New Concerns: A Closer Look At Fred Thompson's Abortion Stance

Fred Thompson has said, repeatedly, that he is pro-life. He knows what pro-life means. Pro-life people do not support abortion during the first trimester.

Still, it can't be denied that he (or even possibly someone who worked for his campaign 13 years ago) checked a box on a questionnaire that reflected a position with which he was comfortable being seen as holding 13 years ago while running for office.

That is troubling, but it doesn’t seem to be what he is saying now, and his current statements don't seem as inconsistent with his past statements (as with Mitt Romney, whose recent "conversion" seems contrived and calculated).

Fred Thompson has said that he is pro-life (without offering any qualifying terms limiting the meaning of "pro-life"). He has also said he thinks Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision and supports it being overturned, and that seems to be his consistent position over the years.

Here are some video clips of Thompson saying those things:

FOX News Sunday: Fred On The Issues

Key Fred Thompson Quote:

"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."

Fred Thompson Interview - Hannity (This is the third segment with Hannity aired on FOX, and it's the one where he talks about abortion.)

Key Fred Thompson Quote:

"I am pro-life. I have a 100% voting record on the pro-life issues that come, uh, there. I must say, I've told people this before, I, intellectually and politically and from a policy standpoint I've always, uh, voted that way ever since I've been in the Senate and felt that way. I must say it's meant a little bit more to me since I saw the first sonogram of my little three year old daughter. Uh, I'll never feel the same way about that again. So, not only is it in my head, it's in my heart, now. And uh, again, I think we ought to try be tolerant of various views on this thing, but in terms of government policy, I think we ought to discourage that [abortion]; it's a bad thing. I think the Supreme Court was absolutely right in this abortion decision, the, uh, partial-birth abortion decision. The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity, uh, should be, uh, allowable, uh, is, uh, is very unfortunate, to say the least. Uh, I think the president has a limited responsibility in that, but people deserve to know how you feel, and that's how I feel about it."

I had to listen very closely to what he said in the Hannity clip in order to transcribe it.

I do have some concerns about what he said.

Here they are:

1) It's clear from all that he says (and from his record) that Fred Thomspon is a federalist. Federalists advocate the principle of allowing greater regional autonomy within the United States — usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a nationally uniform solution.

He seems to be willing to support an amendment to the Constitution preventing states from being forced to accept homosexual marriage or homosexual civil unions because of the "full faith and credit" clause, which is a position with federalist leanings (since an easier route would be just to have an amendment that marriage is between a man and a woman, which would be my preference) but he still seems to think the states should be allowed to decide one way or the other. (Again, not my preference.)

My concern is that he may feel the same way about abortion, because that was his position here in this clip from either 1992 or 1994: Fred Thompson talks about abortion

In the older clip he seems to think abortion shouldn't be a national issue. He seem to think it should be a state issue, and although he clearly seems to think abortion isn't good, and even hints that abortion is, in fact, harmful to women, he says he thinks that educating people about what abortion is will "win that battle". I'm not sure what that means.

I noticed in the Hannity interview, he spoke about abortion last. My fear is that abortion is a weak point for him and he wanted to establish his more solidly conservative positions first so that it wouldn't stand out. There were a lot of word whiskers ("ums" and "uhs", etc.) when he got to talking about abortion, which seems to indicate some discomfort on his part about discussing the issue.

2) In the Hannity clip, Thompson says: "I think we ought to try be tolerant of various views on this thing..."

Red flag! That bothers me, because I'm not sure what he means when he says tolerant.

If he means civil (in a "you catch more flies with honey" kind of way) and not running around bombing clinics and shooting doctors, I agree, but if he means we should be tolerant in allowing other people to do what they feel is best with regard to abortion, even if that means having an abortion or supporting legal abortion, then I have a serious problem with what Thompson said.

The fact that he says in the next sentence (of partial-birth abortion), "The very idea that we could even have a debate over whether or not that atrocious activity, uh, should be, uh, allowable, uh, is, uh, is very unfortunate, to say the least," only heightens my apprehension, because he seems to understand very clearly how "atrocious" partial-birth abortion is, and he doesn't seem "tolerant" of other viewpoints on that matter when he says that the fact that there is even a debate is "unfortunate".

I may be over-analyzing him, though.

Still, the issue of abortion is one I take so seriously that a candidate had better be careful and clear when he speaks about it.

3) He seems to distance himself from responsibility on the issue of abortion when he says, "Uh, I think the president has a limited responsibility in that, but people deserve to know how you feel, and that's how I feel about it."

That may just be a further indication of his discomfort about discussing such a sensitive subject, but I'd really like more assurances about what kind of Supreme Court justices he would nominate.

