Video flashback: Fred! says abortion shouldn’t be criminalized
posted at 9:51 pm on April 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Not sure when this is from. 1994, if I had to guess, given that that’s when he was flirting with the libertarian position on this issue in interviews. It was posted by a YT user called “ArthurBranch77″. What are the odds that this would be the very first video he’s ever uploaded?
He does a little federalist softshoe number during the first half of the clip, which I find appealing but which some of our commenters might not. That’s actually the stance most anti-Roe Supreme Court justices have taken — not that all laws permitting abortion should be deemed unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment but that each state should be free to decide whether to criminalize the procedure or not. (In fact, Connecticut passed a law a few years ago formally permitting abortions just in case the Court ever does get around to overturning Roe.)
So far, so good. It’s the second half of the clip you’re watching for, where it sounds like he’s saying that if Roe were overturned, Tennessee shouldn’t outlaw abortion. Rather, they should take a sort of Giuliani approach — hate hate hatin’ the daylights out of it but letting women have it if they so choose. Hey, it works for Mexico.
I don’t expect this will cause him any problems given his solidly pro-life Senate voting record and the fact that, as the anointed party savior, he’s bulletproof. Besides, he’s still no further to the left on this issue than any other leading Republican.
Speaking of which, Rudy sounds desperate. Can he hear Fred’s footsteps?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I think this might be from 1992. That said, I doubt it will hurt Fred either, though it does make one of the arguments for picking Fred over Romney moot–a “flip flop on abortion.”
Either way, Romney or Fred, I think I’d be happy–as long as we know Fred can govern, not just vote right.
Vanceone on April 24, 2007 at 9:55 PM
The question was around abortions “for convenience”. I take that to mean abortions that are performed outside health considerations. These are typical social conservative talking points. Nothing unusual. I was pleased to hear he’s for parental notification. I disagree that abortion is something the courts can decide which is what I’m sure I heard him say.
thedecider on April 24, 2007 at 10:07 PM
It’s typical of social conservatives to say abortions for convenience shouldn’t be illegal?
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Yeah this sounds libertarian to me. Not that that’s a bad thing necessarily, but I’d like him to be a little more clear before I judge.
For me I’m straddling the line between Libertarian and pro-life I guess. If Fred came out and said he thought at least the obvious (in my eyes) cases of abortion like late term or anything after the baby is viable should be illegal that would be nice.
I think his Libertarian/Federalist side would prevent him from wanting to see ALL abortion banned by the government, which I agree with as well.
Dash on April 24, 2007 at 10:20 PM
BTW Allah your “Rudy sounds desperate” links to an article about Fred and abortion.
Dash on April 24, 2007 at 10:22 PM
What was “the battle that will be won” that he refers to?
Perchant on April 24, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Certainly. I never heard him say he opposed abortions of all kinds or wanted to tighten restrictions on it. He went on to talk about the usual points of parental notification, abortion shouldn’t be funded by the government; states should have reasonable controls; the government shouldn’t criminalize…these are pretty typical beliefs of many social conservatives I know. The more dyed-in-the-wool conservatives typically oppose all abortions and want tighter restrictions.
thedecider on April 24, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I’m just curious to know how many ‘revealing’ videos and writings of Fred Thompson HA will feed us (doing the left’s dirty work for them?) and if a single one of them will not have the word ‘heartache’ as a sub title.
Darksean on April 24, 2007 at 10:26 PM
The biggest problem with Roe v Wade is the fact that it was legislation from the bench. Follow the constitution and everything will work out according to each individual state.
csdeven on April 24, 2007 at 10:28 PM
If you analyze that clip again, you’ll note that when he rephrases the question, he doesn’t say abortions for convenience. He’s talking about whether it should be criminalized for the minor, the parent and the doctor as aiders and abettors. That’s a different answer than the question.
Further analysis shows he’s against federalization of abortion; he’s for states making that determination; and he’s against criminalizing those who have the procedure.
It’s not a flip-flop to be against something but also against making criminals out of those who disagree with you.
My .02, anyway.
