The EFM Feature

Via the New York Sun, here’s more information on Fred Thompson’s 1994 positions. (Click here to read his Project Vote Smart form.)

* Under health care: Mr. Thompson’s already gotten in a scrape with National Review for not supporting federal medical malpractice reform while in Congress. In this survey, he notes his opposition to it — so, at least he was consistent. He also declined to check the box supporting deregulation of private health care.
* Under unemployment: He doesn’t support Jack Kemp-style “enterprise zones,” with low taxes to attract businesses, in urban areas.
* Under trade: He does not support expanding NAFTA to the rest of Latin America. He does, however, want to open up markets on the Pacific Rim.
* Under education: He does not support nationwide standards, such as those that would later be included in No Child Left Behind. He does, on the other hand, support vouchers. (He also declined to check the box for “Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.” Back in 1994, plenty of Republicans still did want to eliminate it. Some of us would still like to do so today.)
* Under abortion: He checked the box for: “Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy.” He did, however, support a number of restrictions on abortion: requiring parental notification, allowing states to impose waiting periods, and eliminating all federal funding of abortion. Lastly, he said Congress should leave legislation on abortion to the states.
* Under minimum wage: He said he was undecided.
* Under spending priorities: He said one thing that really stands out: He would slightly decrease funding for AIDS research — along with foreign aid and job retraining.

(Usual disclaimer: around the same time, I was also pro-choice. I was a feminist philosophy major–yes, destined for unemployment. All this to say, we welcome converts to the pro-life position!)


Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

Comments are closed.