CNN's King failed to challenge Thompson on his apparent abortion flip-flop
During the August 17 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), a potential Republican presidential candidate, asserted, "I think Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision," and added, "You don't just get up one day and overturn the entire history of the country with regard to major social policy without any action by Congress, without any action by the American people or a constitutional amendment. And that's what happened. It shouldn't have happened. It ought to be reversed." National correspondent John King did not note that Thompson's statement contradicted comments Thompson reportedly made in 1993 to the Memphis Commercial Appeal. As Media Matters for America has documented, a July 29, 1993, article in the Commercial Appeal reported that Thompson said in an interview that he "supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion."
As Media Matters has noted, King has previously reported that leaders of socially conservative advocacy groups are "gravitating toward" Thompson in part because former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) changed his position on abortion -- suggesting that Thompson has not.
From the August 17, 4 p.m. ET edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
KING: You met this morning privately with some conservative activists in this state, the people who helped people win the caucuses in the past.
They say that they were very comfortable with everything you said in that private meeting, very comfortable with your agenda. But they say they are skeptical, that they don't want to just hear lip service. They want to see results.
And they want to know, over time, as they meet you, would a President Fred Thompson actively push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? Would a President Fred Thompson actively push to overturn Roe v. Wade? What are the answers to those questions?
THOMPSON: Yes. Yes. I think that, with regard to gay marriage, you have a full faith and credit issue. I don't think one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage, and have another state be required to follow along under full faith and credit.
There are some exceptions and exemptions for that. It hasn't happened yet, but I think a federal court would very much -- very well likely will -- will go in that direction. And the constitutional amendment would cure that.
I think Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision. I think it was bad law and bad medicine. You don't just get up one day and overturn the entire history of the country with regard to major social policy without any action by Congress, without any action by the American people or a constitutional amendment. And that's what happened. It shouldn't have happened. It ought to be reversed.
KING: So, it wouldn't be a speech a year or two speeches a year; you would promise, on those issues, on both of those issues, a sustained effort if you were the president?
THOMPSON: Well, I don't think, as a president, you can do anything halfway. I mean, if you take a position, you're bringing the whole office of the presidency to bear. And you have a bully pulpit. You have an obligation to speak about those things that are important to you. And those things are important.
You guys are getting lazy.
How about someone challenging Edwards on his ridiculous statement about lobbying, gay marriage and helping the poor.
1) He accepts money from trial lawyers which encourages litigation.
2) He claims he is against gay marriage but his wife is for it?? Is this an acceptable position for someone running for President?
3) Had MMFA or the Mainstream media look at the Wall Street Journal, a real source of news, they would have learned from Christopher Cooper that:
So it appears that John Edwards is making millions off of Katrina victims. I think that might have been a relevant story considering Edwards himself pledges to clean up New Orleans. Yet, the reptilian Edwards said that when he first joined Fortress, “I made clear that I didn’t want to have anything I was investing in to be antilabor or involved in predatory lending practices.” But he added that he didn’t fully understand the firm’s complex operations, saying: “They’re diverse. They’re very diverse.”Who is Edwards fooling? This was not a blind trust. He had to have known his investments. If he didn’t, then he is too inept to be running for President and controlling our tax dollars. Maybe he can run for Attorney General instead; evidently the Attorney General does not require any knowledge of anything."He accepts money from trial lawyers which encourages litigation.." Um, yeah, I guess, in the same way that buying milk from the store encourages the store to stock more milk?
Why is "Litigation" bad again? It's bad when people injured by careless, stupid and cheap industries sue for damages? Is it also bad when those industries make cheap, dangerous products and sell them as safe, or is that ok? And if it is bad, what's the remedy, since this Administration has clearly no interest in forcing regulations or imposing fines?
Oh, I get it. "Trial Lawyers" and "Litigation" are just stupid buzzwords that SOUND bad and are therefore used by clueless right-wing morons who don't want to discuss the real issues. Everyone HATES lawyers- until they need one. Everyone HATES "Litigation"- until they are injured as a result of someone else's negligence.
