|
 |
Posted on 04/30/2014 9:16:48 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)(CNSNews.com) – Although he is pro-life and believes life begins at the moment of conception, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential presidential contender in 2016, said that because of the polarization over abortion, Americans need to be persuaded on the issue and “we’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise.”
Paul himself has introduced the Life at Conception Act (S. 583), which would provide constitutional protection to children at the moment of conception.
Last week, Paul was interviewed at the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics by liberal David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama.
Speaking about the polarization in America over abortion, Paul said, “So, instead of saying the debate is, gosh, it’s all life and no abortion or all abortion and no life – that’s where we are right now. We’re nine months of gestation, or 40 weeks of gestation, with no real exceptions for life right now.”
“And if you say the health of the mother, in any fashion, it’s not really defined, can be affected, you can have an abortion at any time,” said Paul. “So really the question is whether or not – I think the public is somewhere in the middle of those two.”
“And where are you, that’s what I’m trying to get at,” Axelrod said.
“I think that’s where the law would be,” Paul said. “My religious and personal belief is that life begins at the very beginning.”
David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/NBC, William B. Plowman)Axelrod then said, “Well, would you sign or promote a law that would add –“ apparently in reference to restricting abortion.
Paul said, “No. I think where the country is – I think persuasion is part of this. I think where the country is, is somewhere in the middle, that we’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise.”
Commenting on Senator Paul’s remarks, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, “Obviously, no president has the power to unilaterally ban abortion, but he does have the power to make the issue a priority -- something most Americans assumed Rand Paul would do.”
“Regardless of the GOP's pick, conservatives expect their nominee to use the Oval Office to advance a culture of life,” said Perkins in his Washington Update column. “Changing minds is important, but what better way to accomplish it than using a national platform to talk about its importance?”
On his website, Paul has a page devoted to “Sanctity of Life,” which explains the legislation he introduced.
“I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion,” Paul says on his website. “I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.”
“It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution,” the text states. “For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception.”
“It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life,” the text states. “I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.”
“I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion,” Paul states on his website where he explains his legislation.
|
|
Rand Paul throws up the white flag of surrender before the battle even begins.
Now that is Leadership!<\SARCASM>
He has been crumbing on numerous fronts lately.
Someone has his number.
Rand Paul sucks more and more every time he opens his stupid mouth.
Paul is not a conservative
Why not Rand, if the creeps passed Obamacare against the wishes of the american people, they can pass abortion legislation in the same manner. You are wimping out dude, big time.
This statement alone makes Rand unfit for public office.
Hes just doing what the pauls do.
60% of the country supports tighter laws. Whats enough for him to do something?
The country IS being persuaded.
Abortion laws are changing EVERYWHERE on the state level.
Abortion law is not really an issue at the Federal level because their IS not Federal Law authorizing abortion. Just an overreaching SCOUTS ruling declaring a “right “ to one.
Paul is doing the usual libertarian song and dance, a lot of blah, blah, flowery baloney, and at the end of it is....the liberalism, in this case, abortion.
From the CNN transcript.
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.
So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.
The main point about abortion is that it is not a federal issue. If you really want to end abortion the most effective way is through the back door: Convention of the States. A simple amendment to take jurisdiction away from the Surpreme Court and make state courts the legal terminus for this issue.
What a loser! I wonder if he could use that same logic and be against legalizing pot?
Maybe he should spend a little more time assuring everyone he's no leftwing wacko.
After all, thats what we're being governed by today and how well is that working out for everyone.
Time for some photo editing with Paul waiving the white flag.
“The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree”
He gets more like his father everyday.
Why not fight the law? Roe v Wade decision was based on lies. So fight it.
Anyone who votes for this fraud might as well write in McCain or Romney. He was hanging out with David Axelrod for God’s sake.
Of course every poll indicates that a majority of Americans are Pro-Life and an even greater majority believe that Abortion should be illegal in MOST situations. So how many more minds do we have to change. Perhaps ONE MORE on the SCOTUS? Or is it time for the other two branches of the Federal government and the fifty states to assert their Constitutional authority and ignore and even imprison the SCOTUS and Federal courts members who over step their authority.
John Marshal and his fellow ‘justices’ should have been arrested, tried, imprisoned and or executed treason after the BS power grab ruling of Marbury VS. Madison as the SCOTUS stole powers they where never intended to have.
Jefferson was absolutely correct about this abominable ruling when he said:
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves”
This madness has been enacted since 1803 and the last 211 years should be all the testimony necessary to decide that giving this unlimited power to lifetime appointed lawyers is just a stupid idea.
As a practical matter I’d say he was right. We can place some restrictions on abortion but the law as a whole will not change until a lot of people change their minds on abortion.
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.