Sen. Thompson's Appearance on Fox News Sunday

I was busy with a hundred other things Sunday, so I didn't get a chance to see former Senator Fred Thompson on "Fox News Sunday" until I pulled it up last night. As you know, the board of National Right to Life has overwhelmingly endorsed Mr. Thompson to be President of the United States. I watched [or read] all of the interview but, of course, gave particular attention to his answers on abortion.

Many items stood out in Thompson's responses to Fox News' Chris Wallace. Let me cite three.

#1. Thompson responded "yes" to the question, "Do you believe that life begins at conception"?

#2. Thompson answered "yes" to the question, "Do you believe that abortion is the taking of life?"

#3. Thompson gave, in my opinion, a very thoughtful explanation of his position--why, as President, he would overturn Roe by "directing our energy" on nominating justices to the Supreme Court rather than on a Human Life Amendment. (Thompson has made it clear that he would not change the Republican Party's platform plank favoring passage of an HLA.)

When the Court is comprised of enough justices whose fealty is to the text and history of the Constitution, not to the enactment of legislation via court opinion, Roe v. Wade will be reversed. When this happens, abortion law would be established by the elected legislative branch, not nine unelected justices. The voice of grassroots American could be heard uninhibited by Roe's extremist reach.

Wallace challenged Thompson, saying this would mean that some states would have very liberal abortion laws. In effect, Thompson responded, "Think about what you just said."

He patiently walked Wallace through the enormous obstacles there are to passage of an HLA and how that knowledge reinforces the imperative to nominate and confirm strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court.

To even be considered by the states, an HLA would need to be passed by 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate--and then ratified by 3/4ths of the states. (NRLC has estimated that 30 senators would have to be replaced to reach the 2/3rds majority.

"When we had control of the House, had control of the Senate, had control of the presidency, there wasn't a serious effort to put forth a constitutional amendment because people knew that it couldn't pass -- couldn't pass, wouldn't pass," Thompson said

But the crucial point is, whether it is ratification of an HLA after Congress sends it to the states, or passage of protective laws after Roe v. Wade is overturned, in either case the action is in the legislative arena. But while the former requires 38 states for victory, the latter is an individual battle where pro-lifers can win one law at a time, building momentum and reconstituting a culture of life. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition as is ratification of an HLA.

In one sentence, Thompson summarized the extraordinary opportunities that would be available, once Roe is history. "You could move from zero yard line, you know, to the 60- or 70-yard line instead of standing pat, which is what we're doing how, which is where we will remain if we don't abolish Roe vs. Wade."

He made this same point in a slightly different and equally thoughtful way, in answering another question about states having the right not to pass protective legislation once Roe's collapse returns the abortion issue to elected lawmakers.

"[I]f we can't carry the argument, if we can't win the argument--which I think that we are winning nationwide now--we can never pass a constitutional amendment anyway."  

Exactly.

Thompson was on top of his game, energetic, and gave as good (actually better) than he got. If you'd like to read about how NRLC reached its decision to enthusiastically support Sen. Thompson for President, please go to www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov07/nv111307.htm

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com