Tennman on April 24, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Why focus on the “shouldn’t be criminalized” part? Why not the part where he says it’ll be, in his opinion, a moot point when families learn more about it and “what it does to women”?
eforhan on April 24, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Excellent point. I listened to the video again – it’s the very last thing he says. Speaking of the abortion battle: “it should be won in the courts”. Does he mean individual law suits? I really don’t get that at all. He also says he believes the debate will (ultimately) be won in the hearts and minds of individuals (an idealistic thought in my mind), but ends on the part about the courts. Let the individual states decide.
thedecider on April 24, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Well, yeah. That’s a problem for social conservatives, isn’t it? Unless I missed a day in class, they want abortion criminalized.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 10:39 PM
To be honest, I don’t think the past matters much in this election. As long as Thompson (and whoever else) says they are pro-life now, that is all that matters.
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 10:39 PM
You’d prefer not to know? I had no idea.
I apologize to the Hot Air community for informing them. I’ll try to do better going forward.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Just to be clear. Pro-lifers want abortionist to be criminalized, not the women.
We understand what brings a woman to this point. Just as someone might understand what would bring someone to sucide. It’s desperate and terrible, but not criminal.
The Abortionist knows full well what he does. He knows it clearly.
Rightwingsparkle on April 24, 2007 at 10:41 PM
You do a great job. Please continue the Fred! updates. He’s only going to become more important as the race for POTUS moves forward.
thedecider on April 24, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Making sure women are fully informed before having an abortion is a very conservative ideal. A social conservative would add to that his belief that human life–the kind protected by our laws– begins inside the womb, either at conception or sometime thereafter. But that’s a discussion that doesn’t seem to happen very often, especially in these polarized times.
eforhan on April 24, 2007 at 10:53 PM
I’d consider myself a social conservative. I can’t speak for others, but I want to see abortions stopped, not people punished.
Tennman on April 24, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Interesting how when Fred! says something non-Conservative, he’s defended, his speech analyzed, and excuses made. Yet, if Rudy gives a similar speech, the main responses are along the lines of “Run, Fred, Run!”. Hmm. Double-standard, no?
That being said, you make it sounds as if this is the first time Rudy’s taken that strong a position, or has been that vocal. Let’s remember he was the one who stood on the RNC floor and said “Thank God George Bush is our President”. He was the politician who got stuck among the rubble of the WTC.
amerpundit on April 24, 2007 at 11:10 PM
There’s a difference between saying you want federally-funded abortions and that you don’t want abortions criminalized. >.
eforhan on April 24, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Exactly.
Yes. It’s Fred! time.
Jaibones on April 24, 2007 at 11:22 PM
You can speak for me. That’s what I want, as well.
Glynn on April 24, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Fred articulates the anti Roe v. Wade position in this clip. He does not believe that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should be involved in abortion and should not fund abortion. Fred says later in the clip that “the government” should not criminalize abortions. I think that Fred is still talking about the federal government because he refers to the federal government earlier in the clip and was campaigning for United States Senate at the time. If Fred is saying that the federal government should not fund or criminalize abortion, then he is articulating the anti Roe v. Wade position.
If I were a strong pro-life advocate, this video would strengthen my support for Fred Thompson because it sounds like he wants to get the Federal Government out of abortion and let the states impose bans if they want to. As a libertarian who believes in states rights and hates Roe v. Wade, this video definitely strengthens my support for Fred Thompson.
Or maybe I just don’t like Romney, McCain, or Giuliani…
bigbeas on April 24, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I’m so sick of this. Next we’re gonna have a video of Republican candidate saying he’s pro-life, but we’ll be told he doesn’t say it with enough fervor so his campaign if dead.
Jim-Rose on April 24, 2007 at 11:43 PM
OK, so Rudy’s desperate when he brings up terrorism and uses the issue to go after his opponents, but it is emphatically NOT desperation when his opponents (who trail him in all of the polls, by the way) try to bludgeon him with the abortion issue? I don’t get it.
Big S on April 24, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Media Matters at work ladies and gents, get used to it….
PinkyBigglesworth on April 24, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Amen, Big S!
