Will Rand vote for an abortion bill with exemptions?

[Warlord]

Hmm... this could be tricky. Apparently Rubio is going to be lead sponsor on the House abortion companion bill banning abortions after 20 weeks in the Senate. Reid may let them have their fun and just vote it down with his majority.

The question is though will Rand vote for or against it? You'll recall that Broun and some other Republicans voted against it as it includes exemptions for "rape, incest and the life of the mother" where their position would be no exemptions unless life of the mother is in danger.

As I said this could be a tricky position for Rand and he'd do well to take his cue from National Right to Life groups who may support the bill as they will take any restriction they can get.

In Broun's case though his state Right to Life committee in Georgia opposed the bill due to the exemptions. So the Iowa committee will be important in this debate to Rand at least.

The problem and the reason why this is tricky is if he follows his principles and votes against it he can be demagogued among low-information voters in the Iowa caucus: "He voted against an abortion ban! zomg!"

But then if he votes for it while the local committee and activists oppose it that leaves him open to a phony like Santorum taking whatever position is convenient for him.

What should he do here?

[brandon]

Rand is in favor of thousands of exemptions.

[spladle]

What should he do here?

I think he should vote for it, and I expect that he will. I think it's very unlikely that anyone will be able to successfully attack him as being insufficiently pro-life for supporting a bill that would limit late-term abortions.

[Warlord]

I think he should vote for it, and I expect that he will. I think it's very unlikely that anyone will be able to successfully attack him as being insufficiently pro-life for supporting a bill that would limit late-term abortions.

You dont know the pro-life movement if you think that. They might attack him for supporting exemptions. There's a reason why Broun voted against it because his state's committee was against it and he needs them for his senate run.

i would like to hear from jmdrake who is the most informed poster on this issue without doubt.

[spladle]

You dont know the pro-life movement if you think that. They might attack him for supporting exemptions. There's a reason why Broun voted against it because his state's committee was against it and he needs them for his senate run.

i would like to hear from jmdrake who is the most informed poster on this issue without doubt.

I should probably clarify that I'm extremely confident there will be some extremists who will criticize this position, but I do not believe their attacks will be successful or resonate with a majority of the electorate (even in the primary).

It's true that I'm not intimately familiar with the pro-life movement, however; I'm pro-choice. So it's certainly possible that I am just way off-base here.

[jmdrake]

Rand is in favor of thousands of exemptions.

Misquote.

By “thousands of exceptions,” Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com, Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother’s life.

[Warlord]

jmdrake, happy 4th.

Would you support an abortion ban bill after 20 weeks with exemptions for 'rape, incest and the life of the mother' and do you think Rand should or not?

[jmdrake]

Tricky question. And yes, there are some radical fringe pro-lifers that will attack Rand no matter what he does. I saw that radical fringe attack Ron despite Ron's impeccable pro-life record. I will go on record to say that abortion rape exceptions, while emotionally appealing, are intellectually indefensible an impractical from an implementation stance as well. If we're talking of a human life worthy of protection, why is said life less worthy just because his father was a rapist? It's certainly not the child's fault. And what's to keep every woman who wants an abortion after 20 weeks from saying "I was raped?" Maybe a clause requiring that the rape had to have been reporter some time earlier like within a week of the crime? But then why not also require that the mother/victim make a decision to terminate earlier than 20 weeks? Incest is a bit different. I don't expect many woman to falsely claim to be victims of incest to get an abortion. Claiming incest means claiming an identifiable person sexually abused you. That's different from claiming some stranger that you'll never have to identify raped you. And before someone says "No woman would ever claim rape to get an abortion", Norma Rae (who would later be the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) claimed rape to try to get an abortion. I think Rand (and Ron) have the right answer to the rape exception which is the day after pill.

As for life of the mother, Rand has already staked out a position that he accepts that exception.

Edit: And to answer your question Warlord, yes I could support a bill like that. I'm not sure what Rand should do. Each option has political risks. Quietly support this bill and some on the right will attack him for supporting the exceptions. He could noisily point out that he doesn't support a rape exception, but ultimately vote for the bill, but "Rand wants rape victims to have to have babies" becomes the headline. (Though he could add that police departments should offer the day after pill to all rape victims....but that will earn the ire of some pro lifers). Then there's voting against the bill. You've already identified that risk.

