Posted on 09/05/2009 10:45:03 AM PDT by Steve Schulin
The Pro-life Debate Between Bill Johnson and Rand Paul
--
10:10am, EST
9.02.09
Press release from Bill Johnson's Senate Campaign...
The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate Campaign continues to run a low cost and fiscally responsible campaign. Rand Paul, a doctor, and Trey Grayson, a lawyer, are engaged in a battle about who can raise and spend the most money in a primary campaign. This conflict is typical Capitol Hill politics where tax and spend is the norm. How much money is enough?
Instead of focusing on bank accounts, Johnson is concerned about Mr. Paul’s position on abortion as stated at the Jessamine County 2010 Republican kickoff. While Mr. Paul claimed to be pro-life, he stated that the issue of abortion should be decided by the states. Bill Johnson believes Paul’s positions are inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, which prevents states from depriving any person of life without due process. Mr. Johnson also believes abortion is a federal issue and should be outlawed.
In addition, Mr. Paul has stated he supports his father’s (Ron Paul) positions. His father is supportive of the legalization of Marijuana and prostitution. Johnson is opposed to both and is a ‘true’ conservative on both fiscal and social issues.
2010 is an important election. Voters have never been more challenged to examine carefully each candidate and their positions on issues independent of the size of their wallets. Any other course is just letting money determine the outcome. This lesson was learned in the 2008 presidential campaigns.
--
*UPDATE*
1:10pm, EST; 9.02.09
When asked by KYWordsmith for his thoughts on Bill Johnson's recent criticism, Dr. Rand Paul of Bowling Green responded with the following:
“He’s mistaken. He’s mischaracterized my position. I believe life begins at conception; I am adamantly pro-life.”
--
*UPDATE*
4:32pm, EST; 9.02.09
Johnson reacts to Paul's remarks:
"Mr. Paul is attempting to take a political position on the abortion issue. He clearly stated at the Jessamine County event that abortion was a state issue. His approach to being prolife is to avoid responsibility for protecting the unborn by passing the burden to the States. As a Senator, he should up hold the constitution which is clear on the issues of due process and life at the federal level.
"Mr. Paul does not appear to be a social conservative when it comes to abortion, prostitution or legalization of drugs."
--
*UPDATE*
3:00pm, EST; 9.03.09
KY Wordsmith has acquired the audio of Rand Paul's initial remarks in Jessamine County...
Listen HERE .
--
*UPDATE*
10:33am EST, 9.04.09
KY Wordsmith received this statement from David Adams, Rand Paul's Campaign Manager...
"Abortion is currently legal in all fifty states and we have
been treating it like a federal issue since 1973. We had
Republican majorities in Congress and a Republican in the
White House for most of this decade and failed repeatedly to
even make it illegal to transport a minor across state lines
for an abortion. Abortion activist Molly Yard at least
understood the public policy when she said "the anti-abortion
crowd in this country want (abortion) to be a states' rights
issue. We aren't going to buy into that strategy."
"Dr. Paul has stated clearly that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that life begins at conception, and that abortion should be illegal. But holding our breath waiting for the federal government to get this issue right isn't likely to save lives any time soon. If states were to decide this issue for themselves, there can be little doubt that several states -- including Kentucky -- would respond by making abortion illegal immediately."
--
*UPDATE*
10:00am EST, 9.05.09
The saga continues with this latest statement from Senate candidate Bill Johnson...
"Rand Paul supports his father’s “Sanctity of Life Act of 2007” (H.R.
2597), which offers the worst possible response to the current
abortion problem. This act says the unborn are persons. It gives
the states the authority to limit abortion. But it does NOT REQUIRE
the states to protect unborn life. This is not pro-life and it is not constitutional..
Rather than uphold every person’s rights, this radical plan would give
the states unchecked power to deny constitutional protection to whole
classes of people. It would even prohibit the federal courts from
acting upon their sworn constitutional requirement to secure the right
to life of all innocent individuals.
Judge Blackmun, author of Roe v Wade, admitted in the text of the case that if the unborn child is a person then they are protected by the 14th amendment. Because Ron and Rand Paul admit the unborn are persons but are willing to deny them constitutional protection, their position is even worse than Blackmun's.
No State has the power to deny any person their constitutional rights, and in fact each state has a constitutionally-imposed duty to provide for the equal protection of the laws to all.
