Absolutely correct. And it's a position which mirrors mine. With the exception of treason, which is spelled out in detail, the Constitution grants the Federal government no authority to regulate individual conduct. Roe was wrongly decided because the matter was not a Federal issue.

Bill -

Thanks for this post. You hit the nail on the head on Fred's Federalist viewpoint.

Cheers,

Rob

I think this is an absolutely characterization of the sentiments Thompson expresses here. He clearly says not only shouldn't the government criminalize abortion, and punish women (Giuliani's caricature), but admits that he doesn't think abortion doctors ought to be penalized either. I'm at a bit of a loss to understand how this is some sort of federalist, pro-life sentiment. Especially given the fact that this portion of his statement is simply that the "government", not the federal government, but the government generally, shouldn't make abortion regulations of this nature. And since I can't imagine who's going to penalized if it's not the women, or the doctors, or the parents (huh?), his position demands that, at least as a general principle, abortion be legal. That's the pro-choice. It may or may not be anti-Roe (he says that states ought to be able enact reasonable legislation like parental notification, something that hardly requires the overthrow of Roe), but it's certainly not pro-life. Note also, that the question specifically deals with whether or not the government (it says absolutely nothing about the federal government) should permit abortions for convenience, and his answer is yes. The fact that the question was phrased this way (a phrasing which practically gives you an easy out), and he still couldn't bring himself to express real pro-life tendencies, makes the offense even more inexplicable.