What Fred Thompson Should Have Said [SK]

Former Senator Fred Thompson is sounding pretty good on the issues so far and I'm interested in hearing more. For example, when Chris Wallace of Fox news asked him point blank about Roe, Thompson replied it was bad law and should be overturned. When asked his position on abortion, he stated without apology "I am pro-life."

Good stuff. A week later, however, Thompson emphatically insisted that although Roe was bad law, he (paraphrase) would not prosecute women who had abortions or their doctors. No, he wouldn't support that.

So what will it be, Senator--laws with no teeth?

It almost seemed like he was playing pre-emptive defense against the predictable charge "So, you anti-choicers just want to toss women who have abortions in prison and throw away the key, right?"

Problem is, Thompson's reply is lame.

Here's what he should have said:

What's wrong with a law that says you can't kill innocent human beings and if you do, there will be legal consequences? That aside, I'm not sure we need many new laws, Jim. Mostly, I'd just like to enforce the ones that we have. Remember: The majority of states already have laws which state that if you kill a human fetus, you're guilty of a crime. The only exception is abortion. To show you how crazy we’ve become, a mother who her harms her unborn offspring with alcohol or drug abuse will be prosecuted in most states today. But if that same woman chooses to abort her child, we look the other way. That's absurd. If that weren't bad enough, imagine that same woman on her way to the abortion clinic. Just prior to arrival, the doctor scheduled to perform the abortion accidentally broadsides her car, killing her unborn offspring. Guess what he gets charged with in most states? You got it: homicide. What are we to conclude from all this, that a child has a right to life if and only if his mother wants him? We can do better than that, Jim.