Fred Thomson's Voting Record:

Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

According to the National Right to Life Scorecard for the 105th Congress, U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted the pro-life position on the following issues:

1 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

2 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban--Veto Override

3 - Abortions in military medical facilities

4 - Abortions in military medical facilities

5 - Child Custody Protection Act -- Cloture Vote

6 - Abortion coverage in S-CHIP ("kid care")

7 - Federal employees' abortion coverage

8 - Abortion-dependent fetal tissue research

9 - Clinton unrestricted funding for "population assistance"

10 - State Department authorization bill

11 - Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act

12 - Medicare: right to purchase unrationed insurance

13 - Medicare: right to purchase unrationed insurance

According to the National Right to Life Scorecard for the 106th Congress, U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson voted the pro-life position on the following issues:

1 - Ban on abortions in military medical facilities

2 - Ban on abortions in military medical facilities

3 - Ban on federal employees' abortion coverage

6 - Killing Roe v. Wade endorsement

7 - Roe v. Wade endorsement

8 - Baby body parts ("fetal tissue")

9 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

More on Fred Thompson's Pro-Life credentials: National Right to Life Committee on Thompson - Thursday, March 22, 2007

Here's what those who want legal abortion say about Fred Thompson:

According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their "vote smart" page:

Abortion Issues 2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.

2001 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 77 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Thompson supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.

Social Issues 2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Zero Population Growth 0 percent in 2001.

2001 Thompson supported the interests of the Californians for Population Stabilization 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the Zero Population Growth 0 percent in 2000.

2000 Thompson supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 27 percent in 2000.

1999-2000 Thompson supported the interests of the National Association of Social Workers 10 percent in 1999-2000.

1999 Thompson supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 18 percent in 1999.

According to "NARAL Pro-Choice America" on their Congressional 1994 National Political Awareness Test, Fred Thompson's positions in 1994 (based on answers to a questionnaire) are below (after the explanation on their site about the NPAT):

Please Note

The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. Through extensive research of public polling data, we discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item.

Abortion

9. If elected to Congress, which of the following general principles or specific proposals will you support concerning abortion?

Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.

A woman under the age of 18 should be required to notify a parent or guardian before having an abortion.

A woman should be required to notify her spouse before having an abortion.

States should be allowed to impose mandatory waiting periods before abortions are performed.

Congress should eliminate federal funding for clinics and medical facilities that provide abortion services.

Congress should eliminate abortion services from any federally funded health care plan.

Congress should leave legislation on this issue to the states.

Note: The site does not come out and say that the data provided by this 1994 questionnaire is outdated, but does ask supporters to "Urge Fred Thompson to fill out the NPAT".

It's clear NARAL isn't thrilled with Thompson, but I still find it troubling that he reportedly once believed that "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."

Bottom line: On further reflection, I'm more concerned about Fred Thompson's abortion stance than I was before after doing all this research and listening to every word he has said on the issue that I can find (and hearing all the nuance in the Sean Hannity interview from transcribing it).

I am extremely unhappy with the major GOP candidates who are officially running for president. None of them are solid conservatives. Giuliani is not an option. He's pro-abortion. The fact that he's a RINO doesn't help matters. McCain isn't much more conservative than Giuliani, but at least he's says he's pro-life and has a pro-life record. Mitt Romney, in my opinion, isn't trustworthy. His "conversion" on social issues is too recent (here's a clip of him pledging to "preserve and protect" a woman's "right to choose" from 2002) and seems too calculated. The 1994 video clip where he was debating with Ted Kennedy about who is the bigger supporter of so-called "abortion rights" didn't help his cause either. He's not really much of a contender anyway, as he's polling in the single digits.

I was under the impression that Fred Thompson's solid pro-life voting record, his statements that he is "pro-life", and his solidly conservative positions in other areas made him the best choice of the viable candidates. Now, looking at his record on abortion, I am less certain about him. It's my hope that we can get people asking questions that will help Fred Thompson make some important clarifications. That way, I'll know if I can still support him.

Because it seems very likely that he's going to enter the race:

The buzz is that Fred hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet due to the fact that he still has some contractual obligations with regard to his acting work. He apparently has contractural obligations regarding a movie showing on HBO on May 27th. If he announces before then they’ll have to pull the movie (which HBO spent a lot of money making) or they'll have to give equal time to other candidates, which would be prohibitively expensive. The same problem exists with his work on NBC's Law & Order. See: Fred Thompson's Presidential Hopes Could Put 'Law' Reruns in Lockup. If Thompson were to formally declare at this time, NBC would have to give equal air time to other candidates. However, if he declares in June, after his contract on "Law and Order" runs out and after this seasons' new episodes have run, NBC can opt to not air “Law and Order” episodes that include Fred Thompson.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[CoffeeMugPhilosophy]

Guiliani cant be trusted on Abortion issues. Its obvious that he is a true-believer in Abortion and his public debates, statements
and charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood,all allude to that and deeper. Fred Thompson however is acceptable and a winner for a Pro-Life advocacy.

