.
Yes, pundits are always citing statistics showing people are not for straight out abortion (ex. partial birth) but a majority of American do not think it should be limited in first trimester and I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
As a pro-life individual I believe we have put too much hope into strictly banning it legislatively and we are going to have to go other ways of trying to reduce abortion (i.e. adoption alternatives). 36 years later all in all we haven’t accomplished much.
June 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Well, I think you have to look at the circumstances. Democrats won a lot last year, but it didn’t have much to do with Abortion, many of the new Reps. are moderate to conservative Dems., some opposing abortion. Republicans were the majority, and the “sixth year” is almost always an anti-majority year.
As for the SD law, it just needed a little tweaking - exceptions for rape, incest, and health. The law only had one exception - for the life of the mother. I think this is still a pro-life country, and I think Abortion is, and should be, an important issue.
June 14th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
[...] Is Fred Thompson a Tennesseean for Choice? [...]
June 14th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Murphy,
We’ll find out tonight around 9 pm eastern time.
June 14th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Tommy, no kidding? Who done it?