Bill Johnson: Rand and Ron Paul's Positions on Abortion "Worse Than Blackmun"

I don't know if Rand has the same position as his father as this so I'm not going to play the guilt by association game. This is interesting because the states only, two pronged, and federal only approaches have been debated here extensively.

the moral foundation of this country.

Which walks a fine line into statism itself.

Seems he is advocating the opposite, the moral foundation of LIFE, something a state should have no control over. A State’s rights doesn’t supersede an individual’s rights- especially the very right of existence.

Now, I will admit I am for using the State by State approach on the issue in addition to Federal in order to make a dent in it, but to subvert individual rights to the State or any form of government does go against our foundation.

(pinging Eternal Vigilance on this as we’ve had some good debates on the issue- he is a Federal approach person, I’m a fusion of federal and state approach person.)

gee, let's go to the source randpaul2010.com I believe life begins at conception. I recognize the most basic function of government is to protect life. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will always vote to protect life. Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures. I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment. I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement. In other news, it appears that Bill Johnson is a slimy weasel.

The Paul’s position (if Rand concurs with his father) would be the more constitutionally-sound response to the abortion issue.

If Roe v Wade is overturned...it will mean that the states, not the Feds, would make the laws regarding abortion (which was the way it was before Roe)

I know that the senior Paul is against abortion on moral grounds (he is an obstetrician)....but wants each state to determine abortions legality

I’m a fusion of federal and state approach person.)

As well as I. I just don't like morality dictated directly on the individual whom will not affect another's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Abortion is a tricky issue, though.

I wouldn’t say Bill Johnson is a slimy weasel, he does support the pro-life position and without seeing this, we wouldn’t know if Rand had a different position as his father (thus my comment in #1). Based on this, it sounds like Rand has a good view on it and is better than his father on the issue.

If the Pauls are willing to allow the States to deny due process for the unborn (whom they agree are persons), then the states can deny due process for the elderly, the sick, or anyone for that matter. Why not allow the states to legalize slavery, take away our gun rights, or remove free speech? Why not let the states decide on all our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Property?

Bad argument. Matters of due process or Constitutional rights relate to *government* action (except for slavery, but we have a Constitutional amendment that explicitly addresses that). If a woman using her own money hires a private "doctor" to murder her baby, that's not the government violating anyone's rights, it the mother & her hitman. Now, *should* state governments legally protect unborn children from such? Yes, absolutely... but that doesn't make it a federal matter. Abortion should be prohibited at the state level, just like a thousand other things that the federal government should stay out of.

I’m a fusion simply because I find it effective. We know what is required for a Constitutional amendment- 2/3rds States, 2/3rds Congress, etc, so in stead of throwing it all in initially for a Constitutional amendment, start it with State’s outlawing it, that way, you have a barometer of when you can successfully pull the federal trigger.

Exactly how I think as well. This pretty much guarantees the fed being an agent of the states like it should be.

but that doesn't make it a federal matter.

It does make it a federal matter in that now, the federal government recognizes it as a right, thus, violating the Constitutional protections of, for example due process. In other words, the Federal Government recognizes the right of an individual's life to be taken without due process. You are correct, it shouldn't be, however, the reality is it is and thus, in partiality, it must be dealt with as such. To just say 'leave it up to the states' gives an implication that State's rights (or that of any government entity) supersedes individual rights.

but wants each state to determine abortions legality

Which is a problem because any government's (be it State or Federal) power should never supersede an individual's rights. It is why the 10th Amendment starts out with The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... This comes after very clear restrictions on the government interfering with individual rights (life the most fundamental of all). You can't argue that 'states should decide it is legal' if the legality is a violation of the US Constitution. It is a game of philosophy ignoring the practical aspect that an individual's right of existence is being sanctioned to be taken away.

Is it helpful to hold true to your principles and in the process become completely irrelevant to the political debate that might advance your agenda? Arguing that Roe v. Wade is an example of flawed legal reasoning and should be overturned moves the political situation in a direction that pro-life Americans should support. From there the debate takes on a different dynamic at which point Ron Paul would likely support most restrictions on abortion. Believing that state legislatures, not the Federal Government, should define what constitutes 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide; does not mean support for murder.