[dinosaur]

Tricky question. And yes, there are some radical fringe pro-lifers that will attack Rand no matter what he does. I saw that radical fringe attack Ron despite Ron's impeccable pro-life record. I will go on record to say that abortion rape exceptions, while emotionally appealing, are intellectually indefensible an impractical from an implementation stance as well. If we're talking of a human life worthy of protection, why is said life less worthy just because his father was a rapist? It's certainly not the child's fault. And what's to keep every woman who wants an abortion after 20 weeks from saying "I was raped?" Maybe a clause requiring that the rape had to have been reporter some time earlier like within a week of the crime? But then why not also require that the mother/victim make a decision to terminate earlier than 20 weeks? Incest is a bit different. I don't expect many woman to falsely claim to be victims of incest to get an abortion. Claiming incest means claiming an identifiable person sexually abused you. That's different from claiming some stranger that you'll never have to identify raped you. And before someone says "No woman would ever claim rape to get an abortion", Norma Rae (who would later be the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) claimed rape to try to get an abortion. I think Rand (and Ron) have the right answer to the rape exception which is the day after pill.

As for life of the mother, Rand has already staked out a position that he accepts that exception.

Edit: And to answer your question Warlord, yes I could support a bill like that. I'm not sure what Rand should do. Each option has political risks. Quietly support this bill and some on the right will attack him for supporting the exceptions. He could noisily point out that he doesn't support a rape exception, but ultimately vote for the bill, but "Rand wants rape victims to have to have babies" becomes the headline. (Though he could add that police departments should offer the day after pill to all rape victims....but that will earn the ire of some pro lifers). Then there's voting against the bill. You've already identified that risk.

I didn't get the impression that it was the radical fringe who were critical of the elder Paul. The National Organizations do a pretty effective job of guiding sheeple's opinions and impressions. I'm wondering if Rubio's moment is over and they plan to throw him under the bus for this. But I'm not at all sure about that. Yeah, it's a trap. Rand needs to find an offensive position in order to not get flanked.

[Christian Liberty]

Edit: And to answer your question Warlord, yes I could support a bill like that. I'm not sure what Rand should do. Each option has political risks. Quietly support this bill and some on the right will attack him for supporting the exceptions. He could noisily point out that he doesn't support a rape exception, but ultimately vote for the bill, but "Rand wants rape victims to have to have babies" becomes the headline. (Though he could add that police departments should offer the day after pill to all rape victims....but that will earn the ire of some pro lifers). Then there's voting against the bill. You've already identified that risk.

What's the deal with the day after pill? Does that have to do with whether life starts at conception or implantation? Is there any real difference between a day after pill and a regular birth control pill?

As for the bill itself, on pure principle I see no issue with voting for it. I'm in the "No exceptions except life of the mother" boat but this isn't a debate between that stance or having a rape/incest exception. This is a debate between a restrction with some exceptions and no restriction at all. There's no wrong actually being done by taking the less bad option here. Now if the bill had an enforceable clause that an abortion in case of rape could NEVER be banned that might be different.

As for pragmatics, yeah, Santorum will twist this either way, but ultimately, he's voted to fund planned parenthood. Ron Paul smashed him last time, and Rand will smash him this time no matter how he votes.

[dinosaur]

What's the deal with the day after pill?

It is pragmatic in a way, because anything other than a firm stance in support of all life is seen as a lack of integrity or internal commitment. It is seen as a way of weeding out those who merely say they are pro-life, from those who deeply care about the issue. People have a sense that the issue is being used, but are not ready to believe that leaders in the organizational movement might have less than pure intentions.

[Christian Liberty]

It is pragmatic in a way, because anything other than a firm stance in support of all life is seen as a lack of integrity or internal commitment. It is seen as a way of weeding out those who merely say they are pro-life, from those who deeply care about the issue. People have a sense that the issue is being used, but are not ready to believe that leaders in the organizational movement might have less than pure intentions.

What I'm asking is, in (Individual answering's) view, does the day after pill take human life? Why or why not?

[dinosaur]

What I'm asking is, in (Individual answering's) view, does the day after pill take human life? Why or why not?

Yes, because implantation is what happens after conception. If Rand supports a Life at Conception act, then implantation does not define life.

[Christian Liberty]

And the morning after pill prevents implantation (not fertilization)?

I guess I'm in the boat where, yes, life begins at conception, but at the same time, laws against those sorts of things are not goingto be enforceable. Its just not possible.

[Brett85]

I'm suprised that no one has brought up the 10th amendment issue involved here. I mean I've basically said that I care about protecting the unborn more than anything else, and I would look for a loophole in the Constitution to justify federal abortion laws, such as the 5th and 14th amendments. But, many pro life libertarians here are such strict Constitutionalist that they would probably oppose this bill due to federalism reasons.

