I'm saying that this is a sham that's used to allow abortion to continue unfettered. The Partial Birth Abortion was enacted in 2003 and upheld in 2007, but these abortions are still carried out every single day. The fact is that there are plenty of doctors will to say that ANY REASON is about the life of the mother.
That is all that he said in the quote you provided.
Actually, it's not. He also used phrases like, "what's going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother" and "thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved." It's pretty obvious to me that he decided to introduce a bill just before he launched a campaign for President that would be appealing to conservatives on the purpose, but filled with all of the usual "and then you can kill the baby" rhetoric.
I don’t support an exception for rape or the health of the mother but I have never even heard anyone seriously say they are against an exception for the LIFE of the mother.
Me neither, but this is the red herring used to push abortion no matter what.
I happen to agree with Ron Paul that a federal law which said, “No one can have abortions” would be unconstitutional.
Nonsense, equal protection under the law means just what it says.
This is why I agree with Rand Paul in advocating for federal legislation clarifying that the 14th amendment applies to those in the womb.
But he's not actually saying this, he's presenting it as some sort of ideal while saying, "I think the law will come down in between" because "the country is in the middle." This is the exact same mindset which led to our Republic's other libertarian foible where we allowed the states to define who was a person and slavery continued because "the country was in the middle."
It's pretty obvious to me that regardless how many times he passionately calls for protecting the life of the unborn in interview after interview you will still have your doubts. You have pre-conceived notions that you will believe regardless of the facts.
....LIFE of the mother.
Me neither, but this is the red herring used to push abortion no matter what.
No. "Life of the mother" means exactly what it says. Usually "health of the mother" is used as the slippery slope to open the door to unfettered abortions. He didn't mention that. You are intentionally confusing things.
.....would be unconstitutional.
Nonsense, equal protection under the law means just what it says.
The problem with that type of law is that the law would be focused on the procedure. There is no Constitutional basis for outlawing a procedure. There IS a Constitutional basis for granting all people equal protection. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees on what "people" are. A law clarifying that and correcting those who are currently in the wrong would be prudent and Constitutional.
If not through legislation as Dr. Paul suggests, how do you think we should establish who is and who is not a human? Should we leave it to the sensibilities of the politicians and advocacy groups at any given time? Should we simply say "We don't need any new law. Come on. It's obvious." and then hope everyone finally gets it?