So get Roe overturned, return it to the states, and then work within the states (and maybe, decades from now, an amendment).

We aren’t arguing on that, the difference is when some politicians try to just say it is a ‘state’s right to decide’. (see a couple of previous to this one)

Interesting that he didn’t state his own position here. Are we to assume that it’s a continuance of the losing battle to force pagan America to be restrained by the heartland’s definitions of moral behavior?

Just an FYI:
_________________________
http://kentuckybill.com/page/traditional-values
I am a firm believer that life starts at conception. Since 1973 when abortion became legal (Roe vs. Wade), approximately 50 million abortions have been performed. That is greater than 4,000 abortions per day. Partial birth abortion is one of the most evil practices on our planet. There is a living, breathing, human being murdered every time that act is performed.

There is so much grief that strikes the mother of an aborted baby. Adoption allows the mother and child to live life. Ronald Reagan once said, “The only people for abortion are people already born.”

Marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe it is a sacred bond that implies more than a commitment between two people. There is a moral fabric that should line a marriage. If we allow marriage between a couple other than a man and woman, we open the door to other marital designs that will tear that moral fabric.

_________________________

I don’t know much about him, but he also seems to be a strong Conservative. (I don’t have a dog in this hunt).

Johnson, William Ejner Jr.

Raised: $17,801
Spent: $14,593
Latest cash on hand: $3,206
Debt: $32,168

Sauce

Somebody's desperate for relevancy...

Sauce? I assume you meant source? LOL..

Abortion is a tricky issue, though.

No, it's not tricky. We human beings who want what we want regardless of what's real try to make it "tricky".

There is absolutely no scientific doubt that a human life is created at conception. The only thing we have, then, is a philosophical debate on when it is okay to kill another human being. Personally, I think our founding fathers would say it is never right to kill an innocent human being (i.e. one not found guilty of some crime worthy of capital punishment).

he is a Federal approach person, I’m a fusion of federal and state approach person.

Incorrect vis a vis anything I've ever said on this most important matter.

ALL officers of government, at ALL levels, in ALL branches, have a sworn constitutional duty to protect innocent human life, and to provide for the equal protection of the laws for ALL.

And, the oath they have taken to do so applies to them fully no matter how egregiously any other officer of government may have abrogated that duty.

This is not true of Ron Paul. He is for the Federal constitution and denying people’s rights in violation of the constitution (slavery, as this slanderer claims) is not anything he supports.

He’s from Texas and I have been exposed to him alot over teh years. I have never heard him suggest any of this nonsense. He is for the States to decide all these controversial social issues rather than the Federal liberal elite as is currently the case.

A lot of atheist radicals pretending to be libertarians want to use the Federal government to impose the most amoral and awful atheistic world view and society on America. They are NOT speaking for anyone but their twisted, ugly selves. Obama’s science death czar claims to be socially libertarian. BS He’s socially fascist and so are alot of libertarians.

Aside from $3,000 on hand and a mountain of campaign debt, Johnson is also polling 2% and is now so irrelevant the Lexington Herald-Leader has stopped mentioning him.

The guy just wants attention, posting this cheap blogspot site only feeds him.

He is being used as Trey Grayson’s attack dog in the fight, to ensure that the Lindsey Graham-esque republican (grayson) gets the nomination. Johnson will continue to attack Rand on the social-conservative issues and since the voters relize that Johnson can’t win, they will vote for Grayson who refuses to take any stances on the issues.

>> I don't know if Rand has the same position as his father as this so I'm not going to play the guilt by association game. <<

I don't know either, so I pinged his no. #1 supporter here GoldStandard a couple of weeks ago (looks like the account is now banned) and asked details about Rand Paul's policy positions on abortion, gitmo, the WOT, gay "rights", and so on, to see if Paul was really the "true conservative" in the race.

