August 18th, 2007
10:53 AM ET
16 years ago

Thompson: Roe 'bad law and bad medicine'

Watch CNN's John King interview Fred Thompson.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson told CNN Friday that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president, and would push for a constitutional amendment that protects states from being forced to honor gay marriages performed in other states.

“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.

Thompson added that the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion “was bad law and bad medicine.”

As for when he will jump into the race, the former Tennessee senator said "shortly."

“We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase,” he said. “We’re going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we’ll be in traditionally when people get in this race."

Thompson also said he believed he could enter the presidential race next month and still win the Iowa caucuses.

On the issue of Iraq, Thompson refused to provide a timeline for how much longer US forces would remain in the country under his administration, but said, “We need to make every effort to make sure that we don’t get run out of there with our tail between our legs before we’ve done the job of securing that place.”

Asked about critics who call him “too lazy” to put in the long hours necessary to run for president, Thompson said: “If I have critics in Washington it's not going to come as a surprise to me. I'll have more by the end of this campaign,” adding, “The proof’s in the pudding. I think that’s curable.”

- CNN Chief National Correspondent John King

Filed under: Fred Thompson
soundoff (535 Responses)
  1. Andrew

    What an idiot. Its been proven through the former trends from Poland and the crime decrease in the U.S. in the 90's that banning abortion will eventually lead to an increase in crime. You cannot ban abortion. You cannot stop it. If you did stop abortion, you would increase unwanted births to mothers who will likley neglect their unwanted children, leading to unloved children that will likley lead a life of crime, particularly because single children are statistically more likley to become criminals.

    August 20, 2007 05:14 am at 5:14 am |
  2. Joe, Florida

    To Benjamin,

    You are sick in the head man. "Sold their souls to the devil"? Surely, you can do better than that. All you are doing is making yourself along with every other pro-life individual out there look bad and ridiculous

    Learn more about pregnancy, get educated, and then give a better opinion (this last comment goes to everyone out there who fits the stupid and uneducated person profile)

    August 20, 2007 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  3. Benjamin, Albuquerque, New Mexico

    Joe: one can look at abortion from a purely scientific mentality or from a theological perspective.

    From the purely scientific perspective human life begins at conception. The director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis S. Collins, stated in the Appendix of his book, "The Language of God" that based on science there is no line of demarcation between human and non-human during human gestation.

    Life begins at conception. At the moment of conception the single cell has a full set of human chromosomes, which contain the DNA, which will regulate the person's physical development. All the person's physical characteristics are already determined. That single cell is growing, taking in nutrients, and will one day be a full grown human being that may reproduce. These are the 3 basic characteristics of life - what separates life from inanimate objects.

    The major step forward in human philosophy and morality is in the Declaration of Independence. No longer will human life be at the mercy of kings, queens, tyrants, and the superficial measures of the people; human life is an inalienable right granted by God. It is the first duty of the Government to protect human life.

    From a theological perspective - Satan lied to Adam and Eve telling them that God cannot be trusted and if they said "no" to God they would become gods.

    In accepting the lie - the lie about the nature of God and the nature of man - they became instruments of the Devil, which is to oppose God and his plan for creation.

    Since human beings resemble God in a special manner - made in His image and likeness - Satan especially despises humanity; because he wants to be god and worshipped as god. His original lie was intended to separate man from God so that man would experience death.

    In acting as if we are gods, which we are naturally incapable of, we have become each others worse enemy. Man is the enemy of man. We kill each other by the millions.

    Now with abortion, we kill human beings before they can even defend themselves. There are well over 25 million abortions per year around the world.

    If we would stop acting like gods and listen and obey the one true living God we would stop destroying ourselves and the rest of creation.

    August 20, 2007 01:05 pm at 1:05 pm |
  4. David, Gilbert Arizona

    Posted By N: "...David, Have an abortion and then tell me how convenient it is. I had an abortion when my birth control failed. I was taking responsibility, but birth control is not failproof..."

    I can appreciate the situation you were in but the reality is you did not have to get an abortion. You completely overlook the option of adoption.

    You could not be more wrong when you say your abortion was the absolutely right thing to do at the time. You denied a child the right to live a wonderful life with an adopted family, the same type of life you see when you look at your children today living in a sable two parent household. It saddens me that you have no regrets about your "choice." I still say, even in your case, the abortion was a matter of convenience. It's very possible that you, a stable parent, could have a relationship now with your child you allowed to be adopted. Your loss is the biggest tragedy and you don't realize it.

    Abortion should only be required in the case of incest, rape, and the life of the mother. It has nothing to do with religion. It's simply the right thing to do. Adoption was your solution and you missed the opportunity.

    This is why I would be happy to vote for a candidate like Fred Thompson.

    August 20, 2007 06:55 pm at 6:55 pm |
  5. Joe, Florida

    Dear Benjamin,

    For starters, this post you have just created is much better than your previous one.

    Nonetheless, while the ideas you present and meant with goodness (and I think you mean well); you must realize that's only you thinking.

    It's true about the creation of the DNA roadmap at conception, but that's just it, no organs, no feelings, and no thoughts.

    I too do not like abortions; they can be devastating for the mother. But I also realize I AM NOBODY to tell a woman she can't have an abortion; especially in cases such as rapes. That decision, in my opinion, will always lie with her.

    Also, if we look at this realistically and we take a true assessment, we will find there are some things that could possibly be done about it. We can encourage family planning, fight to lower crime (this means solving domestic, not international, problems), and give harsher punishments to abusers, rapists, and people who throw their babies into garbage bins when they are born and unwanted.

    However, if we absolutely bar abortions, then we are forcing a solution that will only lead to more problems. This would cause more back alley abortions, which put the mother's life at risk.

    Also remember that those who do not history are doomed to repeat it (this is done too often unfortunately, just look around). People do not respond well to oppressions, and forcing women to have an unwanted child, a child that would suffer because of not being conceived under the proper conditions or desired time, is oppression.


    August 21, 2007 07:43 am at 7:43 am |
  6. Bill Lubker Saint Louis, MO

    This guy is hardly a "joke". Would we be better served by Hillary Clinton? I think not.

    August 22, 2007 03:15 pm at 3:15 pm |
  7. Tracy, Chicago, IL

    “You denied a child the right to live a wonderful life with an adopted family, the same type of life you see when you look at your children today living in a stable two parent household”

    To David:
    How do you know this child would have been adopted? If adopted, how do you know this child would have even gone to a staple two parent household? A lot of adopted children are worse off than they would have been with their “unfit” parent. And with all the red tape in adopting, a lot US kids are bounced around in foster care and in a lot of cases being abused to the extent you could not imagine and I know this personally. Unfortunately, a lot of these kids do wish they were never born and are angry at the world because of it and act in ways to show it. Also, if she had this child and got on welfare to support it, I would like to assume you would offer her assistance in any way possible including government assistance, since you want the government to force her to have this child anyway. I just wish all these anti-choice people gave a damn about the children that are here because if they did, there would be no US children in foster care and everyone would be blessed with a loving home. Although abortion would not be an option for me—not even if my life was in danger (only if I was raped), I will never force my personal religious beliefs onto anyone.

    BTW-if we are going to legislate religion, then adultery and fornication should definitely be a serious felony and we all know the prisons will be filled up with BOTH Conservatives and Liberals.

    August 22, 2007 06:03 pm at 6:03 pm |
  8. Yadgyu, Harkeyville, TX

    Fred Thompson is boring. NEXT!

    August 22, 2007 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm |
  9. mattman washington dc

    hey cnn, why dont you print something positive about the guy. I like him and i know many that do as well, he might just be what this country needs. I cant believe scrolling through the comments cnn had posted that there is nothing positive...good for you cnn thanks for the non-biased reporting, as usual.

    August 23, 2007 02:39 am at 2:39 am |
  10. william walsh

    instead of concentrating on trival matters that have no bearing on the long term agenda of this country that you and anyone in your goverment cant seem to get passed,why dont you and your fellow commrads look at the shape that you have put this nation in,why dont you address the issues that make a difference,if any of you were a 1/4 as smart as you think you are perhaps we could travel abroad,be able to plan a trip without taking out a loan, why dont you take back the control that rosevelt gave to the oil cartels in the 30s and step up to the plate admit you were wrong get us out of your godforsakin war,and start acting as americans that we the people have made,its a travisty,not one of you money hungry goverment people with your gas cards,insurance, and large salarys have any guts, just little mouth pieces, that dont add up to anything,thats how we the people see you!! now go get a job that means something, either change the direction to what it should be or get out of the way,your nothing witout us the backbone,further,i think i would stop worring about whos fault all of your 6th grade level ideas that have now almost destroyed the country,and start working torwards the repair, you want a platform? you want the american people to landslide your campain? then have some guts,stop talking your bs and go for the throat, get this country back on its feet with reform, give it back to the people and you would have your presidency, then you got something, do you get it yet? we want a fighter, you go after the reform youll have more backers than you can imagine

    December 19, 2007 07:59 am at 7:59 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22