I would say more in the way taking medicine from a doctor encourages more illness.
That's right. We just need more people to sue McDonalds for getting fat.
Maybe the defendant will win.
The phrase for this is "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater".
Manichean simplistic thinkers have a hard time with that concept. EVERYTHING must fit in the black box or the white box. Either something is absolutly evil or absolutly good or they get confused.
Just as much as we need MORE companies like Ford putting out products they KNEW would kill consumers to maximize their products and companies building housing projects on toxic waste dumps like at Love Canal. Just because frivolous lawsuits exist doesnt mean lawsuits are themselves bad or a bad idea. Swimming pools arent bad things because sometimes people drown in them.
I'm sure you apply your swimming pool logic to gun issues too...
Guns arent bad things because sometimes people drown in them?
Swimming pools don't kill children. Children kill children?
I don't see it.
; )
You know RINO, the more I thought about your comment, the more it pissed me right the F off. Here’s why...
In May of 1964, a 26 year old factory worker was doing his job at a GM plant (Oldsmobile) feeding sheet metal into a bumper press. Nearby, another worker was using an overhead crane to set a large die into another machine. The die was lodged incorrectly, and a foreman was yelling at the crane operator to force it out so he could try to set it back in correctly.
After several minutes of one machine tugging on the other, a steel cable snapped. That was the exact moment that life as he knew it changed for the bumper press operator.
The cable whipped like lightning and opened a wound on the bumper press operator that started at his left eye, and continued through his jugular vein, shoulder, ribs, and all the way to his left ankle, breaking every bone along the way. Tragically (at that time), he lived.
He was physically scarred for life with facial disfigurement that force him to talk out of the left side of his face where everything healed in a deformed manner. His left eye is sown shut to this day, leaving only a small area in the middle that allows him to see only shadows. He walks with a bad limp, bent over leaning to his left. He still falls down on occasion.
During his lengthy rehab, he attempted to secure a lawyer because he was having trouble getting his "Workman’s Comp" as it was called in those days. The first lawyer he spoke with explained that there was no fighting GM, still he reluctantly took the case.
After a few months without hearing from the lawyer, he found out that the Lawyer had to drop the case as it would be a conflict of interest—the lawyer now worked for GM. As unbelievable as this seems, it happened again a few month later with yet another lawyer. It was apparently less costly for GM to hire lawyers than to pay what might have been a huge court settlement.
Understand, General Motors didn’t care if a lawsuit by this man was frivolous or not. They only cared about winning, and making their stockholders more money. Lives are ruined along the way--oh well, it happens.
Having no other options, and with 3 kids to feed, the man went back to work with GM in a reduced capacity. He became the "best floor sweeper at plant 1," he proudly explained.
After 33 years, he retired. Now he fights to get his pension, his medical insurance, and reimbursement for his required continued physical therapy.
I asked him a while back if he regrets not fighting harder against GM. He said; "No. I wouldn’t have gotten anywhere with them. They had me over a barrel, and I was afraid. So I worked a deal with them to have some sort of job there until I wanted to retire. I thought that was a pretty good deal."
"But that’s the same deal you had before that cable snapped," I replied.
He answered; "Yeah. Except they didn’t have to go to court and ruin me."
Now RINO, I'd like to know who would be better to decide whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous than a judge or a jury? The real crime is when justice is never realized--as is the case with my dad, the best floor sweeper at plant 1.
Another case, that i read Edwards was involved with, dealt with a girl that was dissembowled by the hot tub she was in. This was a serious case in which the girl would be confronted by a long and difficult life. This is the type of liability case we should focus on, rather than the cases conservative media sources focus on such as the 54 million dollar suit over a pair of suit pants, or the ten million dollars linked to cheese placed on a quarter pounder, after the customer asked for no cheese because he was lactose intolerant.
Yes. They love to reduce it to the rediculous in order to make incurious people believe that all lawsuits are frivolous. I know, first hand, that it's not easy to get a lawyer to represent you on a percentage basis which makes the truth 190* opposite of what the right is trying to sell the public.
