In a message dated 11/6/2007 2:37:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, DrFrank@abortiontruths.net writes:
Fred Thompson Rejects GOP's Pro-Life Platform Plank
By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
November 05, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - 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.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Thompson told host Tim Russert that he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that took the issue of abortion away from the states by declaring abortion a constitutional right. Thompson said he wants to keep abortion legal at the state level.
"People ask me hypothetically, you know, OK, it goes back to the states," said Thompson. "Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we're going to outlaw this, that, or the other. And my response was, I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician. And that's what you're talking about. It's not a sense of the Senate. You're talking about potential criminal law."
If abortions are not "criminalized" even for doctors who are paid to perform them, they will remain legal.
The Republican National Platform has included language endorsing a human life amendment since 1976, the first presidential election following the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
Since 1984, the year President Ronald Reagan ran for re-election, each quadrennial Republican platform has included the same pro-life language, calling for both a human life amendment and for legislation making clear that the 14th Amendment, which includes the right to equal protection of the law, extends to unborn babies.
On "Meet the Press," Russert read Thompson the language of the Republican "pro-life" plank and asked Thompson to state his position on it.
"This," said Russert, "is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: 'We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution. We endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.' 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 thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that.
"Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is -- serves us very, very well. I think that's true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But..."
"Each state would make their own abortion laws?" Russert asked.
"Yeah," said Thompson. "But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling -- going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go."
Thompson told Russert that since he ran for the Senate in 1994, he has changed his mind about whether human life begins at conception.
Back then, he did not know the answer, he said. Now, especially in light of having seen the sonogram of his four-year-old child, he has changed his mind -- and now believes human life does begin at conception.
Still, he does not favor "criminalizing" the taking of a human life through abortion. Russert challenged him on the consistency of this position.
"So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?" said Russert.
"Yes, I, I, I, I do," said Thompson.
"You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?" asked Russert.
"I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially -- you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do.
"It cannot change the way I feel about it morally -- but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind," said Thompson.
In an interview with Fox News Monday morning, Thompson said he's been pro-life all his career -- "and always will be."
Thompson insisted that he's been consistent on the issue, unlike other Republicans.
"Look at what I did for eight years in the United States Senate. I mean, we had votes on federal funding for abortion, we had votes on partial birth abortion, we had votes on the Mexico City policy, we had votes on cloning, we had votes to prohibit people taking young girls across state lines to avoid parental consent laws -- that's what I did. Those are the issues that face the federal government," Thompson said.
"I would have done the same policies as president that I did when I was in the United States Senate, which is one hundred percent pro-life," he said.
"I can't reach into every person to change their hearts and minds in America, but I can certainly make sure where, for example, federal tax dollars go."
Britain 'No Longer Christian,' Says Influential Liberal Think Tank
By Kevin McCandless
November 05, 2007
London (CNSNews.com) - It's time for Britain to recognize that it is no longer a Christian nation and should embrace multiculturalism, according to a liberal think-tank favored by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Christmas should be just one of many religious holidays recognized by the government, says a report soon to be released by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).
Echoing sentiments heard throughout Britain in recent years, the authors of the report say that the traditional pillars of British identity have now vanished or been greatly weakened.
Church attendance is at historically low levels, the British Empire is gone, the monarchy is far less popular and the Second World War is inexorably slipping into memory.
After interviewing opinion makers and ordinary citizens, the authors say that it's up to the government to create a new and more inclusive national identity, part of which includes honoring the diverse cultures found in Britain.
The authors warn that uncritical promotion of multiculturalism leads to segregation and abuse of human rights, but if it is done correctly, it will help bind the nation closer together.
Governments that discriminate against different cultures undermine their citizens' right to be treated with respect, they say.
The report suggests that cities should build downtown areas that promote better interaction between different groups. The government also should work on getting minorities out into the largely white countryside.
With regards to religion, bishops from the Church of England should no longer sit in the House of Lords and a new constitution could be created to defend "the right of citizens to practice whatever faith they please."
And more recognition should be given to different ethnic groups: "If we are going to continue as a nation to mark Christmas -- and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to -- then public organizations should mark other religious festivals too."
The report also calls for a new national holiday to celebrate "Britishness" and new rituals to link citizens more with the national government.
For example, in years to come, there could be birth ceremonies in which parents and the state agree "to work in partnership to support and bring up" newborn children.
Although the IPPR report has not been officially released yet, lawmakers and reporters were given leaked copies.
Members of the opposition Conservative Party charged that the report amounted to "throwing out" history and "denying the fundamental contribution" that Christianity plays in Britain.
Laura Midgley, a spokeswoman for The Campaign Against Political Correctness, said multiculturalism has been shown not to work and that the government would be wrong to accept it
"They really don't get it," she said. "On the ground it doesn't work."
Compounding the controversy is the fact the IPPR has been strongly linked with the Labor government in recent years.
Nick Pearce, former director of the IPPR, is currently head of public policy at Downing Street. The institute has also reportedly influenced many areas of environmental policy and the incoming national identity card system.
However, Andrew Denham, a politics expert at the University of Nottingham, said the relationship between the IPPR and Brown is not as clear-cut as it's been made out to be.
While the IPPR has certainly been "adjacent" to the government on some issues, he said, not everything put out by the institute has been picked up by the prime minister.
In general, he said, both the media and think tanks themselves were prone to exaggerate the amount of influence they had, and so it was wise to take it all with a grain of salt.According to 2001 census figures, nearly 70 percent in people in England and Wales described their ethnicity as white and their religion as Christian.
To respond to this email, subscribe, or unsubscribe, please contact Dr. Frank: