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.
Well my point is that presidential candidate to head the federal government, Rand Paul, knows full well that is just a lie, he isn’t an idiot, and neither are you.
The federal government has a lot to do with abortion, and not just abortion on military bases for federal employees, but in foreign policy, and their national issue influence is immeasurable.
Here is just one example:
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
What is their relevancy? What is your argument?
The Supreme Court has its power only through convention and tradition. There’s nothing in the US Constitution that says they have final say on what the constitution means. Additionally, Congress and the president abide by the Supreme Court rulings mostly because they themselves love the federal power grab! Do you think the SCOTUS could truly stand down Congress and the president if the other two branches were adamantly opposed to a ruling? Probably not. The courts get away with all sorts of nonsense because it tends to take political heat off of the president and Congress!
So, what’s my point? Congress and the president, if they had the will, could easily reign in the courts. They do have impeachment and appointment power should they have the will to use it. They could simply refuse to follow the courts, because the courts have no enforcement power. The fact that they don’t simply adds more credence to my point that Congress and the president don’t act because they secretly like what the courts do!
I will grant that some politicians support Supreme Court rulings out of fear of the chaos that could ensue if the court was simply ignored. However, I really do believe most politicians secretly like courts to act as super legislators. I’d love to see evidence to the contrary and try to keep an open mind, but if politicians were truly opposed to all the anti-constitutional nonsense spewing from the courts, why isn’t there more outrage and condemnation of the courts from our political leaders?
For a presidential candidate running to head the federal government, of course it is.
See post 41, pro-life presidents, and non-pro-life presidents, affect the life and death issue, for millions.
This is interesting watching this guy play political football. Kick it one way, then kick it another. Wont stand on principles and then wonders why he gets his ass in hot water.
True, as a practical matter, but the attempt to do so helps persuade. It’s about 50-50 as is.
Is it possible to change the word “until” to “UNLESS”?
There is a difference.
It’s off the topic of this thread, but I support federalism. Accordingly, I think homosexual marriage should be left to the states. I also think the federal government has an obligation to recognize marriages that are legally performed in a given state. In other words, it’s not the federal government’s right to tell the states what constitutes a marriage. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for marriage (there’s only one kind of marriage and it ain’t two sodomites!) in my state.
I believe federalism is one of only two ways to ultimately hold this nation together, because the states have widely diverse views. I don’t think I have a right as an Oklahoman to tell Californians how to live. I only wish they treated me with the same respect, and that’s the real problem. We have some people, primarily Democrats, who aren’t content to let people in the states decide these issues for themselves. Democrats think the federal government—or worse, a global government!—should be in charge of everything.
Federalism, of course, means I have to tolerate some states doing things I don’t like and vice versa. It’s called being good neighbors as states and not using the federal government to browbeat each other. That’s the second way to hold the nation together, and it requires an all powerful federal beast that crushes liberty.
You’re absolutely right. Paul’s law has zero chance of getting passed, and if it was, it would be promptly overruled by the courts. Senator Paul likely understands this. If he doesn’t, he’s a moron who has no business in government. If he does, he’s being intentionally deceptive and has no business in government.
A constitutional amendment is the only way to enact a nationwide ban on abortion. Any attempts less than that are highly suspect. That’s why I originally wrote that Senator Paul is being disingenuous. I don’t think he really wants a nationwide ban on abortion. I think he only acts like he does because it’s politically expedient.
It is up to the feds to make it’s own marriage rules for the military, federal employees, and in immigration, and decisions that might involve foreign policy, just as they do for abortion.
“Congress and the president, if they had the will, could easily reign in the courts.”
Nothing says there can’t be more than 9 on the SCOTUS. FDR threatened to pack the Court to get his way. It can be done, but it takes a huge amount of will and/or political support. The GOP has neither.
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
No one should forget that just because there are states with no abortion facilities doesn’t mean that there aren’t personal physicians administering
mifepristone plus prostaglandin (”the abortion pill) in their offices.
Ru Paul sucks. Next.
“It is up to the feds to make it’s own marriage rules for the military, federal employees, and in immigration, and decisions that might involve foreign policy, just as they do for abortion.”
Correct to a point, but it would run into equal treatment issues if it said one marriage certificate entitles a couple to base housing but another marriage certificate does not. I’m not advocating for homosexuality in the military, just making the point that the federal government can’t lawfully pick and choose which state marriage certificates are valid and which ones aren’t. That does not mean the government can’t set standards for the military. It could certainly prohibit homosexuals from joining the military at all, but if it allows them to join, it can’t treat their “marriages” any different from others.
In regard to abortion, the federal government has the right to ban abortion for federal institutions. There’s no equal treatment issue that I know of.
Of course they can make their own rules, states didn’t impose marriage benefits on the federal government and the military, and they don’t do it for immigration and foreign aid, and it is Obama’s view that you are promoting, he just created gay marriage for the military.
Thanks much SunkenCiv for keeping us all aware by posting relevant links on threads such as these.
The Supreme Court didn't seem to notice your opinion.
Bingo! Been saying that for years. It is the very reason there is no appetite to defund ACA.
Every Republican hates the National Endowment for the Arts, yet it has survived several Republican majorities.
The federal government was supplying abortions to federal employees and dependents, long before Roe v Wade.
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.