Yes, an addition would deal with how the media is dealing with the current 10 million dollar law suit against McDonalds, and the cheese that should have not been there. They are comparing this to the woman who had won a suit against McDonalds over coffee that was too hot. The media omited that she received burns that required skin grafts, and that she originally only asked for assistance in paying her medical expenses, which McDonalds refused to help with. It was only after this that she filed her law suit.
Coffee is hot. She spilt it on herself. Why on earth should McDonald's pay for her medical expenses or be liable in any way? That lawsuit was a joke. If I make coffee at home and spill it on myself, should Mr. Coffee be expected to pay my medical expenses, should I be able to sue them?
Stop being an idiot and read the case. This woman was well into her 60's, and had been drinking coffee for many years. But this time there were some differences.
The temperature was much higher than was allowed legally to be served. Part of the reason she spilled it was because the cup was so hot that it startled her when the heat started to seep through it. Upon spilling it on herself, the skin on areas of her legs started melting, requireing medical attention and future skin grafts.
She asked McDonald's to pay only for her medical bills, and when they refused, she took them to court. McDonald's could have gotten out of this for 20K, but no. THEY decided to go to court.
Her injury, and the way they treated her entitled her to every penny she got. Now, if you'd start getting your information from credible sources, intead of Rush Limbaugh, you would have known this already. In the future, try to remember--A closed mouth gathers no feet.
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
Here are the facts in case there's anyone deluded enough to think that Taz knows what's up.
"McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee."
And what exactly does your example have to do with my comment? I don't believe that all lawsuits are bad. My point was that many of these lawsuits are simply becoming more and more ridiculous all the time. There are valid lawsuits and ridiculous lawsuits, and it's just that the ridiculous lawsuits are becoming more and more common. People who do something stupid like spill coffee on themselves shouldn't blame their own stupidity on the restaurant that gave them the coffee. That lawsuit was ridiculous and should've been thrown out. And everybody knows that McDonalds has unhealthy food and makes you fat. If you don't want to get fat, then don't eat at McDonalds.
And what exactly does your example have to do with my comment?--Rino
Read the last thing I wrote; "Now RINO, I'd like to know who would be better to decide whether or not a lawsuit is frivolous than a judge or a jury? The real crime is when justice is never realized. . ."
My point being: We already have a system in place that will get rid of frivolous suits--a judge and/or jury. That is what they are there for--to decide cases when two or more parties can't reach agreement. What you feel is frivolous may not be deemed the same by society.
Should GM have paid my dad a couple million bucks? That would be a small start in my opinion. But what happened to him is what happens in a lawless society--big boys beat up on little boys, and often get away with it (back then more often than now).
Perhaps you'd feel differently if you needed skin grafts because the coffee at McDonalds was to hot to handle.
RINO,
Two things:
#1-Did you read the facts of the coffee case as written by the previous poster? Have you ever read the details of the coffee case or just heard the details thru filters?
#2-What do you think of Judge Robert Bork (he for so much tort reform) suing the Yale Club for one million dollars for his slip and fall accident?
Thanks for sharing that personal item, therick.I have my own personal take on the "frivolous lawsuit" topic, and it doesn't have as much to do with "crazy trial lawyers" and "victim mentality" as it has to do with corporate greed and the health care system.
My old man was a practicing M.D. for several decades who died owing money, mostly as a result of trying to be a good doctor, and not writing enough prescriptions.
The pressure, from what I've learned of his situation, was not from get-rich-quick patients, but from a profit-driven health care system that rewarded those who played the game, and abandoned those who tried to get people well.
Simply astounding. Growing up, I always thought that all Doctors were rich. As a builder, I have landed a few contracts with area doctors and after working closely with them, I now know that most practice medicine because it was a calling. Sounds as though that might have been your father's way.
