Posted on 08/08/2007 8:22:47 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Ron Paul Repeats Commitment to Overturning Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor August 8, 2007 Lawton, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. He said he would work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president and elected to the White House.
Paul said he was pro-life and would make reversing the decision a top priority.
He also said that more people should be exposed to what abortion does to an unborn child and women who have them.
“The country should see what is happening and when they see the violence of abortion and what it really means, maybe they too would change their attitude about abortion,” said Paul.
Paul, a Texas congressman, also said he would make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions and explained that his training as a gynecologist taught him that human life is valuable.
"Life is sacred. The most obscene thing government could do is to ... use your money to commit abortion," he said to loud applause.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
The right to life is God-given and therefore unalienable. Before the late sixties, everyone understood that, so there was no problem. Roe, and the court decisions that led up to it, changed all that.
Abortion is a national question, a life and death question, whether you, or Ron Paul, like it or not.
The abrogation of unalienable rights is the destruction of the foundation stones of American liberty.
Nice try.
I’ve found that those who claim that the way to end abortion is to “change hearts and minds” are the ones who do the least to actually do so.
Puddleglum, here's my standard warning to all conservatives looking at Huckabee:
Don't be rope-a-doped by a second man from Hope.
Check out the thread links in my profile page for many examples of the Huckster's non-conservative actions. He is a good man, as a person, but he is not conservative. Duncan Hunter. Now THERE's a conservative's conservative. Check him out.
Does seem to be a cop out, doesn't it?
It usually is, yes.
Having authored two books against Roe and a bill that would have abolished it, Dr. Paul has already done more against the murder of the preborn than all of the post-Roe presidents.
Here's a hint: It ain't there.
This is news to me. I thought all Libertarians were “pro-choice” without exception.
In Point of Fact, three out of the last four Libertarian Presidential Candidates have been pro-life: Those would be
There is an entire organisation of Libertarians for Life. The party membership itself is pretty mixed.
i doubt that any true Libertarian would support Government money being made available for abortion.
I'd tend to disagree. The "build a culture of life" mantra is an excuse for inaction. The lives of others should never be placed on the ballot, as was done is South Dakota last year.
However, the first step is abolishing Roe, which I believe Dr. Paul will do. He and Tancredo are the only ones I take seriously on this matter. "Mr. Pro-Life" Sam Brownback ruined his credibility when he attacked Tom Tancredo on this but said he'd support a pro-abortion Republican nominee, not to mention his other unpleasant views (amnesty, etc.).
While I’d like that to be true, Harry Browne and Badnarik were not pro-life. The latter made it seem he was at one point, but he switched around election time. I’m sad to say it seems the vast majority of libertarians are pro-abortion, which violates the whole philosophy.
Now if he would only get his head out of his butt on Iraq.
As for shrimp...
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
October 8, 2002The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act. This bill aids America's struggling domestic shrimping industry by placing a moratorium on restrictive regulations affecting the shrimping industry. This bill also prevents tax dollars from going to the domestic shrimping industry's major foreign competitors.
The United States domestic shrimping industry is a vital social and economic force in many coastal communities across the United States, including several in my congressional district. A thriving shrimping industry benefits not only those who own and operate shrimp boats, but also food processors, hotels and restaurants, grocery stores, and all those who work in and service these industries. Shrimping also serves as a key source of safe domestic foods at a time when the nation is engaged in hostilities abroad.
Given the importance of a strong shrimping industry to so many Americans, it seems strange that the federal government continues to burden shrimpers with excessive regulations. For example, the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS). The mandatory use of these devices results in a significant reduction in the amount of shrimp caught by domestic shrimpers, thus damaging their competitive position and market share.
Many members of Congress have let the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is the lead federal agency with responsibility to regulate the domestic shrimp industry, know of their displeasure with the unreasonable regulatory burden imposed upon the industry. In response, the agency recently held briefings with House and Senate staffers as well as industry representatives to discuss how the agency's actions are harming shrimpers.