[anaconda]

Will there be an amendment for the creation of the Homeland Abortion Police? And how do we know if it's 20 weeks, or 19 weeks and 6 days?

[angelatc]

And the morning after pill prevents implantation (not fertilization)?

I guess I'm in the boat where, yes, life begins at conception, but at the same time, laws against those sorts of things are not goingto be enforceable. Its just not possible.

The morning after pill is just a megadose of regular birth control pills. There really is no way to prevent women from using them to prevent pregnancy unless we want to outlaw birth control pills, which is silly.

[Warlord]

I'm suprised that no one has brought up the 10th amendment issue involved here. I mean I've basically said that I care about protecting the unborn more than anything else, and I would look for a loophole in the Constitution to justify federal abortion laws, such as the 5th and 14th amendments. But, many pro life libertarians here are such strict Constitutionalist that they would probably oppose this bill due to federalism reasons.

Good point but many pro-life politicians will take any opportunity they can get to restrict abortions.

Not that I think this effort will be successful as Obama loves late term abortion and will never sign anything.

[jmdrake]

I didn't get the impression that it was the radical fringe who were critical of the elder Paul. The National Organizations do a pretty effective job of guiding sheeple's opinions and impressions. I'm wondering if Rubio's moment is over and they plan to throw him under the bus for this. But I'm not at all sure about that. Yeah, it's a trap. Rand needs to find an offensive position in order to not get flanked.

hxxp://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion

These idiots think that just because Ron Paul believes in states rights that he's not pro-life. They don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. They want to go beyond it. They are too stupid to realize that a complete federal abortion ban will never happen in our lifetime and they'd rather see millions of babies be aborted than see a compromise that might save most of them. Oh, and they think that we should invade Canada and Israel because those countries allow abortion.

States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings. As the largest Ron Paul fansite describes his view, "the ninth and tenth amendments... do not grant the federal government any authority to... ban abortion."4 Neither God nor the U.S. Constitution, however, gives to any state, county, city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion. Further, the Bible itself explicitly opposes the idea that subdivisions of a nation can refuse to prosecute murder (see AmericanRTL.org/states-rights-and-abortion).

Pay attention to the part in bold. They compare abortion to murder. They think if a country legalizes murder inside it's own borders, that's somehow an act of war justifying invasion. So....these people want to invade Canada. Israel also allows and even pays for abortion. It's not a "neighboring country", but justification for invasion is justification.

One other thing wrong with their "logic". States have different standards on what is "murder". Just like at the Travon Martin trial and "stand your ground" laws. (Yes I know. It's possible that SYG doesn't even apply in that case. But it is the law. What may be 2nd or 3rd degree murder in one state may be justifiable self defence in another.)

Edit: And the correction I sent to "prolifeprofiles"

I want to correct the profile of Ron Paul because of the poor logic that you use to make the case that he is not pro life.

Ron Paul, like the original pro-life movement, wants to overturn Roe v Wade. That would send abortion back to the states. You complain about that, claiming that states can't decriminalize murder, only prosecute it. That shows ignorance of the law. States define murder for themselves. Take the Trayvon Martin / Mark Zimmerman case. A state could say that any killing is unlawful. Or it could say that killing in self defense is lawful. A state can determine what is or is not self defense. Similarly, states could chose what exceptions, if any, would be allowed for abortion. Also I find it odd that you assert that if some other country, say Canada, were to legalize the killing of a group of people, that would be justification of the U.S. invading. Well...abortion is legal in Canada. Do you think we should invade Canada? If yes....well then you guys are just nuts. If no...then you owe Ron Paul an apology. By your own analogy his position on the issue is correct.

That said, I don't expect to collect my $100.00. I don't think you will be that honest.

[Generalissimo]

If you support any exception then you are not pro-life. There is no scenario where killing an innocent human being is justifiable.

[Brett85]

If you support any exception then you are not pro-life. There is no scenario where killing an innocent human being is justifiable.

I think you can be pro life and support an exception for the life of the mother. Most pro lifers support this exception. It's a policy of also trying to protect the mother's life. In certain situations I believe it's justifiable homocide for a woman to get an abortion in order to save her own life.

[Generalissimo]

I think you can be pro life and support an exception for the life of the mother. Most pro lifers support this exception. It's a policy of also trying to protect the mother's life. In certain situations I believe it's justifiable homocide for a woman to get an abortion in order to save her own life.