Jim-Rose on April 25, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Rudy or Fred!. Somehow I think it will come down to one of them. I’d take either at this point.
thedecider on April 25, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Is Rudy hearing footsteps or is he showing his local boy mentality? One the other hand if he is hearing footsteps I thing he’s showing his hand WAY to early in the race.
sonnyspats1 on April 25, 2007 at 1:14 AM
No man is everything to all men. Last time I checked, the last perfect guy got nailed to the tree.
I like Rudy. I really, really, like FRED!
Shoot me!
james hooker on April 25, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Yes, in response to gotcha question number 3 should abortionist be executed…..
Question 2 was when did you stop beating your wife….
EricPWJohnson on April 25, 2007 at 1:31 AM
I think you were. Social conservatives like myself want Roe v. Wade overturned. I’m not naive enough to beleive that abortions will come to a grinding halt. After Roe v. Wade goes bye bye then the social conscious takes over, personal resposibility always grows when the government is taken out of the equation. Some states will outlaw all convience abortions, some states will allow abortion until the 2nd trimester, some states the first. Abortion will not stop but overturning Roe will be like damming the the abortion river. The water still flows but it’s very small amount. This is something the nation is ready for
Theworldisnotenough on April 25, 2007 at 2:45 AM
Yes. And it also sounds like he’s talking about the Fed Gov over State Gov, where he has more faith in the state for this kind of thing.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 25, 2007 at 4:28 AM
P.S. I don’t care what someone SAID then, I wanna know what they’ll DO now.
MirCat on April 25, 2007 at 4:28 AM
Would someone please inform me what the social conservative position is here: if abortion is made illegal, what should the punishment be for the woman and/or the doctor who performs the abortion?
Jail? and for how long?
If abortion is murder, should the punishment be the death penalty?
This is one question on the Right where all one hears is crickets chirping…
Help me out here, Allah.
Halley on April 25, 2007 at 5:41 AM
I disagree. This should be judged on a case by case basis. Some women that perform it should be thrown in jail, unless we want to make exceptions for desperate women who give birth to their children, choke them to death and stick them in a flower pot as well. That said, with the criminalization of abortion there should come the criminalization of deadbeat fathers. If you have a child, you’re gonna help take care of it or we bring down the hammer.
Darth Executor on April 25, 2007 at 7:10 AM
I could care less about abortion laws. I call them all whores whether it’s illegal or not.
Go FRED!!
Ringmaster on April 25, 2007 at 8:01 AM
Fred! is starting to remind me of Cumeo back in the 80s. To be or not to be….yawn.
honora on April 25, 2007 at 8:33 AM
I thought there were already deadbeat dad laws, some of which get them thrown into jail for non-payment of child support?
Where is their choice (hint: same time most women’s choice is… before sex)?
eforhan on April 25, 2007 at 9:05 AM
So instead of having her abortion performed by a licensed medical professional, a desperate woman will now be able to buy abortion drugs from drug dealer on the corner; or, if she’s really lucky, she might even be able to get a vet- school-drop-out to perform a coat hanger abortion in a abandoned factory. It’s really a win-win for everyone.
JaHerer22 on April 25, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Not my problem. I didn’t knock her up. I can’t kill people for money, why can they? Equal rights for all I guess.
Ringmaster on April 25, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Fred’s voting record speaks for itself…he is clearly pro-life…rumor is that this is A Romney supporter who posted the video…does’nt matter…Fred is running and will declare soon…and the rest of the GOP candidates are in big trouble…Fred endorses all of the true conservative values…not just some of them!
DCJeff on April 25, 2007 at 9:27 AM
The salient issue is the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade. On that front, Thompson appears abolutely solid and these remarks from 1994 only reinforce that.
RWB on April 25, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Just to be clear. Pro-lifers want abortionist to be criminalized, not the women.
Really? Seems to me that if you are calling it murder, this makes the woman the person who is hiring the hit man.
I struggle with abortion. I think it’s wrong, in the it’s a sin sense. But do I equate it to murder? I don’t think so. As someone alluded above, it that’s the case, the penalty for the woman and the doc should be execution.
honora on April 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM
DCJeff on April 25, 2007 at 9:44 AM
It really depends on when you consider the baby alive, if at conception then the doctor and mother are murdering the baby.
