Via RedState, I found a great article highlighting the pro-life values and record of Sen. Fred Thompson:. We have a good crop of pro-lifers in the race, but none of them are top-tier candidates, but none with the stature and broad appeal of Thompson, and the polling numbers prove it. Every pro-life organization of record has endorsed Fred's pro-life credentials, so this is good news for conservatives that a candidate such as him will be jumping into the race.
NASHVILLE, Tennessee, May 31, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Former pro-life Senator and “Law and Order” star Fred Thompson has made it nearly official that he will run for President and join the crowded list of Republicans vying for their party’s nomination.
Thompson’s campaign and late entry into the race gains much from conservative dissatisfaction with the current pool of Republican candidates. For pro-life advocates especially, front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have posed serious concerns, and many have feared former Gov. Mitt Romney’s pro-life “conversion” to be too close for comfort.
Thompson announced to the media that he plans to form an exploratory committee, "Friends of Fred Thompson," on Friday to begin raising money and hiring staff for a White House campaign. This will allow Thompson to begin accepting campaign donations June 4.
In a conference call Monday, Thompson told supporters dubbed “First Day Founders” to raise funds and support. The Weekly Standard reports that the June 4 day gives Thompson an added benefit, since news agencies will report on the 1st “impressive one-day haul” on the same day as Republicans debate a third time in New Hampshire, June 5.
The Politico reports sources close to Thompson say he will make an official announcement for the White House on July 4, Independence Day, although that has not been confirmed.
FOX News reported Thompson quit the popular TV series "Law & Order" to focus on his potential 2008 run for the White House.
"We'll go into the testing the waters phase and that will allow us to raise some money and start building a staff to get out there and make sure that what we feel like is going on is going on," Thompson told FOX News. "There's a desire for someone to come in and run a different kind of campaign and come with a different message and address some of the issues our country is facing."
According to the National Right to Life, Thompson boasts a 100% pro-life record in the Senate where he served from 1994 – 2002, and many conservatives have seen Thompson as perhaps the best high profile candidate to represent the pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, and fiscal conservatives of the Republican Party. This makes Thompson a threat to Gov. Mitt Romney, who until his recent performances at the primary debates, was tied for third with the non-candidate Thompson and has had to campaign on his “conversion” to conservative issues.
Thompson did however in 1994 fill out a survey for Project Vote Smart in which he supported legal first-trimester abortion. However Thompson’s voting record does not reflect this, and Thompson says his views on abortion deepened greatly after watching a sonogram of his 3 year-old daughter.
Thompson has supported overturning Roe v. Wade calling it “bad law and bad medical science” saying “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."
Come join the troops and show your support at the Fred Thompson Forum. We need supporters at the new site. http://fredthompsonforum.com
Posted by: Fred Thompson Forum | June 27, 2007 at 11:50 PM
And that is the key thing about Sen. Thompson and the life issue. You can say whatever you want about candidate questionaires and stuff like that, but his voting record speaks for itself. And more importantly he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade because it is bad law (which it is) and leave the decision to the states (which is how it should have always been).
Posted by: George Templeton | June 28, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Actually what Thompson said is that he opposed Roe v Wade but believed it was a state's issue. Thus, if state's want to keep abortion, it is fine with him. He is against the Human Life Amendment because of his state's rights stuff. Since when a state has the right to terminate an innocent person, an unborn baby, I don't know. I guess if state's want to allow three people to marry, or girls of 12 to have sex, as long as the state thinks it is ok, then fine. That argument doesn't wash when it is something that society has agreed upon for thousands of years like traditional marriage. Yes, Thompson is prolife but I don't like this sending it back to the states. However, because Duncan Hunter has gone nowhere and Brownback was orginally part of this ridiculous amnesty bill, which thankfully was defeated, Thompson is the best we have.
Posted by: Loudounconservative | June 28, 2007 at 01:52 PM
George- "overturn Roe" - I had no idea he was running for Supreme Court.
As someone with a pregnant wife I have become even more affirmed of my commitment to a woman's right to choose. Because when you support reproductive rights you not only support a woman's autonomy- you support a world where every child is born because they are wanted and loved and not because a government required them to be born.
Posted by: brimur | June 28, 2007 at 03:42 PM
That is the most asinine comments ever uttered! Most of us were not wanted babies--last one of five and can assure you with little money and many problems most a generation or two were not "wanted." When we got here we were loved and even if everyone isn't loved, they can go and be successful because God put them here. There is a heartbeat at 18 days--gee do you suppose it is a kangaroo in there? Typical liberal garbage just like illegal immigrant bill didn't give amnesty. How about giving the baby a choice--ever wonder what their opinion is swimming around in there? By 8 weeks every part of the baby is developed so don't give me that crap we all should be loved--we all should respect life at every stage. There are many thousands waiting to adopt but the selfish people today just think about how that would make them feel. Better off to kill the baby--insanity. Why God bothers with this country, I don't know but imagine He will eventually get fed up with this liberal garbage. I bet a whale gets beached you'd run to the rescue.
Posted by: Loudounconservative | June 28, 2007 at 03:53 PM
Woah hoss. I guess that's why this discussion has gotten dumbed down beyond all belief. If one attempts to talk through their position they receive name-calling and evil motives attributed to their position.
You know I don't think that most of the country is where you are Loudoun conservative. I think that most people do agree with you that there is something unique and valuable that is developing in a woman's womb. But I don't think most agree that a first trimester fetus is morally equivalent to a walking, talking human being. Most people wouldn't think it's a coin flip when given the choice between the life of their spouse and the life of their first trimester fetus.
I'm so tired of the soundbytes. The moral issue is a tough one, and it's one everyone should struggle with- but for men like myself it's rather an abstract moral question. It's women who have to make the decision about what is best for them, their bodies, and the potential life developing inside them.
I don't think I, you, or any other person has all the answers to resolve the difficult questions that surround the periphery of life - both at its beginning and at its end - but I can tell you that it's pretty easy for me to say, and I think a strong majority of Americans agree, that the government at least shouldn't be the final arbiter of such a difficult and personal decision.
Posted by: brimur | June 28, 2007 at 05:58 PM
There was a time when most believed blacks should be segregated or sat back and watched what Hitler did so I guess that is ok. Actually, polling shows more are with me, esp. young people. 2% of abortions are from rape, incest or life of the mother and there is never a need to kill a child. Obviously, if the baby dies while a woman is being treated for cancer it is not because she decided to kill the baby. Nice that everyone is murdering their sons and daughters because tests show they have Downs Syndrome. A woman's decision is made when she has sex but the selfish people of today only care about themselves. They are not fooling God and any man who thinks it is ok to have anyone murder and that is what it is murder an innocent unborn child cause it isn't convenient, or don't have the money, etc is not a man at all. There are well over 3000 crisis pregnancy centers that pay rent, get jobs, provide care for mother and child so there are plenty of places for a woman to go. Planned Parenthood won't even let a woman look at the ultrasound for fear she would change her mind and God forbid they would lose their blood money. I could write a book but folks like you just don't get it. One day you will maybe not on earth but when you are asked what you did to save unborn children, please do look Jesus in the eye and say, well Jesus it's like this--I know these babies are created with a soul at conception, but gee, really it is up to the woman to decide--see where that gets you. No wonder men aren't real men today--pitiful specimens many of them.
Posted by: Loudounconservative | June 28, 2007 at 10:43 PM
LC- I indulged you even though you're certifiably insane, but you've crossed the line. You do NOT get to judge me and present yourself to be the filter of the one true Christian way of living. My faith is important to me and guides me in more ways than it is any of your damned business. I suggest that you need to re-read the sermon on the mount.
Posted by: brimur | June 28, 2007 at 10:57 PM
I suppose Brimur I should have said he believes Roe should be overturned and abortion should be left to the states. I gather since we aren't talking about whether it should be legal or not, you want the status quo.
Well the people of this country should have been allowed to work their will in the 70s via their state legislatures and it was wrong for 5 people on the supreme court to take that away. I have read the constitution and don't see reproductive rights in there.
Posted by: George Templeton | June 29, 2007 at 01:06 AM
I also don't see guarantees against daily suspicionless anal probes, doesn't mean it's not a fundamental right implied by the due process clause.
Posted by: brimur | June 29, 2007 at 10:25 AM