Fox News Sunday, "Choosing the President" interviews: on Abortion

Fred Thompson: Life begins at conception; abortion takes a life

A: Yes.

Q: Do you believe that abortion is the taking of life?

A: Yes.

Fred Thompson: Reverse Roe & return abortion to states, to allow SOME bans

A: What the situation is now is as follows. Because of Roe vs. Wade, all states are restricted from passing rules that they otherwise would maybe like to pass with regard to this area. If you abolish Roe vs. Wade, you’re going to allow every state to pass reasonable rules that they might see fit to pass. There hasn’t been a serious effort to put forth a constitutional amendment because people knew that it wouldn’t pass. What I’ve been talking about is directing our energy toward something that was halfway practical, something that might could get done. So now where we have no states with the option of doing anything about it, then we would have however many states wanted to. You could move from zero yard line, to the 60- or 70-yard line instead of standing pat, which is where we will remain if we don’t abolish Roe vs. Wade.

Fred Thompson: Let states decide abortion with restrictions as they see fit

A: Exactly.

Q: That is the essence of the pro-choice argument, not individual choice, but pro-choice for states.

A: No, not really. How many pro-choice people say that they want to see the abolition of Roe vs. Wade? I don’t know any. What I’m talking about is abolishing Roe vs. Wade [and allowing the abortion decision at the state level].

Q: So even if you disagree with them, states could have abortion on demand.

A: No, not abortion on demand. They could restrict. They would have the ability to restrict abortion more than they do now.

Q: But pre-Roe vs. Wade, some states had abortion on demand.

A: Well, they would not have anything under that situation that they don’t have now. I mean, the gain would be on the pro-life side. I mean, they have Roe vs. Wade and all of the progeny from that already.

Mike Huckabee: No states rights for moral issues like abortion

A: Well, it’s the logic of the Civil War. If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong. Again, that’s what the whole Civil War was about. Can you have states saying slavery is OK, other states saying it’s not? If abortion is a moral issue--and for many of us it is, and I know for others it’s not. So if you decide that it’s just a political issue, then that’s a perfectly acceptable, logical conclusion. But for those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can’t simply have 50 different versions of what’s right.

Mitt Romney: Following in Reagan’s footsteps in converting to pro-life

Q: Yes, that’s right. But when I became governor I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I’m following in some pretty good footsteps. It’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life. And the same thing happened with George H. W. Bush.

Rudy Giuliani: Forever against abortion; but respect others’ choice

A: I’m very, very passionate about abortion and the whole issue of abortion. But it leads me to a conclusion, which is I oppose it. That’s a principle I’ve held forever, and I’ll hold it forever. That’s not going to change. But I also believe that in a society like ours, where people have very different consciences about this, it’s best for us to respect each other’s differences and allow for choice. So with regard to Roe against Wade, since my view is that there shouldn’t be a litmus test on Roe v. Wade, it seems to me the best position to take is I don’t want a litmus test for judges.

Then you personally would not feel it’s OK if the Supreme Court overturned it?

A: The country could handle it. We’ve got a federal system. What would happen is states would make decisions.

Rudy Giuliani: Appoint constructionist judges, but no litmus test

A: I don’t think it’s a question of being disappointed or being happy about it. I think it’s a question of not wanting to make this a litmus test for judges, so that a judge feels free to listen to the facts, listen to the arguments, and come to the decision they think is the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Some strict constructionist judges are going to decide it was wrongly decided. Other strict constructionist judges may give more weight to the precedential value of it, the fact that it’s been the law for this length of time. You can see the tension there between these two things. And I think the court should be allowed to decide this.

Q: Would you nominate someone whose record shows that he opposes a woman’s right to choose?

A: If I thought that on 20 other issues they would be terrific, I might be able to, sure. I don’t consider it a litmus test.

Rudy Giuliani: Would personally advise women against abortion

A: Many millions of Americans have that same position that I have. Personally, if you asked my advice, if a woman asked my advice about abortion, the advice that I would give is: Shouldn’t have the abortion, better to have the child, I’ll help you, I’ll support you in that choice.

Q: Why?

A: Because I think having the child is a much better decision. I think it’s a much better moral decision. I think it’s much better for society. I think adoption is a better option than abortion. I supported that position by helping adoptions increase in New York when I was the mayor by 66%. During the 8 years that I was the mayor, adoptions over the eight years before went up 130%. I have a very strong view about that. I have an equally strong view that in a society like ours, you have to respect the right of other people who are of equally good conscience.

Rudy Giuliani: 1997:Supported partial birth; opposed parental notificiation

• Do you support Medicaid funding for abortion without any restrictions? Yes.
• Would you oppose forcing minors to get parental notification before they have an abortion? Yes.
• Would you oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions? Yes.

A: Correct. On parental notification: I looked at the laws that were passed. They created judicial bypass. It seems to me that that is a reasonable way to do it. On partial-birth abortion, I was concerned that there’d be exceptions for the life and the health of the mother. The 2003 congressional hearings, and then the eventual legislation, made provision for the life of the mother and made findings on the health of the mother with which I agreed. I supported it then. I supported the decision.

Rudy Giuliani: Would not oppose strong pro-life plank of GOP platform

A: I’m not going to deal with the platform. Any candidate of the party has about 9 out of 10 things in the platform they agree with and 1 or 2 things that they don’t agree with. I know what my positions are. A very, very big portion of my party agrees with that. A certain portion of my party disagrees with that. My attempt is to try to broaden the base of the Republican Party, to try to bring in people that can agree and that can disagree on that, because I think the issues that we face about terrorism, about our economy, about the growth of our economy are so important that we have to have the biggest outreach possible.

Fred Thompson: Judges should not make new social policy for the country

A: Pro-life.

Q: Do you want to overturn Roe v. Wade?

A: I think Roe v. 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. We have a process in this country to do that. Judges shouldn’t be doing that. That’s what happened in that case. I think it was wrong.