Then again if you don’t believe the baby or fetus is alive at conception, then you would not believe it was criminal. That is the way I see this going.
djohn669 on April 25, 2007 at 9:50 AM
We rarely execute murderers of adults and children today, yet you bring out execution as the logical result of criminalized abortion?
Fred’s stance in this video is that women, once given all information, will choose life–that the argument of abortion will become essentially moot. Of course, the pro-abortionists don’t wish to have that discussion, so rather than talking about where human life becomes worthy enough for protection by our laws, or the possible negative/dangerous effects of abortion, we get arguments ad absurdum like “the penalty for the woman and the doc should be execution” and statements about women mass-mutilating themselves with clothes-hangers.
Well done, libs. Way to keep the women uninformed.
eforhan on April 25, 2007 at 9:57 AM
I think that pro-lifers just want abortion criminalized, regardless of how its done. But from a Constitutional standpoint, any criminalization should occur at the state level and not the federal level. That’s what Fred seems to say in this video clip.
bigbeas on April 25, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Scratch just beneath the surface, a federalist/libertarian sort of stance is that the Fed shouldn’t criminalize behavior that rightly ought to be determined at a state level. This is a consistent position, not a flip-flop. Fred! takes the same position on many issues.
Ahh, looks like bigbeas has this thought covered as well.
Anyway, my main point is that if this is all that can be found to damage Fred!, it’s smooth sailing to 1600 Pennsylvania Av.
Freelancer on April 25, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I saw his video comments on youtube about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I was impressed, he “gets it”. I will add him to my very short list of possible candidates to consider to earn my vote.
paulsur on April 25, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Well if it’s pre-mediated murder, certainly the death penalty would be in play.
But the point is, if you call it murder, then the logical conclusion is to punish it as murder. There is hesitancy to go down this road and I think it’s worth it to ask why that is.
honora on April 25, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I’m a Republican that believes in the right of the mother to choose, until you can take the baby out and it can live on it’s own or through some medical intervention, then it lives only at the convenience of the mother and is subject to her wishes. I think the first trimester is a reasonable cutoff. it gives the mother a chance to know she is pregnant, if she doesn’t make up her mind by then, too bad. you’re stuck with it. although I also believe that no government funds should be allocated to abort any child.
the point is… this is going to happen, just like drugs… regardless of it’s legal or not. to legalize is to control and moderate…
Kaptain Amerika on April 25, 2007 at 12:49 PM
So instead of having her abortion performed by a licensed medical professional, a desperate woman will now be able to buy abortion drugs from drug dealer on the corner; or, if she’s really lucky, she might even be able to get a vet- school-drop-out to perform a coat hanger abortion in a abandoned factory. It’s really a win-win for everyone.
JaHerer22 on April 25, 2007 at 9:21 AM
So we “help” her kill her baby? This was the whole argument in the beginning, you know? The Roe case was based on a lie of rape. Read Norma McCorvey’s book about how she was used as Jane Roe. Read ex abortionist Bernard Nathanson’s book. He was one of the one’s who spearheaded NARAL as he explains how they made numbers up in how illegal abortion affected women. Lies. Lies. Lies. They told us it was for “hard cases” but it became a billion dollar industry largely unregulated.
The truth? Millions of women suffer from their abortion. The heart of your child starts beating before an abortion can be performed. And then there is the horror of abortion on a child that no one seems to want to face. (last link very graphic)
My point is that we can argue the semantics all day long, but the lies of Roe still infect our society and divide us as no other issue does. No reasonable person can say that abortion is a good thing. There are better options. And if we, as a society, don’t find them then we should all be ashamed of ourselves.
I strongly urge JaHerer22 to read the Bernard Nathanson link. It’s a brief but fascinating and eye opening look into the beginning of abortion that anyone interested in this issue should read.
Rightwingsparkle on April 25, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Roe was based on one lie after another. Any one wanting to get an idea of what happened by then read this brief but eye opening account of Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist who spearheaded NARAL and was involved in feeding lies to Congress at the time.
Rightwingsparkle on April 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Sorry about that double posting. I thought the first one was lost!
Rightwingsparkle on April 25, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Perhaps it’s because our target is not the same. For me, the target should be a life given a chance to live. The target in the above scenario is proscribing punishment. The two can be mutually exclusive.
Punishment is only a logical argument for a worst-case scenario. There are other scenarios that should be given a chance first. Roe v. Wade didn’t go far enough. It granted women absolute control over their bodies, but it said nothing at all about the rights of the unborn.
The old saying, “Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose” is the concept that should be given voice here. Women should have the right to choose. The unborn have no voice to make the choice. Who stands in for the unborn?
It’s not an either/or proposition as far as I know. It’s a difficult issue that other writers better than I have yet to come to grips with. The abortion/right-to-life question will still be raging for decades.
Having said that, my personal choice would be: I want the madness to stop. I want the babies to be born and to be cared for. I want them to go to loving homes and become Republicans. :)
Tennman on April 25, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Howdy. I’m new in town.
I looked at the clip several times. It seems to me that Fred isn’t so much flip-flopping as he is evolving. And that evolution is firmly on track if his record is any indication, not to mention his appearance earlier this year on Meet The Press.
Fred’s emphasis on the 14th Amendment and the sovereign power of the states has lasted to the present day. As to the courts, leaving the matter to the states would be an improvement over what he referred to on MTP as “legislating from the bench.” (Now THAT’S the clip we should be looking at.) One thing he appeared to have given up, though, is any sense that hearts and minds will be easily swayed by how terrible abortion is. Especially when there’s a profit in it for somebody — usually a man, and sometimes with taxpayer funding. But getting the Federal government, and the courts, out of the equation, is a step in the right direction.
The other Republican candidates are either extreme long-shots, or big-government conservatives, or both. The latter betrays the ideals that made Reagan a great president, and can make the GOP great again.
To that end, I’d say Fred looks pretty good at this point.
manwithblackhat on April 25, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Thompson/Pence ‘08
tormod on April 25, 2007 at 3:29 PM
You hard core extreme radicals that base government on religion should be illegal, you are idiots. Abortions will never be illegal. Sorry, we have bigger problems and the people that are in the Evangelicals pocket (GOP or DEM) for these HOT BUTTON issue may not be a great leader to fight terrorism, case in point: BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush found Jesus to help him from being a raging alcoholic until he was 40 years OLD! BTW Bush had a DUI, nice. DUI kills 100,000’s of people world wide (17-27k in USA) and Bush was doing that. NICE and he is president.
If you want Abortions Illegal, make DUI’s a felony with hard time for first offence, HECK lets out law alcohol all together; While at it lets make porn, gambling, smoking, pre-marital sex and adultery illegal. The latter punishable by stoning to death aka, Taliban style. YOU ALL ARE IDIOTS. Go start your own Totalitarian theocracy country. This is america and you don’t get to tell people what to do in the privacy of their home or what to do with their body, sorry.
WOMAN are in charge of BIRTH. They call the shots. They can tell a man they want to keep the baby, abort the baby and they have nothing to say about it, at least outside of marriage.
BIRTH CONTROL – The stupid church does not want to talk about it or teach it or make it available even though there is NOTHING in the bible. (Challenge me, I DARE YOU, I am very up on scriptures). I don’t know why we don’t have condom commercials on prime time and condoms at the schools nurses office and handed out on the street corner in poor neighbourhoods. Less pregnancies = less abortions. NO KIDDING, Duuh YOU THINK?
I THINK Fred is right on. BUT YOU extreme radical mindless idiots are so dogmatic and militant you are beyond hope. IF YOU DON’T LIKE ABORTIONS DO THE FOLLOWING: Pray, Work with your church to prevent pregnancy, Work with civic organizations involving again education and adoption, Adapt some CRACK BABIES, and SHUT UP!
BTW I am a christian and I HATE Abortion but I put it in God’s hand. I suspect most of you have this mindless manufactured rage because you are told to because its a conservative thing, and you worship your party. You don’t care about children. PUT GOD AND COUNTRY FIRST.
gmcjetpilot on April 26, 2007 at 12:10 AM
I think someone needs a nap.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 26, 2007 at 3:45 AM
Comment pages: