strange choice, strange timing
Last week syndicated political columnist Robert Novak called attention to a spectacular blunder by GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson, who declared in a nationally televised interview that women should not be jailed for seeking abortion. Novak argued that Thompson-- who should have been fully prepared for questions about abortion-- had shown an "astounding lack of sensitivity about the abortion issue." He added: "What Thompson said could be expected from NARAL."
Now just a few days later, AP reports that the National Right to Life Committee will soon endorse Thompson.
Something is wrong here. What is it?
A) AP is wrong; NRLC will not endorse Thompson.
B) Novak is wrong; pro-lifers won't hesitate to endorse a candidate who shows no interest in the issue.
C) NRLC is wrong; Thompson does not deserve pro-lifers' support.
Let me clarify, since some comments have shown that I may have left readers confused:
Legislation regulating abortion is invariably aimed at the abortionists. NARAL raises the specter of jailing young women as a propaganda ploy; it's not a realistic concern. Nobody is planning to jail young women for seeking abortions. Everyone involved in, or informed about, the pro-life movement knows that. But Thompson, when questioned on the issue, immediately leapt to the NARAL line. He wasn't pushed in that direction by the interviewer; he raised the issue himself. BTW, in an earlier interview with Sean Hannity, Thompson had said that while he hoped to see the reversal of Roe v. Wade, sending the issue back to the states, he himself would not vote to criminalize abortion.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!