The only response I got from his supporters was silence -- and Rand Paul's website is intentionally vague on these issues. For example he doesn't say how he'll vote on abortion, only that he thinks it's morally wrong, opposes federal funding for it, and would prefer to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But as to the question of whether Rand Paul will vote in favor of a nationwide ban on say, late term abortion, or whether he's one of those "send it back to the states" types who takes the Stephen Douglas position (i.e., if Mass. wants abortion on demand, so be it), I don't know. I tend to suspect the latter, because if you're running as a "true conservative" in a Republican primary and need the base you tend to highlight all the policies you agree with them on, not duck the issue.

Since I don't have specifics, there's no reason to assume he's unacceptable, but on the other hand there's no reason to support him in the primary and assume he's the "best conservative" when he and his supporters refuse to tell you how he'll govern.

EternalVigalence does have a valid point that Bill Johnson appears to be the strongest conservative in the race, and has an impressive resume. However, the fact remains that Johnson is polling in single digits and extremely unlikely to win the primary. Freepers can interpret that however they wish. (I personally don't mind voting my conscience for a single-digits candidate in a primary, unless it's imperative we get behind the highest polling conservative to stop a RINO scumbag. If all the candidates in primary are "acceptable" in a general election, I vote for the one I like best)

>> I don't know if Rand has the same position as his father as this so I'm not going to play the guilt by association game. <<

I don't know either, so I pinged his no. #1 supporter here GoldStandard a couple of weeks ago (looks like the account is now banned) and asked details about Rand Paul's policy positions on abortion, gitmo, the WOT, gay "rights", and so on, to see if Paul was really the "true conservative" in the race.

The only response I got from his supporters was silence -- and Rand Paul's website is intentionally vague on these issues. For example he doesn't say how he'll vote on abortion, only that he thinks it's morally wrong, opposes federal funding for it, and would prefer to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But as to the question of whether Rand Paul will vote in favor of a nationwide ban on say, late term abortion, or whether he's one of those "send it back to the states" types who takes the Stephen Douglas position (i.e., if Mass. wants abortion on demand, so be it), I don't know. I tend to suspect the latter, because if you're running as a "true conservative" in a Republican primary and need the base you tend to highlight all the policies you agree with them on, not duck the issue.

Since I don't have specifics, there's no reason to assume he's unacceptable, but on the other hand there's no reason to support him in the primary and assume he's the "best conservative" when he and his supporters refuse to tell you how he'll govern.

EternalVigalence does have a valid point that Bill Johnson appears to be the strongest conservative in the race, and has an impressive resume. However, the fact remains that Johnson is polling in single digits and extremely unlikely to win the primary. Freepers can interpret that however they wish. (I personally don't mind voting my conscience for a single-digits candidate in a primary, unless it's imperative we get behind the highest polling conservative to stop a RINO scumbag. If all the candidates in primary are "acceptable" in a general election, I vote for the one I like best)

I wonder if GoldStandard got banned or merely suspended after the “Sarah Palin Gets Booed” thread he started yesterday. I’ve maintained all along my concern that Rand Paul is too fringy for the general election in KY. The family associations, the supporters, are simply not a part of the mainstream of the GOP (at least not the Conservative mainstream, since a substantial chunk of us regard Ron to be a nutter. I personally never held RP in high regard from the first time I saw him on tv as a teenager in the ‘80s. He was the anti-Reagan and ran against him as such in 1984). The Democrats will be able to exploit the “Paul factor” and denounce him as a fringe element (even considered so by Republicans, as I do). I expect Paul would lose by as much as 10% to Jack Conway, who would then try to pick up Republicans uncomfortable with Rand. Only if Mongiardo is the Dem nominee would Rand have a better shot, since Mongiardo has made himself a real enemy of his running mate, Gov. Beshear (whom I imagine might not be too heartbroken to see him lose the general).

