Paul is neither pro-choice nor pro-life, he's PRO-CONSTITUTION

[Beerhall Agitator]

Personally I think the whole abortion debate is a red herring thrown up by politicians so they don't have to address the real probelms like war, inflation, and huge deficits. However, there's a lot of misinformation about Paul's views out there so I think it needs to be addressed.

Although personally as an OB doctor he is repulsed by it, he believes that in no way should the federal government outlaw it. On the other hand, he believes the Feds should not force states to legalize it. That's what federalism is, as dicated by the Constitution. When this country was put together there were quaker states, catholic states, protestant, slave, aboloitionist etc... The founders respected these differences and set up federalism to allow states to maintain their own values, but still live together.

Taking the constitutional approach to abortion really won't change much, but will go along way to healing the divide in this country. Liberal states will still allow it, and conservative states will likely ban it. That's how it should be, and that will end all the hatred created and time wasted on this debate.

[Korey Kaczynski]

he's pro life dude

[Beerhall Agitator]

he's pro life dude

Pro Lifers want the federal government to step in and outlaw it in every state. The federal government overstepping it's bounds is what started the trouble in the first place. Paul wants to take the constitutional approach and let the states decide.

[ItsTime]

He clearly stated today that he believes that after the with in the first 5 days abortion is a moral issue after that he believes that there is a human life within the womb and it should be protected.

See the Adam Curry interview 10/24
http://www.podshow.com/shows/?mode=detail&episode_id=84569

[zebov]

Oh semantics. Paul is completely pro-life in the sense that he wants abortions to be illegal. However he feels this should be decided at the state level and has even said that this is the best opportunity to illegalize abortion. Don't get me wrong, it's all constitutional and he sticks by federal hands off, but he's definitely putting a pro-life spin on it when it's discussed.

[Joey Wahoo]

Maybe you should consider HR 1094, introduced by Dr. Paul earlier this year:

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1094 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

[Beerhall Agitator]

Oh semantics. Paul is completely pro-life in the sense that he wants abortions to be illegal. However he feels this should be decided at the state level and has even said that this is the best opportunity to illegalize abortion. Don't get me wrong, it's all constitutional and he sticks by federal hands off, but he's definitely putting a pro-life spin on it when it's discussed.

He differs from the traditional Pro-Lifers is the point I'm trying to make. His approach is much more sensible.

[terlinguatx]

...

[texasbelle]

He differs from the traditional Pro-Lifers is the point I'm trying to make. His approach is much more sensible.

I get what you are saying. The other pro-life GOP candidates throw around "pro-life" blah blah blah to get votes. It just lip service and they dont do anything about it.. Ron Paul actually has a plan. This is one of the hottest topics when I am trying to talk to liberals about Ron Paul. I wish they could see it as PRO CONSTITION also.

[terlinguatx]

...

[TruckinMike]

For the most part... even murder is handled at the states.

TMike

[Joey Wahoo]

The most effective way to describe Dr. Paul's position to pro-choicers is to point out that he would allow each state to determine its own laws on abortion, unless and until there is a constitutional amendment on the issue.

Thus, once Roe v. Wade is overturned, the issue will once again belong to the States. Some will undoubtedly make abortion illegal. Others will not. That's how federalism works.

If 2/3 of the states choose to amend the constitution, to make abortion legal nationally, or illegal nationally, then that constitutional provision will bind us all. Until then, the constitution is silent on the issue. Under the 10th amendment the subject therefore is properly within the domain of the states, and no federal court has any legitimate power to rule on it.

Ron Paul stands for following the consititution. Period.

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers can fight it out at the state level, but the feds are to stay out of it.

[terlinguatx]

...

[Tidewise]

Not just abortion, but gay rights and all other "fundamental rights" read into the Fourteenth Amendment by five Washington DC lawyers.

As the dissent in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood all stated, it is not an issue of the Feds limiting abortion rights, it is a matter that is left to the States by the Constitution. Same with gay rights.

