Stephanopoulos, Politico allowed Thompson's claims about his abortion record to go unchallenged
SUMMARY: In an interview on This Week, George Stephanopoulos did not challenge Fred Thompson's assertions that "I think ... that Roe versus Wade should be overturned" and that "I've had a pro-life voting record my entire career on every conceivable issue that came up before us for almost a decade." Similarly the Politico reported that Thompson "trumpeted his own anti-abortion credentials after receiving the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee." Neither Stephanopoulos nor the Politico noted that Thompson has reportedly expressed support for abortion rights, as well as for Roe v. Wade.
During an interview with Republican presidential candidate and former Sen. Fred Thompson (TN) on the November 18 edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos did not challenge Thompson's assertions that "I think, number one, that Roe versus Wade should be overturned" and that "[a]ll I know is that I've had a pro-life voting record my entire career on every conceivable issue that came up before us for almost a decade." In a November 18 article discussing Thompson's appearance on This Week, the Politico reported that Thompson "trumpeted his own anti-abortion credentials after receiving the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee" and "bristled when host George Stephanopoulos passed along a quote from conservative activist Paul Weyrich, a [Mitt] Romney supporter, saying that Thompson 'bought their endorsement.' " But neither Stephanopoulos nor the Politico noted that Thompson has reportedly expressed support for abortion rights, as well as for Roe v. Wade. Indeed, as Media Matters for America has noted (here, here, and here), the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported on July 29, 1993, that Thompson said during an interview that he "supports the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion."
Further, as Media Matters noted, on June 10, The Tennessean reported that it had found documents in the Thompson archive indicating "he has previously taken positions that could be viewed as tolerating abortion," including "a handwritten clarification" on a 1996 Christian Coalition survey that said, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people." The Tennessean posted Thompson's response to the Christian Coalition survey on its website. The "handwritten clarification" was near Thompson's checkmark "oppos[ing]" "legislation protecting the sanctity of human life except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered." The Tennessean also reported that "[i]n 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled 'N/A.' "
Additionally, as Media Matters repeatedly noted, the Los Angeles Times reported on July 7 that Thompson "accepted an assignment from a family-planning group [the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association] 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." The same article quoted Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo as saying: "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." According to a July 19 New York Times article, "Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist" for the family-planning association. The Times articled added that Thompson "spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied 'administration officials' for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show." The Times reported that Corallo said: "It is not unusual for a lawyer to give counsel at the request of colleagues, even when they personally disagree with the issue."
While the November 18 Politico article did not mention Thompson's reported lobbying for the family-planning association, on July 12, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen reported that Thompson "back[ed] off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group." Allen added that "[t]he climb-down could be a significant embarrassment for a prospective candidate with a plain-spoken appeal and who has courted the GOP's anti-abortion base":
Fred Thompson is backing off his flat denial that he once lobbied for an abortion-rights group. He now says he doesn't remember it, but does not dispute evidence to the contrary.
The climb-down could be a significant embarrassment for a prospective candidate with a plain-spoken appeal and who has courted the GOP's anti-abortion base, although Thompson and his advisers had signaled for several days that it was coming.
From the November 18 Politico article:
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, competing for many of the same socially conservative Southern voters as [former Arkansas Gov. Mike] Huckabee, dismissed his GOP primary rival as a "pro-life liberal" in an interview on ABC's "This Week."
"He's pro-life but he's liberal on everything else. Like taxes, illegal immigration enforcement," Thompson said.
For his part, Thompson trumpeted his own anti-abortion credentials after receiving the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee this week. He bristled when host George Stephanopoulos passed along a quote from conservative activist Paul Weyrich, a Romney supporter, saying that Thompson "bought their endorsement."
"Having one of Romney's people talking about somebody else buying something has got to be one of the most ironic things that happened," Thompson said. "I don't know if the Romney campaign has been asked to agree or disagree with Mr. Weyrich, but I assume they will say that is kind of a nutty thing to say. Nutty is the only word I can think of for that."
From the November 18 edition of ABC's This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You think states should be free to set abortion policy?
THOMPSON: You know -- again, a very complex issue. I think, number one, that Roe versus Wade should be overturned. We need to remember what the status was before Roe versus Wade.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Goes back to the states.
THOMPSON: It goes back to the states. States now, just about all -- or the heavy majority of them have laws against abortion. They're just restricted by what --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Restricting; not eliminating.
THOMPSON: That's right. They're limited by what the Supreme Court has said about Roe versus Wade and the cases that have come. Most of the laws now outlaw the doctors who perform these things. They don't criminalize young girls, so, you know, we really need to examine what the state law is and what it would be, and it's hard to do hypotheticals in great detail.
All I know is that I've had a pro-life voting record my entire career on every conceivable issue that came up before us for almost a decade. I have said that nothing would pass my desk that would promote or finance or fund abortion without my veto, but you've got to be within the realm of whatever the law is at the time, and if you don't think the law is correct, the best thing that a president can do is try to get judges who will follow the law and follow the Constitution instead of making it up as they go along.