Thanks,
Rick
Therick,
It seems pretty insufficient to just say thanks for your story but I’m at a loss as to how to convey my thanks for sharing and anger at GM, an American corporation. Let me first start by say that I understand your dad’s decision. For the little guy, which is a large percentage of the working population, suing your employer is impossible. You don’t have the legal representation and can’t afford it anyway. Your need for funds to put food on the table and a roof over your heads takes top priority. The length of time that a corporation can drag out the process cause they can afford to pay legal representation while the average person suing cannot should be outlawed. Yes there are frivolous lawsuits however this is America. American corporations should be held responsible for the working conditions of their employees and the products they sell period! Would suing a major corporation cause such harm to the corporation? IMO no. They seem to function just find while dragging out the process for the the average person suing them. Maybe it would force the corporation to improve it’s product or working conditions. That can only be a benefit to all. What are you suppose to do when you find yourself “wronged”?
I find it hard to listen to comments about the “poor” corporations. They get tax breaks which helps their business thrive. The breaks are among hundreds of so-called tax expenditures that cost the U.S. government $945 billion a year in foregone revenue. Under Juniors corporations pay little or no taxes at all http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf Please don’t expect me to cry for all the CEO’s who have salaries and compensation so outrageous that they should be ashamed. And yet there are those who only see the frivolous and want to condemn all because of it. Shame to all who think it is more important to keep the “corporation” healthy and not the American worker who’s work enables the corporation to turn such profits and pay such outrageous salaries to CEO’s.
Pearlene Scott; "It seems pretty insufficient to just say thanks . . ."
No, thank you for the kind words.
Rick
You do know what happens with frivolous lawsuits, right?
The media makes hay out of them. I have yet to hear anthing other than the short comment about the person dissembolwed by a swimming pool. Maybe this is too serious to be dealt with. And yes, I know this seems redundant, but they are two seperate cases dealing with accidents that have serious medical consequences.
Not only that, but if they are deemed truly frivolous, the party bringing them is assessed the other party's attorney's fees.
That's right. We just need more people to sue McDonalds for getting fat.
You need to sue your teachers for allowing you to remain an uneducated moron.
" He claims he is against gay marriage but his wife is for it?? Is this an acceptable position for someone running for President?" (CompliantConsent)
Talk about getting lazy.If Edwards' position is anti-Gay Marriage, and you consider that a disqualifying factor for a presidential candidate, doesn't that eliminate all of the Republicans?
Or by "his position", do you mean the position of having a human spouse who has her own opinions?
This classic reminds me of a Sean Hannity comment I heard a while back. In one of his pinhead "gotcha" moments, he played clipsof Bill and Hillary Clinton stating differing positions on an issue (I believe it was the Iraq invasion) which Hannity described as "talking out of both sides of their mouths'.
I was speechless, even as someone who listens to Hannity pretty often, and has learned to set his Stoopidometer pretty high at those times.
Two distinct, individual people, who happen to be married, have different opinions on a subject, and to Hannity and CDBlogplop, that is seen as contradiction or duplicity.
I guess it has to do with the subservient wife angle of the conservative fantasy.Or just many years of robotic groupthink making examples of critical thinking and disagreement come off as dangerous positions.
Is your post a joke or are you getting dumber?
You start out calling MMFA "lazy" for not writing an article slamming John Edwards. I take it you know the mission statement so you are doing nothing more than trolling. You then make 3 of the dumbest points I've seen in a while. Troll or not, they require dismantling.
"1) He accepts money from trial lawyers which encourages litigation."
Edwards is a trial lawyer. And can you explain how a lawyer donating money to a presidential campaign encourages other people to sue?
"2) He claims he is against gay marriage but his wife is for it?? Is this an acceptable position for someone running for President?"
You know as well as I do the vast majority of people on this site disagree with him on this. But I'm surprised you write it like you disagree with him after taking a quick glance at your eyesore website that looks like it crawled in from 1996. And I was unaware that a candidate's spouses opinion on subjects mattered.
"3) Had MMFA or the Mainstream media look at the Wall Street Journal, a real source of news, they would have learned from Christopher Cooper that...."
