Posted on 04/21/2014 8:29:23 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Even so, allowing civil unions or other accommodations to homosexuals doesn't imply a willingness to be onboard with the whole gay agenda. Small "l" libertarians have repeatedly filed amicus briefs and made substantial financial contributions [in some cases paying entirely] on behalf of defendants who refused to a) house homosexuals b) hire homosexuals and c) provide services at homosexual "marriages."
I wonder what she would say to the proposition "Whether to hire black people is a personal decision for an employer".
Actually Rand Paul is the libertarian candidate for president in 2016, you may have heard of the Pauls, but perhaps not, since you know so little about libertarianism.
No one is talking about civil unions, the federal government suddenly took the libertarian position of treating homosexuals equal in the military, federal employment and immigration, and that includes counting their marriages as equal to mixed sex marriage.
Actually, more lies.
There is no libertarian candidate, because there is no such thing as the libertarian Party.
Rand Paul is NOT the Libertarian Party candidate for President for 2016. Darryl Perry is the only Libertarian Party candidate announced so far for 2016. The 2012 candidate was Gary Johnson. As a matter of fact, Rand Paul has never been a Libertarian Party candidate for President. Rand Paul is not even an announced Republican candidate for President.
Keep lying; Hell's waiting.
I see, Rand Paul is not a libertarian, and is not the hope and candidate of libertarians, and is not the one the libertarians here at FR are fighting so fiercely for.
Rand Paul is sure identified as libertarian, and is sold by libertarians as being libertarian, and he worked on a presidential campaign for the libertarian party, and he has described himself as a libertarian.
In fact his being so identified as libertarian, is a major hurdle for him.
Judging from this thread, where you are revealing all your libertarian craziness and endless personal attacks, it even seems that he is YOUR candidate.
You said he was the libertarian candidate for 2016. He isn’t. Keep lying, then keep pretending you said something else.
You can play games and make personal attacks all day long, but how does this advance your liberaltarianism and your libertarian candidate, Rand Paul?
I was discussing the regulation or mandate of abortion. I will rephrase: The Constitution does not give the federal government the sovereignty to regulate abortion or give it the right to require a state make it legal. That sovereignty lies solely with the states.
I’ll ask again, what about the regulation or mandate of abortion in military base hospitals for federal military and in federal hospitals and in foreign policy?
Are you against abortion?
As President, Reagan saved lives by affecting federal law, his influence carried into the states and American politics at all levels.
Are you saying the federal government doesn’t have authority to regulate abortion in federal hospitals and in foreign policy?
Yes, I am against abortion. Yes the federal government has the authority to regulate abortions in federal hospitals. I do not understand your question of whether the federal government has the authority to regulation abortion in foreign policy. Foreign policy relates to the relations between sovereign nations.
The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.
That is interesting but irrelevant. The policy relates to funding not regulation per se.
What about on military base hospitals for federal military and in federal hospitals?
The federal government makes it's own policy and law in regards to abortion, a state doesn't tell it what it is.
And this thread is about the GOP party platform and abortion, and some here trying to find reasons to claim that it doesn't belong on the national party platform, and that presidential candidates don't matter.
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.