Oh, Fred, Fred, Fred!
Here is an article pretty much summing up the problem with Fred Thompson on life issues.
I'm fascinated by the last "nail in the coffin" that the article mentioned. Apparently in that same interview in which George Stephanopoulos got him to accept the lie that Terri Schaivo was brain dead at the time when she was euthanized, Thompson said something which - if said to me when I myself asked him about the matter a few weeks ago- would have satisfied me and kept me on board: that the matter of what constitutes "medical treatment" in such cases should not be decided by the Supreme Court, but by the states.
Why would that have satisfied me? For the same reason that Thompson's position on Roe v. Wade- that it should be overturned, and the matter returned to the states- is pragmatically far superior to the more common idea of a constitutional amendment banning abortion outright. Thompson's solution would return the matter to the democratic process, where it belongs, and enable a reasoned defense of the sanctity of human life to be waged on a state-by-state basis. It would recognize that the battle for public opinion has to be won before anything as sweeping as the Human Life Amendment should be passed, and it would set the table for the very debate that was short-circuited by Roe.
Thompson's suggested amendment might have a chance. The Human Life Amendment doesn't. And either would get rid of Roe v. Wade.
Similarly, the closeness of the Supreme Court's decision in Cruzan v. Director- the "Right to Starve" decision- is misleading. The main question decided by Cruzan was that states did, in fact, have a compelling interest in setting the bar relatively high for decisions to cease medical treatment for a patient. That was the issue that was controversial. And that, as Martha Stewart might say, is a good thing.
The objectionable part of Cruzan- the part that set in stone, as a matter of Federal law, the absurd notion that mere nourishment is a form of medical treatment and may be withheld even from patients who are not dying, thereby causing their deaths- was endorsed by the Court by a margin of eight to one. Even Rehnquist and Thomas signed on; only Scalia had the moral insight, courage, and common sense to distinguish between letting a patient die and actually killing that patient.
The Supreme Court might possibly overturn Roe, with the right justices appointed by the right president. In fact, one more vote might well be all it takes. But Cruzan isn't going to be overturned by the Supreme Court any time soon; the support for it on the Court remains too strong. The public (good examples being both Thompson and George Stephanopoulos) is even more confused by the ill-reported Schaivo case than by what it is that Roe actually says (simliar majorities- about two thirds- of the American people have told pollsters ever since Roe was handed down both that they favor Roe and that abortion should be illegal for the overwhelming majority of circumstances in which Roe mandates it as a constitutional "right!").
A constitutional amendment returning the question of what constitutes "medical treatment" to the states, where it has belonged all along, is the only practical way of attacking the "right" to starve non-terminal patients to death on the basis of hearsay evidence, often given by the people who have the most to gain from their deaths.
Fred Thompson- a still-grieving dad still agonized by the end-of-life decisions he had to make in the case of his own daughter- can well be excused for not connecting the dots immediately, and understanding that the "right-to-starve" is in fact a violation of the Constitutional rights of the victims. He might be excused for failing to recognize that a highly-trained, highly-motivated, highly-funded movement exists in this country to push back the limits on end-of-life issues; that that movement habitiually (as was the case with Terri Schaivo) get their hot-shot legal specialists involved in the initial hearing of the case in state courts (where matters of fact are irretrievably settled); that members of the family fighting to keep their loved ones alive have no recourse to a similar pool of specialists, and are legally outgunned at the very stage of the case in which the issue is, as a practical matter, settled once and for all (as was the case with Terri Schaivo, appeals courts in such cases will not hear new factual evidence, deferring as a matter of law to the court of original juristiction as to the facts).
Fred Thompson might well be forgiven for failing to see, as I tried to point out to him, that all of this violates the constitutional right of the patient not to be deprived of life without due process of law. And the fact of the matter is that a constitutional amendment returning the matters decided by Cruzan to the states is the only practical matter of attacking the abomination that is Cruzan v. Director.
But that's all he needed to say. In the face of the uproar about his initial handling of the Schaivo question, he could have set the matter to rest- at least for pragmatists- simply by applying the same test to Cruzan that he does to Roe, and saying as much. I might well have agreed to hold my nose and accept Thompson's morally disasterous personal position on the "right to starve" in exchange for his support for returning the matter to the only forum in which it might reasonably have been fought.
Do I agree that, as a matter of philosophy, either abortion or euthanasia ought to be matters in which the states should be free to find their own way? I certainly do not! Both involve rights guaranteed by the Constitution being denied to the helpless. Both involve legalized murder. Like Fred Thompson, Bob Waters agrees that people in the various states have a right to disagree with Bob Waters. But that doesn't automatically make their position either constitutionally or morally tenable if they do. People have a right to be wrong- and when one believes that they are, one disagrees and works for a different outcome.
All of which speaks to the mess which has been the Thompson approach to life issues form the word "go." His history on these matters has raised eyebrows among those of us who believe that it's wrong to deprive the innocent of their lives for the convenience of others; his statements on those issues have raised confusion and turmoil among us, as well. Especially since this has been the case, it would have behooved Fred Thompson to have clear, consistent and well thought- out positions on every aspect of these questions- be those answers ever so complicated- so that people concerned about them would not get the impression that he's developing those positions by groping his way through them in mid-campaign, relying on whatever random misinformation he's fed by former Clinton staffers he's interviewed by along the way.
It's fine to say, as Fred Thompson said to me in that cafe in Indianola, that "I will not have my committment to life questioned, at either end of life." But having said that, he owes it to all of us not put himself in a position, over and over again, of seeming to call it into question by his own statements.
