Let’s get this first bit of lunacy out of the way — Fred Thompson on who should face criminal sanction for an abortion:

Don’t punish women who have abortions,” presidential hopeful Fred Thompson says. Punish the doctors who perform them…Authorities “can do whatever they want to with abortion doctors, as far as I’m concerned,” the former Tennessee senator said while campaigning in Western Iowa according to the Los Angeles Times. But “if it comes down to giving criminal sanctions to a 19-year-old girl and her mama, I’m against that.”

Wait a minute. If it’s going to be a crime, why not punish the mother? If we’re going to do the whole law and order thing (har-dee-har-har), when it comes to state womb control, doesn’t the woman represent the one contracting the hit on the fetus?

As even one Freeper sanely noted, the inconsistency makes no sense:

Under Thompson’s logic here, it’s perfectly legal for a woman to use a coat hanger to perform an abortion on herself but illegal for her to receive medical assistance in doing it. In other words, it’s not illegal to kill a child. But it’s illegal to help a woman do such. That doesn’t make much sense to me at all. I’m not sure how that’s even a pro-life argument.

And what about the male partner in this equation? What if he agrees with the woman in question that she should have an abortion, perhaps even drives her to the clinic in support of her decision — is he then an accessory to the crime? Shouldn’t he be prosecuted, Fred? Maybe the fantasy candidate of the freeper set agrees with Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He recently said that women who seek out the abortion are too “impaired” to be responsible for their actions.

The newest occupant of the GOP clown car also made it plainly clear where his thinking lies regarding marriage equality:

Thompson chastised those judges in Iowa, Massachusetts and other states for rulings that opened the way to same-sex marriage, calling for constitutional amendments to curb judges’ power to do so.

“What we’re seeing here is a totally judicially created problem,” he told a crowd in Sioux City, Iowa according to the Times. “You know how many states have affirmatively approved gay marriage? State legislatures? Zero.”

He also would like a constitutional amendment called for an amendment to bar judges from allowing marriage equality unless it is approved by a state legislature.

Fred’s setting himself up to have egg on his face fairly soon, because California’s legislature again approved a marriage equality bill, which first passed in 2005 and was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. This year the Governator has until October 14th to sign or veto the bill.  He has cited in the past that the courts (I guess those “activist judges”) should decide what to do about marriage, not the legislature.

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding