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 ...
.
“I’ll wait for a pro-life candidate that isn’t crazy.”
Take a look at Duncan Hunter, who introduced the personhood at conception bill and was at the pro-life march in D.C..
In 2005 when the Republicans held both the house and senate, he introduced the above bill. under H.R. 776.
It’s too bad y’all are waiting for the non-crazy candidate that supports pro-life, we could have had it.
He probably votes against the bills if they have riders or amendments that are in some way offensive, or meant to kill the bill. I would like to see specific examples if you can provide them.
Because the law is unconstitutional. Unlike EVERY other member of Congress, Ron Paul is capable of distinguishing between a law that would be nice, and a law that would be unconstitutional.
I would predict that Ron Paul, as President, would tell the states: “Pass laws against abortion if you wish. The Paul Administration will not lift a finger to enforce Roe v. Wade against the states.
It is not true that a Constitutional amendment is necessary to undo Roe v. Wade. The pro-life movement has wasted 34 years because of that myth. All that is necessary is a STATUTE (which requires a simple majority), to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Duncan Hunter: Yes. You know, I’m the author of the personhood-at-conception bill which right now has over 100 co-sponsors ...that would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=114155
See here for that proposed statute, RE-introduced by Cong. Paul (now Candidate Paul): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878515/posts#17
Got ya.
And thanks for the info.
That link is broken... but isn’t that the same bill (HR 1094) introduced by Congressman Paul? And, IIRC, introduced by him repeatedly, session after session, only to be ignored by Lamestream Pubbies and baby-killing DemonRats??? Why is Hunter taking credit for Ron Paul’s work?
We have TOO many... and too many both in and out of gov’t are willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper when it suits them... Please don’t be one of them.
And if he had a snowball's chance of ever getting elected, that might possibly mean something. Since he doesn't, though, it doesn't.
He has introduced legislation to define life at conception EVERY year he has been in office.
Wake up.
He is the only candidate worth voting for.
don't waste your vote on Hillary.
I really can't think of a more pro-life candidate than Ron Paul.
How many other members of the House can say that they are Obstetricians with the delivery of what is it, 4000 babies on their resume?
And not only no abortions, but rigid opposition to it ever since it was shoved down our throats in '73.
But I guess if closed minded people want to believe what they want to believe, well, not much stopping them....
How does the president overturn Roe V. Wade? Change the judges on the Supreme Court? And then you’d still need a relevant case to make its way to the SC which is entirely out of the hands of the President. Better to push for a Constitutional Amendment to protect life, prohibit cloning and fetal harvesting, and prohibit genetic discrimination in employment and insurance.
A well-kept secret then.
Duncan Hunter has introduced the personhood-at-conception bill year after year, so why is Ron Paul taking credit for Duncan Hunter’s work?
And why didn’t Ron Paul attend the pro-life march in D.C. The only presidential candidates to attend were Brownback and Duncan Hunter.
Oh, and here’s another link with excerpt:
“OT-Duncan Hunter On The Importance Of Human Life From Conception
snip
“1. Right to Life Amendment:
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.”
http://www.renewamerica.us/forum/?date=070402&message=21
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.