Question about ron paul's abortion stance

[DJ RP]

Hey guys I don't have any links or anything to back this up so I'm hoping it's common knowledge and true. Somebody on another board said Ron Paul is inconsistent because.

1) He says you can't regulate abortion at a federal level and that it is wrong
2) Voted FOR a federal ban on partial-birth abortions


To me that seems like a genuine conflict. I'm not about to stop supporting him obviously (I'm in love with him!) I know he is personally opposed to abortion and is pro-life. My concern is that he would vote for the ban federally and yet seek to overthrow roe vs wade because it's unconstitional.

Can anybody enlighten me please, thanks!

[ronpaulitician]

It is a conflict. Period.

[brandon]

Yes that is a conflict of beliefs. He was asked about this the other day and said that he is not proud of voting for the federal ban on partial birth abortions, and he realizes this is unconstitutional.

[steph3n]

1.) He says Row vs Wade should be overturned as it puts fed into states right issue.
2.) since row vs wade is currently the law of the land, to protect life as his person view is, he voted for the ban.

[stevedasbach]

He addressed this on the Washington Post online chat Friday.

[Trassin]

Here's what Ron Paul said on the house floor about the bill:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403.htm


The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system...

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

[ronpaulitician]

Washington Post online interview October 12 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/01/DI2007100101451.html)

Los Angeles: You voted for the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the power to regulate medical procedures?

Rep. Ron Paul: I think that's a good point, because I don't brag about that vote. People could argue that there's a contradiction there. My only argument was that abortion-on-demand nationally was created by a court order, not Congress, so I was trying to reverse that. I would not argue, though, that it was a perfect way of doing that. If the court had not already ruled and legalized it, I would not have voted that way.

[angelatc]

Yes that is a conflict of beliefs. He was asked about this the other day and said that he is not proud of voting for the federal ban on partial birth abortions, and he realizes this is unconstitutional.

Yes, he said that because it was being regulated on a federal level he voted on the federal level, but he does not hink it should be regulated on a federal level.

This was a damned-if-he-did, damned-if-he-didn't vote. As a Republican, the party would be pointing a wicked finger at him if he had voted no.

[DJ RP]

This was a damned-if-he-did, damned-if-he-didn't vote. As a Republican, the party would be pointing a wicked finger at him if he had voted no.

Since when has ron paul ever been swayed by peer pressure? :p


But thanks for the replies guys. I think it is a contradiction but as usual Ron Paul's honesty and forthrightness make it impossible for me to stay mad at him :)

[terlinguatx]

...

[margomaps]

This is one example where Ron went against his own principles and acted pragmatically. He's obviously not proud of it -- from his statements it's clear that he was torn about what to do.

Sometimes there isn't a logical, satisfactory way out of a problem I'm glad he didn't try to dance around the issue.

[Richandler]

Well really what is partial birth. I mean you are either born or you aren't. Ron makes the point that you can have an abortion up to the minute the baby is born and drive home with just some hosiptial fees, but if you throw away the baby or kill it a minute aftter it's born you are charged with murder. Murder is a federal crime there fore killing a baby mostly developed is logically murder.

[mesler]

Ron isn't perfect, but neither were the founders.