Posted on 10/19/2007 12:23:35 PM PDT by uxbridge
Ron Paul, the feisty physician from Texas who has twice served in Congress and amassed a loyal following in his campaign for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, has gained widespread recognition as his party’s only anti Iraq-war candidate.
But Paul’s essential social conservatism may have been overlooked in his Libertarian view of government. Paul wants to abolish the federal income tax – that’s part of his governmental philosophy. But Paul also wants to ban abortion, proposing to overturn the landmark Roe versus Wade court ruling by legally removing jurisdiction over the issue from the federal courts.
“That should be our goal… to repeal Roe versus Wade,’’ Paul told an assembly of religious right voters in Washington today. “There is a couple ways that can be done…
“We can wait until we have our Supreme Court justices appointed... That’s taking a long time,’’ Paul said. “My approach is a little bit more direct… accepting the principle that we can as a legislative body and the president… remove the jurisdiction of this issue from the federal courts.’’
Paul told the Values Voter Summit today that he is “very pleased with the reception we are getting from young people… We have found that a lot of people are coming to join for the message we have been delivering. The message is not complex. It is rather simple… Freedom is much better than bureaucracy and government socialism… Freedom really works.
“I talk a lot about the lesson of life and liberty… It comes from our creator,’’ he said. “The pursuit of happiness means to lead our life as we choose… We should have the incentives to work hard and take care of our family….
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
Idiot reporter doesn't understand the difference between banning something and returning it to the states.
If Paul were in favor of banning abortion at the federal level he'd be working for a law, constitutional amendment or judicial decision that would make all abortions illegal.
Instead, Ron Paul votes against making the harming of a fetus a crime and banning taking minors across State lines for an abortion a crime.
While I'm sure that personally, Paul is opposed to abortion, it seems what is more important to Paul is his little symbolic State's rights votes versus actually saving lives.
Even so - it really isn't a matter for the states.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all persons the equal protection of the laws.
A pro-lifer - by definition - recognizes the unborn child as a person.
The states do not get to pick and choose who is or who is not a person or which persons get and which persons do not get rights.
You really minimize the importance of the sacred oath every congressman takes to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. "Little symbolic State's rights" is the fundamental characteristic of our Constitution and our form of government. You're not suggesting he should ignore his oath if he believes that he has no Constitutional authority to pass those laws, are you?
it could lead to some states banning abortion. The other choice would be no ban at the federal level. It’s a strategic position that just happens to have “state’s rights” in there.
The big question is if we had the votes for a federal ban...would he still leave it to the states?
vs baby rights?
Such drama.
The Republican Platform advocates a Constitutional Amendment.
He's running for the Republican nomination.
Obviously he can change the platform, but taking a pro life stand on this issue is a no brainer for a Republican.
“Paul is his little symbolic State’s rights votes versus actually saving lives.”
So between less government and more, you choose more if it fits your socio-political agenda.
That’s what you get when Conservatism is defined by social issues. A big fat, overreaching government whose liberal constituency is fractured into SoCons and SPs. Both love a bloated governemnt that they can wield against any who don’t adhere to their ideologies.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all persons the equal protection of the laws."
"The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees there is no need for the states." -- There, all fixed.
Then why haven't the courts overturned Roe?
I suppose you take comfort in twisting others' words, since you have no thoughts of youer own to add.
We have a lot of “Trust em, I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help” folks posting lately. They have been drinking the koolaid for years and now can’t give it up, so they lash out at everyone else.
No, I choose to honor the 14th amendment versus reading into the 10th amendment that abortion is somehow a 'State's Right' issue. I also laugh that most of the time, the final part of the 10th Amendment is ignored ...or to the people. So even ignoring the 14th amendment, why are the people's Representatives (Congress) left out of this argument.
If a governemnt has any purpose at all, it is to uphold the right to life of the people it governs.
The moral cowardice engendered by the iron hand of precedent.
Abortion is murder. Murder is a state crime. As much as I want to save babies, you don’t do that by federalizing crime. Federalizing things is what liberals do.
Kind of funny to see hysterical FReepers on here trying to paint a lifelong pro-life ob/gyn who’s delivered over 4,000 babies as a pro-abort.
Why is it “more government” to include the unborn under the protections of the existing 5th and 14th amendment?
It's painfully obvious that you haven't actually read the Constitution at all.
Pathetic.
L
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.