Of course there are those on both sides of the abortion and gay rights issues who would use the power of the federal government to assert their agendas. Ron Paul (and Scalia and Thomas) would leave those issues to the States.

Read the Fourteenth Amendment? What does it say about abortion or gay rights? That's right: nothing.

Now read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Aaaahhhh.

[TooConservative]

Dr. Paul is undoubtedly pro-life.

His bills to declare life starting at conception or to deem abortion an area of law outside the purview of the Supreme Court to rule upon are aimed at this.

Roe was an especially bad decision by the Court. Fifty-some pages of pretty much nothing. No legal arguments, "rights" invented out of thin air, medical ideas that have since been proven wrong...

Anyway, Dr. Paul is thoroughly pro-life. The various bills he has introduced over the years are intended to address or redress the constitutional abortion that is Roe v. Wade. It was seriously bad work by the wacky Warrent Court, right up there with the Dred Scott decision. Very corrupting of a clean constitutional legal system, encouraged a lot of judges to turn activist and start making up their own "rights" in decisions, encouraged legislatures to be lazy and write hazy laws that the courts would sort out later. Roe has led to a lot of the unaccountability we have in government and the courts now.

[RickSp]

Thanks, Paul definitely needs a different label. You hit one of the bigger issues on the head. Conservatives will support Paul's abortion stance, but we need to clarify for liberals that he is far different from traditional pro-lifers. In that he's not going to use the federal government to shove his personal views down our throats (even though traditional pro-lifers haven't done a damn thing like you said and just use empty rhetoric).


I don't think Dr. Paul wants a different label. He is strongly pro-life. He would rather use state and local government to force his views down our throats rather than the Feds, which to me is distinction without a difference.

This is an issue on which Dr. Paul and I will always differ. Many of his other positions earn my support. This is just not one of them.

[rs3515]

The most effective way to describe Dr. Paul's position to pro-choicers is to point out that he would allow each state to determine its own laws on abortion, unless and until there is a constitutional amendment on the issue.

Here's the issue with this position with pro-choice activists -- according to Roe v. Wade, they've already won. They have the legal right to abortions everywhere in the country. Why would they be willing to sacrifice their position to appease pro-lifers and allow them to gain a foothold in states?

Unless I'm missing something, there is no upside for pro-choice activists in this position, only downside.

[Joey Wahoo]

I agree. But if they support him on other positions and are comfortably within a state that will continue to allow abortion once Roe is overturned, then they needn't fear the loss of the "right" to abort pregnancies.

Personally I'd prefer to convince them that a physician who has delivered over 4000 babies is in a pretty good position to know whether an unborn child is a living human being or not, but I suppose that would be asking too much.

I find it hard to believe that folks would vote for socialists or neocons rather than a freedom loving constitutionalist, simply because he sincerely and genuinely is convinced that a fetus is a living human being.

[Tidewise]

Here's the issue with this position with pro-choice activists -- according to Roe v. Wade, they've already won. They have the legal right to abortions everywhere in the country. Why would they be willing to sacrifice their position to appease pro-lifers and allow them to gain a foothold in states?

Unless I'm missing something, there is no upside for pro-choice activists in this position, only downside.

Granted, for those who will sacrifice the Constitution in order to promote their agenda, the pro-choice activists have nothing to gain by supporting Ron Paul.

However, if we can get them to understand that the importance of the federal/state balance is more important than preserving their position at the federal level through a majority on the Supreme Court, then we can win them over.

The best way that I know of to convince such people is to make them aware that what the federal government giveth, the federal governemtn can taketh away! This includes the "fundamental rights" a majority of the Supreme Court may or may not choose to read into the Fourteenth Amendment. That is why there is such a battle over Supreme Court nominees. We need to get people to put the Constitutional structure of our government ahead of their own agendas, and get them to realize that the abortion debate (and the gay rights debate) belong with the states.