Since when is the WSJ editorial section a "real source of news?" You left out of your part of that article that Edwards no longer works for them, he spoke out against them, and he was unaware that they dealt in subprime lending when he joined. And before you fall back to your "he had to know or he's incompetent" argument, that means that Fortress itself, which he worked as an economic adviser, did not personally deal in subprime lending and it is totally feasible he just went to work for an investment firm.
What is with this anyway? Let's hop a mile off topic on the first post. Yours is now flagged.
"And I was unaware that a candidate's spouses opinion on subjects mattered."
Yes, even by wingnut standards that's bizarre. I can see the debate question now:"Mr. Edwards, do you have the exact same ideological views on every subject as your wife? If not, how can you expect to lead the country?"
Funny, I thought one of the right's big problem with Hillary Clinton as First Lady was that she had too much influence. But now it seems that if Mrs. Edwards changes her mind on an issue while John Edwards is president, he would have to change his mind to go along with her. Or maybe he's supposed to dictate her opinions, and he's not living up to his role as husband by not doing so? Either way...
You know, copiousdissent.blogspot you would sound more intelligent if you wrote things that were. . . more intelligent. The equivolency of what you wrote is; "I'm sick and tired of teachers teaching!"
Let me explain: Teachers teach; Builders build; Farmers farm; and Lawyers litigate. When you stop to think about it--this seems to be a pretty good system.
God forbid that someone recieve a settlement after being damaged by the incompetence and/or negligence of others. What's the world coming to?
Perhaps you could start an I Hate Democrats website, Then you can spread whatever right wing BS you choose. Produce it with sounds and pictures, because most of those who share your views are funtionally illiterate.
Copulatingblogieman, Please point out where Edwards is mentioned above. Hell, I forgot my reading between the lines glasses again.
So Copiousdissent how about Thompson's flip flopping....ugh excuse me in Republican language "changing his mind" on abortion?
The story is about FRED THOMPSON not John Edwards.
"The story is about FRED THOMPSON not John Edwards."
That's what I thought.
Its a pretty ancient... & long discredited... strategy, when it comes right down to it, Loonz.
When you're losing the argument... change the topic.
Copiousbullsh*t simply didn't have a reasonable argument to make, & so he changed the topic before it could even be discussed.
And even so he lost the argument!
Heh heh heh.
I think this was the same interview in which, when asked about Iraq, Thompson responded that his response was that he did not respond to hypoyhetical questions. So, rather than flip-flopping Thompson just avoids questions that will divide his base.
Considering he is ruunning for office, and not in power, can anything Thompson says be considered as anything other than a hypothetical. Thompson is assuming a Republican congress, and courts that will support his policy agenda. Based on this, and how he is not in position to implement policy changes, can this be anything but a hypothetical approach.
Freddy hasn't yet declared? Guess that's smart. Wait until every other candidate is over-exposed, ridiculed, washed, spun, & dried.
But he's still wrinkled. (thanks for all the laundry analogies by Clams, HBL & Brabantio on Friday's Bin Laden thread)
You just had a pressing need to bring that up, did you, and stain my reputation? I think I'll go cycle for a while, meanwhile you clean up your act.
Sure, DASH away for a SPIN on your CYCLE. There is a TIDE in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood...
CHEER(s)!
I don't think I was involved in that, but it sounds like it was Fab.
Those jokes hurt my brain so much I may have to make a request to the Make-A-Wisk Foundation.
mmfa is spinning their wheels as they keep trotting out this 14 year old comment...there will be no traction gained by trying to portray Thompson as flip flopping on abortion.
His congressional and public record proves he has been solidly pro-life...and mmfa can't gin up support to claim that Thompson was ever pro-abortion...or their crack staff would have published it by now.
I'm sure Hillary approves of this attempt at electioneering in her behalf...but in the real world...no sale...no cigar...on this one.
Sure, your electioneering for Thompson is a bit WEAK
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-thompson7jul07,0,54260.story
Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen." In a separate interview, John H. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.But Judith DeSarno, who was president of the family planning association in 1991, said Thompson lobbied for the group for several months.Minutes from the board's meeting of Sept. 14, 1991 — a copy of which DeSarno gave to The Times — say: "Judy [DeSarno] reported that the association had hired Fred Thompson Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" on the abortion counseling rule.Former Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.), a colleague at the lobbying and law firm where Thompson worked, said that DeSarno had asked him to recommend someone for the lobbying work and that he had suggested Thompson. He said it was "absolutely bizarre" for Thompson to deny that he lobbied against the abortion counseling rule.
Whoo boy...if you decide to give up the train business...you might find a spot on a team trying to find Noah's ark...1991...what a laugher.
Here's a challenge...albeit an appropriate fool's errand...show something in the last 10-12 years that shows any evidence that Thompson has been anything other than pro-life.
Get to diggin boy.
Oh, so now there are rules? Is there now a statute of limitation? Let's use your "rule" that this is too old, then replay the 2004 election. Or does that "rule" only apply when you guys are trashing democrats?
Nope...it's just a weak assertion by those that try to paint Thompson as pro-abortion.
Same goes for you. Show evidence of any vote or legislative action that he has taken to undermine the pro-life community.
It matters nothing to me what his position was a decade or more ago...I'll believe his record.
I have not cited my support for Thompson as president...I have cited mmfa's weak attempt to play politics.
Thompson as a pro-lifer...that dog won't hunt.
Thompson as pro-abortion...that dog won't hunt.
My point had nothing to do with him being pro-life or pro-choice, although Solon's post seems damning particularly if you vote with the faux "Family Values" party. My point was that you expressed that the comment made by Solon was about an issue that was dated.
So I became curious. When did an item used to trash a political opponent become subject to a freshness date? The Republican's have used Whitewater, Vince Foster, Chappickuidick (sp?), Swift Boat Vets, Minica Lewinski, Iranian Hostages, and the hit parade just keeps on rolling...
You're right, Wes. Anything older than 10 years should be chocked up to a change of heart, probably based on years of experience and education. He's definitely pro-life. And definitely a liar, because he DID work for a pro-choice lobby.
Bottom line: Ol' Fred's only a pro-choice liar, not pro-abortion. Good job defending him.
Just because someone whore's himself out for a pro-choice lobby, doesn't mean that the person is pro-choice.
It just means he's a whore.
I think you have your terminologies a wee bit confused, Wesley.
There is no such thing as a pro abortion movement. Such a term suggest people waving banners & foam fingers, & cheering on women to abort their fetuses. Its a clearly false depiction. The correct & honest term is Pro Choice, as their argument is that it should be a pregnant woman's choice as to whether she should carry her pregnancy to full term & NO ONE ELSE'S!
Secondly, Pro Life is also a deep misnomer, as a sizable portion of the so-called Pro Life movement also supports the death penalty & the Iraq War. A more correct & honest term for this movement would be Anti Choice, since their argument is that society has the authority to deny a pregnant woman any say in whether she is to carry her pregnancy to term. Their argument is that, once impregnated, a woman must be compelled BY LAW to serve as an incubator for her fetus.
So, your real argument is that Fred Thompson is & always has been an Anti Choice politician.
And even here you're demonstrably wrong. MMFA has documented at least one past example of Thompson arguing a Pro Choice position. You may feel that this example is too old to be of any real consequence, but it does bring up a serious & revealing question: just when did Thompson change his mind on being Pro Choice, & what precisely was the thought process that brought him to his current position that women should be denied the right of choice in such a fundamental aspect in their lives?
Oh no, Mescal, now you've opened the door for the Rushbots.
Anytime you explain the clear difference between pro-choice and anti-choice, there's sure to be some genius asking why liberals aren't consistently pro-choice- like on school vouchers and owning assault rifles.
A more correct & honest term for this movement would be Anti Choice, since their argument is that society has the authority to deny a pregnant woman any say in whether she is to carry her pregnancy to term. Their argument is that, once impregnated, a woman must be compelled BY LAW to serve as an incubator for her fetus.