[Dan Hunter]

Thomistic,
Senator Brownback is the only candidate that a Catholic is allowed to vote for.
He backs up his love for the unborn by a solid Catholic piety.
Say what you want about anyone else,we cannot vote for anyone...and I mean anyone other than Senator Brownback.
Oh ye of little faith.
Pray the Divine Office everyday and He will answer to the good of this world.
God bless you and thank you for making the evils of this world evident to the Church Militant

[Thomistic]

Dan,

God Bless You.

I disagree with your statement that Catholics must vote for Brownback, though.

You can't go around saying things like that without backing up your statements. You have no evidence that voting for, say, Fred Thompson or John McCain is not morally licit for Catholics.

I would agree that any pro-abortion candidate or any candidate who supports legal recognition for homosexual "unions" is unacceptable and that voting for one of them is probably sinful, but beyond that, is saying too much.

Moreover, the way you say it makes you sound a little nutty, and I know you don't mean to sound that way.

As far as believing that prayer will make Brownback the President, if that were the case, wouldn't our prayers then also make everyone Catholic and wouldn't our prayers make everyone holy?

Don't you realize that many, many people pray for the conversion of sinners, yet many, many sinners don't convert.

When God created man, he gave us the faculty of free will. God respects that freedom. He cannot and will not "make" people vote for Brownback if a certain number of people simply pray for that.

Half the country voted for Al Gore and John Kerry in the last two elections. Those folks won't vote for Brownback.

Most Republicans won't vote for him, either.

His campaign is a non-starter. He isn't registering in the polls and I have yet to hear any news source report that he is a serious contender or has anything like the following that would be required to help him win a national election (when half the country actively votes for the other side).

Sorry, Dan, but God bless you!

Pax,

Thomistic

[Dan Hunter]

Thomistic,
I do not want to change the subject and defend myself,but you repeatedly are showing me an abundant lack of respect and have now said that I sound nutty.
Where praytell,do I deviate from Church Dogma and therefore the teachings of Christ Himself,in any of my postings?
Why do you consistently make attempts to belittle the blatant truth.
You see as the world see's throgh the taint of this worlds lens.
God wants us to elevate our prayer life to Him,and through His power we can move mountains.
A.Please do not engage in ad hominem attacks on my person again.
B.Please acknowledge that God can and will work through us and give His children a Fathers,BEST,not just a nice handout that leads to better things but the BEST president that there is.And right now that man is Senator Brownback.
With the medium of the internet at your figertips it is Imperative that you uphold your obligation to the good and that means the best.
It does not matter what happened in the past.
If enough men get down on their knees and pray for the election of Senator Brownback to the Oval Office it will happen.And yes it is most possible that if we all unite this will happen.
Let us unite under the banner of Our Lady Of Guadalupe and God will win,now!
God bless you and yours and God bless our Beautiful country.

[Thomistic]

Okay, Dan.

Whatever you say.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Dan Hunter]

Thomistic,
Thank you, and God bless.
Sincerely, Dan

[Pius V]

Dan et al.,

To ban abortion nationwide would require either (1) a constitutional amendment or (2) a judicial overturning of Roe v. Wade and progeny plus federal legislation. Neither a constitutional amendment nor federal legislation is realistic. More important, a president has precious little to do with the passage of a consitutional amendment anyway.

But what is realistic, and what brings presidential involvement front and center, is a judicial overturning of Roe v. Wade. All it takes is the right president to appoint judges who respect the constitution, which in fact does not, as currently written, prohibit congress or the states from proscribing or regulating abortion. Thompson strikes me as a safe bet as a president who would appoint sensible judges -- who would themselves be federalists, more or less.

With Roe gone, the issue would devolve to the states, and then it would be up to you and me to work to make abortion history one state at a time. Some liberal states would still have abortion, but many states would limit it and perhaps outlaw it altogether, and abortions would decline. Lives would be saved and attitudes would change.

As they say, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Thomistic]

Just a general comment here.

Although some might attempt to say that political topics don't belong on a Catholic blog, I wholeheartedly disagree for a few reasons:

1) I can blog about anything I want to blog about.

2) Abortion is a Catholic issue, as are other moral issues of our time that have entered the political process. It is important to examine the positions and agendas of various politicians in order to determine whether or not Catholics can support them.

3) It is important for Catholics not to buy into the secularist and "progressive" myth that religion has no place in the political arena.

Pax,

Thomistic

[JMC]

Dan, what news sources are you consulting? I know Brownback isn't registering on the MSM, and that's probably because they just plain don't like him. They're doing to him what they did to Bauer eight years ago: Spiking his candicacy by blackout. I will definitely vote for him in the primaries, but, if he doesn't make it past that, as is becoming increasingly certain he won't, then I shall simply have to choose the least of several evils. It is not a sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate IF, and ONLY IF, that is not the MAIN reason you are voting for him. So, if someone likes Thompson's views on everything else but has doubts about his stance on abortion; or if someone likes everything else about Giuliani EXCEPT his stance on abortion, there is no sin in voting for either of them.
/
By the way, I wasn't really thrilled with all those "uhs" in Thompson's responses, either, which seemed to proliferate more and more, the more closely he was pinned down. Hopefully, they were only because his answers were against the advice of his political advisors, and not because he was covering up anything.
/
While God may not necessarily answer our prayers in the way we want, he DOES always answer prayer. Sometimes, the answer is NO. And sometimes, it's WAIT. Whatever the answer, we must never stop praying.

[James]

I agree with Thomistic. Political topics belong on a Catholic blog, when such topics have to do with good and evil (which they very often do).

James

[DenverCatholic]

FYI - that "pro choice" was not Thompson's position. They researched it, and it was filled out by a volunteer staffer who sent it off before checking.

So a whole lot of hullabaloo over nothing.

Fred Thompson = SOLIDLY PRO LIFE, always will be.

I smell Romney's dirt spreaders at work. They've been at this since Fred Thompson showed up on the radar - they are spreading lies and innuendo.

Don't buy it or a minute.

[Peter Holiday]

Notice: Please Post
Catholic Veterans Association
Formation: A Pro-active Catholic Veterans Association
Eligibility: Catholic Veteran of U.S. Military
Mission: Protection of the Catholic Churches of America
Contact: [email protected]

[sarah sawyer]

Fred Dalton Thompson, the next president
of the USA, is pro life. He is a man of his word who says what he means and means what he says. End of debate.

[D]

I've never really understood the support of complete abortion bans by Catholics. As people who always ring about free will given to us by Him, why take away such choice from people who have become unhappily pregnant?

I don't care what you say-- Church Dogma is not the word of Christ; His word is above the pettiness of human intervention-- taking a stance for the church and against His word is sinful.

[Carise]

So in having free will, that suddenly endorses murder. If a person is unhappily pregnant, they shouldn't have had sex, realizing that pregnancy can happen from sexual intercourse. The baby that is growing inside the mother should not be denied a life because the mother is unhappy about being pregnant and couldn't practice self control. So life is just disposable? Is that acceptable to you? A person has sex, they get pregnant, they are mad about the consequence, so a doctor ends the life growing inside the mother and throws it in the garbage. Is this supposed to be a solution? Women need to stop having sex if they can't handle the consequences. Aids and std's are life long consequences, and much worse compared to having a child who will adore you the rest of your life. And regarding church dogma: Where do you think the church got it's 2,000 year old dogma's? Where do you think the bible came from? There was no printing press for the first 1700 years of Christianity. How was the bible kept together throughout time until it was physically available to everyone in book form? Through word of mouth, know-it-all. Jesus's words are available to you now in book form because of the tradition of the Catholic Church keeping it preserved.

[JJ]

As an adopted person through a Catholic agency, I am pro-choice and always will be. There is no such thing as pro-abortion.

[Faciamus]

Fred Thompson can claim to be pro-life all he wants, but his past history as a lobbyist for a pro-abortion group completely discredits his claim in my book. You cannot separate your personal beliefs from your work, that's called hypocrisy. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3288.html)
Just because Brownback is Catholic and pro-life does not make him the best candidate either. Congressman Ron Paul (R,TX) has a 100% pro-life voting record, has never voted for a tax increase, and actually reads every bill that comes across his desk to determine if the Constitution authorizes it's passage. He also doesn't miss a ridiculous amount of votes due to campaigning the way Brownback does. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers/

[Thomistic]

Good for you, support Ron Paul in the primaries. It's good to support the candidate you want n the primaries, even if they have no chance of getting the nomination (and Ron Paul has no chance), because if enough people do that, the candidate who will get the nomination (which will, unfortunately, likely be either Rudy Giuliani if enough nut-jobs support fringe candidates like the Bircheresque crank reactionary who wants to cut and run in Iraq even now that we appear to be winning, Ron Paul, or better, but of course not perfect, Fred Thompson) will hopefully understand that he needs to adopt some of the positions that have cost him votes in the primaries if he wants to win in a general election.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Jacknhoo]

Pope Benedict XVI:

Benedict noted that it was not merely a matter of the Church but one of all humanity. "We are acting as advocates for a profoundly human need, speaking out on behalf of those unborn children who have no voice." He added: "I do not close my eyes to the difficulties and the conflicts which many women are experiencing, and I realize that the credibility of what we say also depends on what the Church herself is doing to help women in trouble."

"I appeal, then, to political leaders not to allow children to be considered as a form of illness, nor to abolish in practice your legal system's acknowledgment that abortion is wrong. I say this out of a concern for humanity."