Replies

"My, what a champion of the unborn. He's personally opposed, but . . ."

Actually, his position is the correct one under the Constitution. The Fedgov has no authority under the Constitution to regulate abortion, either for or against---it's a state function.

Don't get me wrong--I'm as opposed to abortion as anybody, but I also believe that our Constitution should be followed---AS WRITTEN (or amended---and NOT by Supreme Court).p Now, if you can persuade enough members of Congress and sufficient state legislatures to pass an actual Constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion--then I'd be all in favor.

Actually, his position is the correct one under the Constitution.

That's certainly debateable.

The primary right all humans were endowed with by their creator is the right to life. Obviously, without life, none of the other rights matter.

Seems very strange to me that some think it is constitutional to allow the taking of innocent life.

Now, if you can persuade enough members of Congress and sufficient state legislatures to pass an actual Constitutional amendment prohibiting ~~abortion~~ slavery--then I'd be all in favor.

We have been living under the modern equivalent of the Dred Scott Decision for 30+ years. Your assessment is conveniently ignoring that fact.

Actually, his position is the correct one under the Constitution. The Fedgov has no authority under the Constitution to regulate abortion, either for or against---it's a state function.

Explain the unconstitutionality of the Republican Party position. Failing in that, explain why Paul should be considered a pro-life champion if he doesn't support it.

Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.
We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion.
We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.

Actually, his position is the correct one under the Constitution. The Fedgov has no authority under the Constitution to regulate abortion, either for or against---it's a state function.

He is indeed right on this issue. He is right on the question of the appropriate federal role (none) in education, as well. On foreign policy he's whacked out.