I'm fascinated by the last "nail in the coffin" that the article mentioned. Apparently in that same interview in which George Stephanopoulos got him to accept the lie that Terri Schaivo was brain dead at the time when she was euthanized, Thompson said something which - if said to me when I myself asked him about the matter a few weeks ago- would have satisfied me and kept me on board: that the matter of what constitutes "medical treatment" in such cases should not be decided by the Supreme Court, but by the states.
Why would that have satisfied me? For the same reason that Thompson's position on Roe v. Wade- that it should be overturned, and the matter returned to the states- is pragmatically far superior to the more common idea of a constitutional amendment banning abortion outright. Thompson's solution would return the matter to the democratic process, where it belongs, and enable a reasoned defense of the sanctity of human life to be waged on a state-by-state basis. It would recognize that the battle for public opinion has to be won before anything as sweeping as the Human Life Amendment should be passed, and it would set the table for the very debate that was short-circuited by Roe.
Thompson's suggested amendment might have a chance. The Human Life Amendment doesn't. And either would get rid of Roe v. Wade.
Similarly, the closeness of the Supreme Court's decision in Cruzan v. Director- the "Right to Starve" decision- is misleading. The main question decided by Cruzan was that states did, in fact, have a compelling interest in setting the bar relatively high for decisions to cease medical treatment for a patient. That was the issue that was controversial. And that, as Martha Stewart might say, is a good thing.
The objectionable part of Cruzan- the part that set in stone, as a matter of Federal law, the absurd notion that mere nourishment is a form of medical treatment and may be withheld even from patients who are not dying, thereby causing their deaths- was endorsed by the Court by a margin of eight to one. Even Rehnquist and Thomas signed on; only Scalia had the moral insight, courage, and common sense to distinguish between letting a patient die and actually killing that patient.
The Supreme Court might possibly overturn Roe, with the right justices appointed by the right president. In fact, one more vote might well be all it takes. But Cruzan isn't going to be overturned by the Supreme Court any time soon; the support for it on the Court remains too strong. The public (good examples being both Thompson and George Stephanopoulos) is even more confused by the ill-reported Schaivo case than by what it is that Roe actually says (simliar majorities- about two thirds- of the American people have told pollsters ever since Roe was handed down both that they favor Roe and that abortion should be illegal for the overwhelming majority of circumstances in which Roe mandates it as a constitutional "right!").
A constitutional amendment returning the question of what constitutes "medical treatment" to the states, where it has belonged all along, is the only practical way of attacking the "right" to starve non-terminal patients to death on the basis of hearsay evidence, often given by the people who have the most to gain from their deaths.
Fred Thompson- a still-grieving dad still agonized by the end-of-life decisions he had to make in the case of his own daughter- can well be excused for not connecting the dots immediately, and understanding that the "right-to-starve" is in fact a violation of the Constitutional rights of the victims. He might be excused for failing to recognize that a highly-trained, highly-motivated, highly-funded movement exists in this country to push back the limits on end-of-life issues; that that movement habitiually (as was the case with Terri Schaivo) get their hot-shot legal specialists involved in the initial hearing of the case in state courts (where matters of fact are irretrievably settled); that members of the family fighting to keep their loved ones alive have no recourse to a similar pool of specialists, and are legally outgunned at the very stage of the case in which the issue is, as a practical matter, settled once and for all (as was the case with Terri Schaivo, appeals courts in such cases will not hear new factual evidence, deferring as a matter of law to the court of original juristiction as to the facts).
Fred Thompson might well be forgiven for failing to see, as I tried to point out to him, that all of this violates the constitutional right of the patient not to be deprived of life without due process of law. And the fact of the matter is that a constitutional amendment returning the matters decided by Cruzan to the states is the only practical matter of attacking the abomination that is Cruzan v. Director.
But that's all he needed to say. In the face of the uproar about his initial handling of the Schaivo question, he could have set the matter to rest- at least for pragmatists- simply by applying the same test to Cruzan that he does to Roe, and saying as much. I might well have agreed to hold my nose and accept Thompson's morally disasterous personal position on the "right to starve" in exchange for his support for returning the matter to the only forum in which it might reasonably have been fought.
Do I agree that, as a matter of philosophy, either abortion or euthanasia ought to be matters in which the states should be free to find their own way? I certainly do not! Both involve rights guaranteed by the Constitution being denied to the helpless. Both involve legalized murder. Like Fred Thompson, Bob Waters agrees that people in the various states have a right to disagree with Bob Waters. But that doesn't automatically make their position either constitutionally or morally tenable if they do. People have a right to be wrong- and when one believes that they are, one disagrees and works for a different outcome.
All of which speaks to the mess which has been the Thompson approach to life issues form the word "go." His history on these matters has raised eyebrows among those of us who believe that it's wrong to deprive the innocent of their lives for the convenience of others; his statements on those issues have raised confusion and turmoil among us, as well. Especially since this has been the case, it would have behooved Fred Thompson to have clear, consistent and well thought- out positions on every aspect of these questions- be those answers ever so complicated- so that people concerned about them would not get the impression that he's developing those positions by groping his way through them in mid-campaign, relying on whatever random misinformation he's fed by former Clinton staffers he's interviewed by along the way.
It's fine to say, as Fred Thompson said to me in that cafe in Indianola, that "I will not have my committment to life questioned, at either end of life." But having said that, he owes it to all of us not put himself in a position, over and over again, of seeming to call it into question by his own statements.
Comments