[EternalVigilance]

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."

The Pauls "act" is insidiously wicked. It says that the states "can" stop abortion, but not that they "must."

Which other unalienable rights do you want the states to be able to alienate if they want to?

[The Comedian]

The Pauls "act" is insidiously wicked. It says that the states "can" stop abortion, but not that they "must." Which other unalienable rights do you want the states to be able to alienate if they want to?

How's your holy war going against the infringement of the 2nd Amendment by every state concealed carry law?

Or your demand that Federal drug laws be repealed?

Or are you only selectively outraged at Ron Paul for daring to be a clear anti-Federalist and supporting one of the few pieces of legislation which actually is worded to be Constitutionally valid?

Surely not, for that would be the height of hypocrisy, wouldn't it?

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Bokababe]

"The Pauls "act" is insidiously wicked. It says that the states "can" stop abortion, but not that they "must.""

Ah yes, I suppose it was "insidious wickedness" that prompted Ron Paul to introduce H.R.1233 - Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2009: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family plan..."

But then again, Ron and Rand Paul back what can be done, whereas in the rules of your Holy War, if you can't save every child from abortion, might as well not save any.

That's insane.