In case you didn’t know, Fred Thompson opposes both a federal marriage and a federal life amendment. Fred’s “federalism” positions on the issues of abortion and gay marriage are utterly impractical and will work against the pro-life and pro-traditional marriage movements in this country. This is a prime example of a candidate trying to be everything to everybody, and unfortunately, some conservatives (even our beloved Steve King) have taken the bait.

When Fred says, “I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned,” conservatives start cheering so loudly that they don’t hear what comes next, which is, “That way states can decide for themselves what is best for them.” Pro-choicers hear this and think to themselves, “Great, that way we can keep abortion legal where I live.” In the vast majority of states, that’s exactly what will happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned; nothing will change, and we’ll still be killing over 3,000 babies per day in this country.

According to Stateline.org, only six states have “trigger laws” indicating they would move to significantly restrict abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. One of them is Illinois, and having spent some time in our neighboring state to the east, I’m pretty sure that the overwhelming Democratic Illinois Legislature would not allow this to happen. The other “trigger law” states are Kentucky , Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota. These states presently have very few abortion providers, and so restricting abortions in those state would do very little to reduce the overall number of babies killed in this country. Only two additional states, Arkansas and Missouri, have passed weaker laws signaling their intention to restrict abortion in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned. Once again, there are very few abortion providers in these states, and so only very few lives would be saved.

Republicans like to look at the maps from 2000 and 2004 to pat themselves on the back over how much of the country went “red” in the presidential elections. Well, here’s another map for you so you can see how much of the country would have few or no laws restricting abortion if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned. Anything pink or gray indicates the areas where there would essentially be an abortion free-for-all.

I can hear you asking, “But wouldn’t a lot of these states pass laws restricting abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned?” One would like to think so, but let’s look at Iowa as a case study. There are very few restrictions that states can legally put on abortions right now. The restrictions that have stood up elsewhere include: 24-hour waiting periods, true informed consent requirements (informing the woman of the development of her child), and parental consent laws.

Does Iowa have any of these presently allowable restrictions? NO. We only have a very weak “parental notification” law that does not require a parent’s permission to have an abortion. And do we really think that with a Democratic legislature and Gov. Lightyear that will change? Um… no. We won’t get these reasonable restrictions, let alone more substantial restrictions if the abortion issue was tossed back to the states. (Thanks Speaker Rants for not pushing these issues and calling attention to them when the Republicans were in control… maybe you were too busy golfing with lobbyists.)

Basically a federalist approach to Roe v. Wade has the potential to do next to nothing to reduce the actual number of abortions in this country. It might even open up equal protections problems that could further complicate things. Why will babies in some states be given a right to life, when babies in the next state over aren’t afforded that right. If Fred really believes that life begins at conception like he says he does, a mom’s geography shouldn’t matter.

Marriage and Federalism

Fred has also said he would take a federalist approach to same-sex marriage. Once again, the same problem arises. Gay marriage is either right or wrong; it should matter what state you are in.

I’ve heard Fred state on TV (though it is mysteriously missing from his website) that we should restrict judges from being able to rule on the decisions a state’s legislature makes regarding same-sex marriage. That sounds great (assuming they ban same-sex marriage), but there’s one problem: How is Fred planning on implementing that? Congress has the right to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts (though Congress actually trying to do that at this point in history would cause a political battle like I’ve never seen). But what about state court judges? Remember good ol’ Robert Hanson, an Iowa state District Court judge who said gay marriage is A-OK in Polk County? What are states supposed to do about that? The answer is that it will vary from state to state. I think it’s pretty unlikely that most state legislatures will have the authority under their state constitutions to limit the jurisdiction of their courts like Congress (theoretically) can with the federal judiciary. So, most states would likely have to pass their own AMENDMENTS regarding gay marriage. Here’s a novel idea… why not just save a lot of time and effort, and instead of passing 50 different state amendments, let’s just pass one federal one (which would also take care of the full faith and credit problems that are bound to arise, despite DOMA).

Like I said, Fred’s federalist plans for abortion and same-sex marriage are not exactly those of a champion of family values. Let’s call it what it is: he’s essentially saying (like Harkin, Kerry, and other Democrats) that, while he personally believes life begins at conception and that marriage is between one man and one woman, he just can’t force his beliefs on anyone else, no matter what is morally right. If you want to know how important these social issues are to Fred, check out their (lack of) prevalent role on his website. Even when he does discuss them, he doesn’t tell us the truth, which is that he opposes both the life and marriage amendments.

Congratulations Fred! You’ve done a great job pulling the wool over the eyes of social conservatives! Good thing there a few of us waiting with the sheep shears… Federalism is great for a lot of issues, but what would have happened if we let each state decide what they wanted to do about slavery? When it comes to moral issues, morals take precedence over federalism any day.