This fight over the imperative governmental obligation to protect innocent life (at every level, and in every branch) already took place within our party decades ago. At that time, the views of Gerald R. Ford, which were nearly identical to those now advocated by Rand Paul, were defeated by Ronald Reagan. That’s why, since 1984, the Reagan Republican pro-life platform has explicitly recognized the personhood of the child in the womb, and their protection therefore by the clear and straightforward provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As Kentucky’s U.S. Senator, I would consider my primary duty to be the fulfillment of the crowning stated purpose of our Constitution: to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Ref: KYWordsmith.com
Cash On Hand: $4,020
Debt: $15,525
Fiscally responsible, huh? Oh and I doubt that "low cost campaign" is by his choice, but rather forced since no one is donating to his lousy candidacy.
The Pauls are correct, it is a state’s rights issue. And it’s also the only way to reverse abortion-on-demand in the US, since the GOP has shown it has neither the guts nor the want to reverse Roe v. Wade.
Your conclusion is clear, but I’d like to understand your reasoning. Do you agree that we’re all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life? Do you agree that killing the child in the womb is an abrogation of this right? How can any state possibly have the right to abrogate the unalienable rights of a whole category of individuals? Stephan Douglas and the Whigs were as wrong in being pro-choice about slavery as Ron Paul and the pro-choice Republican leaders are about abortion.
The FEC form shows the debt to be out-of-pocket expenses the candidate has paid for involving events. There’s nothing financially irresponsible about a candidate doing this, if he can afford to do so. I encourage all who want the personhood issue to be part of the public discourse to get such a candidate running in every race in the country, and support them. I for one will never again cast a vote for any candidate who doesn’t understand that unalienable rights can not be abrogated in the USA, not by local, state or federal government
Ron Paul is not, and has never been, pro-abortion. In fact, as a physician who delivered countless babies over the years, his writing on the subject is some of the most profound and logical I’ve read. Having said that, I don’t view it as a religious issue because it doesn’t need to be muddled with visions of a God which may or may not exist. It’s actually provable that the abortion movement in this country was propagated by eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger. That alone made me pro-life. If “God” is your reason for being pro-life, it’s all the same and it works for me. My reasoning for supporting the state’s rights claim under the 10th Amendment is, as I stated before, because it’s the only realistic way to turn the tide of abortion in this country. We couldn’t make a dent in Roe with heavy Republican majorities, we sure as hell won’t do it with DC having become the District of Communists (mainly due to those afformentioned Republicans).
that said, a candidate willing to step up and run a campaign of 'deconstruction' of the centralized beast known as fedzilla, will be someone to vote 'for'...
guess that brings me full circle...
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for fighting it on the national level as well via Roe vs. Wade, but until we get actual conservatives who govern as such and have the gonads to fight for life instead of simply selling us down the NWO river, it’s a futile effort. I believe the cure to centralized Federal and global power is local and state. It’s much easier to affect change at the level and show that it can work, and let it spread upward.
i agree, we should fight at every level and state/local can be great staging areas & morale boosters...
If you were really concerned about abortion, you wouldn’t take this position. The “states’ rights” position is a cop-out. Ever heard of amending the Constitution? As a woman who enjoys voting, I appreciate the 19th Amendment. If you were truly concerned about the plight of the unborn and if you truly believed the Constitution doesn’t protect them, you would support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. In reality, you are more concerned with keeping abortion legal than you are about protecting states’ rights. Prove me wrong. Support a Human Life Amendment.
I’m concerned but I’m also not living in lala land. The reality is, we’ve totally failed in trying to push back the abortion agenda. The issue, and the Catholic church, are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The way to turn that tide is to beat it on the local and state level. Once red states show how abortion prevention actually leads to social properity, more moderate blue states will adopt it on referendum ballots. Just like gay marriage, and even gun control. Once gay marriage was left up to the states, it suffered much stronger blows (pardon the pun) than it ever did on the national (read: DC) stage. Socons and libertarians have something very similar in common, and it’s their reason for failure: we both tend to think in theory instead of reality. It’s the reason why Rick Santorum was run out of PA, why Sam Brownback went nowhere in his POTUS run, and why Ron Paul is basically irrelevant while being the most visible national libertarian.
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.