I’ve never proclaimed Trey Grayson as spectacular, and he’s got a Dem background, but so have a number of Republicans, and that alone isn’t enough to dismiss him (I’d be a hypocrite myself, I’m not a lifelong Republican, I converted as a teenager). But Grayson will have 100% party backing for the general (meaning he won’t be left to twist in the wind - something that can’t be said for Paul, because if he gets the nod, the party will turn its attentions elsewhere), he’s seemingly done a good job as Sec of State of KY, he’s won twice (including in ‘07 when he had a toxic candidate at the top of the ticket which could’ve taken him down). I believe Bunning has endorsed him, so he seems like an acceptable choice without the RP baggage.

I don't see anything in Greyson's political history that is a red flag he'd morph into a RINO scumbag as Senator, as the Paulbots and Bill Johnson supporters are suggesting. Yes he was a Dem back in '92 and switched parties but the only time I'm alarmed at a Dem "joining" the GOP is when they do so a few months before filing for a major office to help their election chances (a ala Mike Bloomberg in 2001).

On the same note, I can't presume Rand Paul will be as flaky as his dad in office. I'm sure they have very similar political beliefs (I probably agree with my dad on 90% of the issues, but there is that 10% where we part ways), but Rand Paul is a different person and his governing style and personality isn't likely to be a carbon copy of dear old dad's wild eye rants.

What DOES alarm me is that Rand Paul has a good chance of losing to a RAT in a November general election but he's become the "front runner" in a big upset now (on paper, Greyson should win overwhemingly in the primary as a popular, two-term statewide official). Looks like Greyson has to seriously retool his campaign and run on a stronger message if he's trailing Rand Paul in fundraising.

If Paul is being coy on social issues and the WOT because he's weak on those issues (e.g., maybe his "libertarian" fan base is demanding the Patriot Act be completely repealed and he has to go along with them), Greyson needs to take advantage of that and make the case to primary voters that he is the stronger conservative.

As of right now I don't have a dog in this fight.

Yeah, Grayson is going to have to get on the ball. He does need to tie Rand to his father’s extremism. I do wonder how different the two of them may be. Problem is, even if Rand is more acceptable, he still inherits his father’s support, his father’s fundraising network, and his father’s supporters. Those folks are a bit like the Howard Dean supporters were in ‘04. Rand also trying to jump into the Senate when he has done virtually nothing in KY, never run for office or been involved in GOP functions as far as I can tell.

If he wanted to prove himself, he should set his sights on a lesser office, or one of the Dem-held ones (there are 2 House seats he could run for potentially). We can only go by what we see of him since there’s no voting record, only his associations. I still think there is too much outside interests trying to buy this seat. Grayson is the one with the experience and is a proven vote-getter (so I would say in this instance, I do have a dog in this hunt). Since Nashville’s media market extends into Southern KY, we get all the political ads and the like as any other in-state station would, so I expect (since we have no Senate race in ‘10) to be inundated with Senate commercials here. I’m just not looking forward to Rand Paul’s nomination and how the Dems may easily benefit from his getting the nod.

If Rand Paul were the nominee, I’d support him. As for the social issues, it’s very likely that Paul takes a state’s rights position/Feds stay out position, which is consistant with Libertarian philosophy, though it might not be satisfactory to those who are motivated by them.

I don’t know what to think about Rand Paul’s chances in the general election. Normally, I’d be pessimestic. But 2010 will likely be a good Republican year in this part of the country, and both DemocRATS have made avoidable gaffes.

Though I appreciate the state right’s sentiment and would vastly! shrink the federal government I like the thrust of Johnson’s argument here.

I don’t think states should have the ‘right’ to do things like legalize gay marriage, allow third trimester abortion, ban handguns, or let illegals vote.

States rights never trump individual rights protected by the Constitution.

While I believe the state-by-state approach is an efficient strategy to eliminate abortion, I don’t fall into the camp that it is the only approach justified by the Constitution. The 10th amendment never trumps an individual’s rights. Too many federalists take a hard line approach to this. The smaller the circle, the more rights, with the individual the only party possessing full inherent rights. Every other entity is restricted from infringing on those rights.