Writing forThe Human Life Review in 1983, as reprinted by National Review Online in 2004, President Ronald Reagan gave his take on life and federal action regarding it. He praised legislation prohibiting "the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother."
He continued:
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life. [My emphasis.]
President Reagan admitted that an HLA Amendment would be difficult, perhaps beyond his reach. He might have been more reluctant to embrace the federalism on this issue endorsed by Thompson (and Romney) because of his own experiences therewith.
Your definition(And Rand Paul's Apparently) and the definition that apparently Ronald Reagan used, and he was a big proponent of being a small "l" Libertarian as even a cursory examination of his writings will prove, is apparently miles apart.
Reagan wasn’t a libertarian, he called himself conservative, and he was.
ansel12 has a whole bunch of definitions that make no sense as far as I’m concerned. And he absolutely refuses to define what he claims to be - a conservative.
So in your book, a “lover of freedom” “lacks an adherence to social issues”. (I assume you mean lacks adherence to traditional American social values.) How so?