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

[lakerssuck92]

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

There are legitimate medical situations under which the baby has to be aborted in order to save the life of the mother. Would you just let the mother die in such a situation?

[RonPaulMall]

By what right can the US Senate regulate a medical procedure where the entire operation occurs within a single state? Same twisted logic the New Dealer's used to Federalize everything under the sun. You can be pro-life without being anti-Constitution. This bill spits on the Constitution, and anybody that supports it has no right to complain about the Dems using the Commerce Clause to justify anything they want. If you want to ban abortion, the proper venue is your state legislature, the same place you would turn if you wanted to change the law on any kind of murder, manslaughter, or medical regulation statute. I hope Rand votes against this abortion of a bill. No surprise the mental midget Rubio is behind hit.

[Brett85]

By what right can the US Senate regulate a medical procedure where the entire operation occurs within a single state? Same twisted logic the New Dealer's used to Federalize everything under the sun. You can be pro-life without being anti-Constitution. This bill spits on the Constitution, and anybody that supports it has no right to complain about the Dems using the Commerce Clause to justify anything they want. If you want to ban abortion, the proper venue is your state legislature, the same place you would turn if you wanted to change the law on any kind of murder, manslaughter, or medical regulation statute. I hope Rand votes against this abortion of a bill. No surprise the mental midget Rubio is behind hit.

Then what do you think of Ron's vote for the ban on partial birth abortion?

[Brett85]

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

There are some pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies where the baby has no chance to survive, since the baby stays in the fallopian tube rather than attaching to the uterus. In a situation like that it's necessary to remove the baby from the woman, particularly since there's no chance that the baby can actually be born and survive.

But, it's nice to know that there's someone who's even more strictly anti abortion than I am.

[Carlybee]

I don't think it is ever justifiable to kill an innocent human being. I cannot morally support any circumstances in which abortion is justifiable. I am 100% pro-life.

The act is murder, and it is always murder, and there are no circumstances, whatever, in which murder is a legitimate moral option. The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengeance. Always, in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

So if the mother was allowed to die, would the fetus then be guilty of murder?

[RonPaulMall]

Then what do you think of Ron's vote for the ban on partial birth abortion?

The same thing Ron thinks about it- that it was one of the few votes in his career where he violated his own principles.

[Christian Liberty]

Then what do you think of Ron's vote for the ban on partial birth abortion?

I respectfully disagree with him. Honestly, that stuff just defeats the real pro-life agenda anyway. It spreads the message that some types of abortion are so heinous that they need to be banned, and that some abortions, such as early ones, are somehow "Less bad" than those heinous types that happen far less often.

At the state level, I'd vote for anything (With the caveat that it doesn't violate any other liberties) that saves even one unborn child, but that doesn't mean the bills are intellectually coherent or that the GOP is really more pro-life just because they support silly little things like this.

Those types of bills being the best "Pro-life" can offer, that and the fact that they don't give a crap about the constitution, is why I choose to look at other issues besides this when deciding who to vote for.

In Ron Paul's case, he's rock solid on basically everything and this is one issue where I feel his constitutionalism was inconsistent. I don't hold one vote like this against him, heck, Rand voted for something FAR worse recently, seeing as Ron's vote was wrong because it was unconsitutional, while Rand's vote would have been wrong anywhere. I still support Rand, at least as far as it goes.

If I were in congress I'd probably just vote "Present" on pretty much any Federal abortion bill, than use that as a platform from which to explain why and teach people something about the constitution. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act is an exception since the whole point of that is to restore power to the states.

Ron is also a doctor, and so knows the horiffic reality of abortion even more than I do, so I can forgive the inconsistency. But I still believe he's inconsistent on supporting some Federal intervention on this while being a strict constructionist.

There are some pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies where the baby has no chance to survive, since the baby stays in the fallopian tube rather than attaching to the uterus. In a situation like that it's necessary to remove the baby from the woman, particularly since there's no chance that the baby can actually be born and survive.

But, it's nice to know that there's someone who's even more strictly anti abortion than I am.

Morally (With the exception of the ecoptic situation) I agree with generalissmo, however, when it comes to legality, I think the mother should have the right to use self-defense if her life is in danger, whether the person threatening her is actually guilty or not.

[Christian Liberty]

The same thing Ron thinks about it- that it was one of the few votes in his career where he violated his own principles.

Did Ron Paul ever actually say that?