When it comes to the "Scarlet A," the Repubs generally get a pass. I'd like some brave pundit to ask one of these white men that if abortion is made illegal, what they would recommend as the penalty against a doctor or woman participating in one and getting caught.
That's too easy. Ask any one who advocates further restrictions and criminalisation of abotions what the penalty will be for an 11 year old girl who has an abortion. They will sometimes say something stupid like "11 year olds can't get pregnant" and then you can lay this case on them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,1861532,00.html
Next they will try to change the subject, accuse you of being some pervert, or pro murderer. Just keep asking the same question over and over, I've yet to get a straight answer.
Are you saying that there should be a charge of murder if a child is killed within seconds after birth, but no charge if the child is killed seconds before birth?
Please give an example where a fetus was aborted "seconds" before birth.
Thank you for writing that !!
It is impossible to kill a child before birth. Duh?
We've yet to determine when Dogrun's brain was killed....
I think it's pretty funny that MMFA is citing some scribbling in the margin of a 14 year-old questionairre as "proof" of their claim against Thompson as opposed to Thompsons, let's see, ENTIRE SENATE VOTING RECORD on this matter. Knock yourself out although it doesn't seem like a push in my view.
........and they trot it our every time Thompson utters a word on it.
As long as your a Democratic candidate who changes her mind in the matter of about two minutes on a debate question on illegal immigration, and then again a couple weeks later - that is peachy and explained away as a "complex issue".
If it's 14 years ago on abortion, a simple non-complicated issue, and it's a Republican, it's a flip-flop.
Let's not forget Hill's flip-flop on NAFTA either.
And that has what to do with this thread?
Thompson says he's against abortion but won't interfere with a womans' right to choose, much like Guilliani. You won't be getting many "values" votes with that stance.
As long as journalists let Thompson lie about his record somebody has to point it out.
Thompson isn't lying about his voting record.
It's true that Fred Thompson has voted pro-life his entire senate career from 1994 -2002.
Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Sunday he does not support the pro-life plank that has been included in the Republican National Platform since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level
Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?""No," said Thompson."You would not?" said Russert."No," said Thompson. "I have always -- and that's been my position the entire time I've been in politics.
I'm confused. You vote pro-life but you believe that abortions should be legal and available. You tout your pro-life voting record but you don't acknowledge that you don't support the Republican platform on pro-life, you believe that all abortions should not be banned, you believe abortions should be legal, but you're proud of your pro-life voting record. Is that a new 'republicanese' language that only Republicans understand cause it's sure sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Why is Thompson getting different treatment then other candidates who have had all of their past scrutinized? There is nothing wrong with this question or a candidate that has evolved their position over time.... most reasonable thinking individuals do change their positions on issues as they learn more and have different life experiences.
Bad week for Stephanapolous , why allow Thompson to get away with that is beyond me.
Google isn't working on my computer right now - can someone please tell where George Stephanopoulos worked BEFORE he started working at ABC?
I honestly just forgot.
"...can someone please tell where George Stephanopoulos worked BEFORE he started working at ABC?" - Truthyjusty
Here you go. Google tells no lies.
From way down on this page (under "Closed shops opening up?"), "George Stephanopoulos, chief technology officer at Mitsubishi Chemical".
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2002/020808/full/nj6898-04a.html
Now, isn't that more meaningful than *your* links?
And in an *exceptionally* precise echo of your posts and links, it was under "Closed shops opening up?", but was actually in the box "Top Jobs".
That's not the same George Stephanopoulos.
Obviously.
The George Stephanopoulos from ABC was part of Bill Clinton's 1992 Pesidential Campaign staff as well as Director of Communications during his first presidency.
There is absolutely no point in discussing a candidate's VOTING RECORD on abortion. It's irrelevant because the issue will end up before the supreme court one way or the other, no matter what laws are passed. WHAT KIND OF JUDGES THE CANDIDATE WILL APPOINT IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS ON THIS ISSUE. (And on many issues - torture, wiretapping, privacy, free speech, freedeom of/from religion, civil liberty in general, etc...)
That's why [this lifelong yankee republican] is voting strait demoncrat until this mess of a facsist supreme court is fixed and the are at least as many TRUE "swing votes" as there are liberal or conservative locks. (Truth be told, I've been voting democrat since 2000 - W. and hi ilk has pretty much puched me and mine out of the party.)
(And as far as judges go... don't give me this "contructionist" crap. That's become a code word for staunch, right-wing, conservative, republican, meat-puppet.) (Oh yeah, I forgot - stick "religious nut-job" in there somewhere.) (The Constituion was mean to defend personal liberty by limiting the power of government to TAKE AWAY our freedoms. That's all a "constructionist" should have to know! These guys throw that word around to gain legitimacy with moderates, but it's all BS.)
oh yeah, we forgot to tell you - George Stephanopoulos is a conservative.
Alternate reality warning zone here, folks!
Who said George Stephanopoulos was a conservative?
Pro-lifers are usually not well-tolerated in Hollywood, except for (I think) Patricia Heaton. Thompson either lied to get work in Hollywood, or he is lying now.
Probably now.