However, even after hearing first-hand testimony from industry representatives and representatives of communities whose economies rely on a thriving shrimping industry, the agency refuses to refrain from placing regulatory encumbrances upon the domestic shrimping industry. Therefore it is up to Congress to protect this industry from overzealous regulators. The Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act provides this protection by placing an indefinite moratorium on all future restrictive regulations on the shrimping industry.
Seven foreign countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Brazil) have taken advantage of the domestic shrimping industry's government-created vulnerabilities. These countries have each exported in excess of 20,000,000 pounds of shrimp to the United States in the first 6 months of this year. These seven countries account for nearly 70 percent of all shrimp consumed in the United States in the first six months of this year and nearly 80 percent of all shrimp imported to this country in the same period!
Adding insult to injury the federal government is forcing American shrimpers to subsidize their competitors! In the last three years, the United States Government has provided more than $1,800,000,000 in financing and insurance for these foreign countries through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Furthermore, the U.S. current exposure relative to these countries through the Export-Import Bank totals some $14,800,000,000. Thus, the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers! Of course, the American taxpayer could be forced to shovel more money to these countries through the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Many of the countries in question do not have free-market economics. Thus, the participation of these countries in United States-supported international financial regimes amounts to a direct subsidy by American shrimpers to their international competitors. In any case, providing aid to any of these countries indirectly grants benefits to foreign shrimpers because of the fungibility of money.
In order to ensure that American shrimpers are not forced to subsidize their competitors, the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act ends all Export-Import and OPIC subsidizes to the seven countries who imported more than 20 million pounds of shrimp in the first six months of 2002. The bill also reduces America's contribution to the IMF by America's pro rata share of any IMF aid provided to one of those seven countries. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to rein in regulation-happy bureaucrats and stop subsidizing the domestic shrimping industries' leading competitors. Otherwise, the government-manufactured depression in the price of shrimp will decimate the domestic shrimping industry and the communities whose economies depend on this industry. I, therefore, hope all my colleagues will stand up for shrimpers by cosponsoring the Shrimp Importation Financing Fairness Act.
Oopps. I guess returning stolen tax money to his District via Earmarks he DEMANDED be made public instead of Congresses usual "hide that info" shenanigans still makes other GOP members look like idiots.
Or they are weak and bending to the will of a boyfriend/husband/parent (who is evil).
Abortion is one of those issues that isn't going away and needs to be banned nationally via a human life amendment, or having the Supreme Court reverse itself in the way Brown v. Board of Education created a national reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson.
And the funny thing is when Harriet Miers was caught making the same kind of "federalist" remarks Thompson made about abortion in 1994 (to paraphrase... 'I'm reluctant to say the federal government should come in and criminalize a woman's right'), there was a huge backlash against her in the conservative community and it derailed her Supreme Court nomination -- NOBODY stood up and praised her "federalist" credentials for opposing federal involvement.
Amen to that. Even when the Party plank was silent on States allowing abortion, they were against Roe V Wade and the Federal funding of abortion clinics. Then again, my knowledge of what was on the Party plank verbatim is pretty sketchy prior to say 1997.
Also, we don't need a human life amendment, but rather a government that will recognize and enforce the fifth amendment. You also run into the problem where, due to overwhelming sentiment across both parties, "exceptions" would be allowed, which could easily be expanded and nullify the whole amendment.
Old line conservatives are people with the sense to support the military and their mission, particularly when they are at WAR, among many other things. Antiwar, antiAmerican paleopeacecreeps are NOT conservatives any more than was their spiritual forefather in cowardice, Neville Chamberlain or their domestic antiAmerican ally, George McGovern. Several of the founding editors of National Review were ex-Trotskyites: John Chamberlain and James Burnham (Suicide of the West) prominently among them. PaleoPaulie was and is not fit to, ummmm, shine their boots. I came from a labor family of Democrats but became a conservative by the age of 16, dallied briefly with libertoonianism for a year or so and then grew up to be part of the Reagan revolution. He was a labor leader who later turned rightward. Have a problem with that???
Oh, so the libertoonians are now neutral on the slaughter of 50 million innocent kids. Well, that sure makes all the difference! ROFLMAO! They loved abortion before they became neutral. What pillars of morality!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.