I actually refer to them as "Pro-Slavery" as that position yolks a woman to involuntary servitude to a fetus. (We're already nearly there as various "feticide" and "fetal neglect" laws on the books in a large number of states clearly demonstrate.)
Wes, a better question for you. Can you show where Fred Thompson has explained how and where he changed his mind towards abortion, or should we assume he just went through some type of miraculous change, or follows in the footsteps of Perot's former VP candidate. Quoting the general, "where am I?"
msnbc reported that Thompson gave an interview to the Conservative Spectator, a Tenn. newspaper "Thompson said he was "certainly pro-life." But he told the paper, "I'm not willing to support laws that prohibit early term abortions ... It comes down to whether life begins at conception. I don't know in my own mind if that is the case so I don't feel the law ought to impose that standard on other people"...
..."But if Thompson was conflicted about the issue, his voting record didn't show it. He joined with conservatives to block federal funding for abortions and supported a partial-birth-abortion ban. National Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, gave him a 100 percent rating. Recently, Thompson has suggested a personal shift on the issue. He told Fox News that he's always been against abortion, but that the issue has "meant a little more" since he saw the sonogram of his 3-year-old daughter. "I'll never feel that same way again," Thompson said."
I'll judge him on his actions...not political rhetoric.
Gee Wes, it would mean more if you wrote the whole thing, instead of taking the part you liked best:
On Fox News last month, he was asked why he checked a box on a questionnaire in his 1994 Senate campaign beside a statement saying that abortion "should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months.""I don't remember that box," Thompson replied. "You know, it was a long time ago, and I don't know if I filled it out or my staff, based on what they thought my position was, filled it out."The Tennessean newspaper reported that Thompson, when filling out a 1996 Christian Coalition survey, marked himself as "opposed" to a constitutional amendment protecting "the sanctity of human life."The newspaper said he included a handwritten notation saying: "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."In recent weeks, Thompson has described himself as fundamentally "pro-life," saying the issue has "meant a little more to me" since seeing the sonogram of his now-3-year-old daughter.
[bold mine]
It would appear that he wasn't against abortion, but now that he's running for Prez he is. If you think his opposition won't have a field day with this, you're mistaken.
I would be more impressed if his actions were based more on avoidance of supporting pro-choice legislation. This current problem is not new. Late nineteenth and early twentieth century United States also had to deal with abortion issues. The historic responses included the development of adoption agencies and homes for unwed mothers. Perhaps supporting these programs would be of equal, if not increased importance. As a trivial thought, in 1961 there were six homes for unwed mothers in cleveland. all six have since closed. Expanding this, and challenging the conservative fedralism perhaps support for working women, and working mothers would also deal with this question without dealing with legislative change.
For a book written by a woman who lived this story of an unwed mother in the 60's:
http://www.amazon.com/Girls-Who-Went-Away-Surrendered/dp/1594200947
It's a sorry lot who like to make a political football out of abortion (like Thompson)
You want something in the last 10-12 years? How about Thompson lying now about whether he lobbied for a pro-choice organization in 1991?
Thompson's lying through his teeth, and it's 2007 when he's doing it.
Almost every politician has flipped flopped once or twice or a hundred times. It goes hand in glove with pandering to whatever group they're attempting to gain the backing of. Say whatever the folks want to hear...even if it's a 180 from what you said in the past. Guess you could refer to it as an occupational requirement needed to get elected.
Of course they should be called on the carpet by the media who one would assume might have done their research.
Empty promises, flips, flops, bullsh#t...just a normal day for most of our lawmakers.
Letting them get away with it...just a normal day by most of the media.
The media has been very tolerant of Thompson not only does he flip flop on abortion but he appears to be the hand picked media candidate. I guess working on Law and Order is what the media wants in a President.
I think I just heard those two notes that play at the beginning of every Law and Order program.
I guess Thompson wants to be the new flip-flopper-in-chief. As if Bush wasn't a good enough flip-flopper. The GOP is really good for nothing.