Ron Paul Repeats Commitment to Overturning Roe v. Wade

LifeNnews.com ^ | August 8, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

[weegee]

It isn’t necessary to have a constitutional amendment to oveturn RvW but it WOULD prevent any future activist courts from flip flopping on the decision again.

The Supreme Court has changed their view (or a subsequent seated court did) numerous times. They are neither infalible nor consistent in their decisions.

[Rudder]

I think he has introduced this many a session, only to be ignored.

Well, then, just elect this guy president and everyone will pay attention. Nobody will be elected President just because he professes a pro-life position.

[John Leland 1789]

Mr. Paul may have positions on some things with which I disagree. But this one area, the area of a commitment to overturn the slaughter of abortion, helps bolster my respect for him. Even if not elected, he will have helped many to take a much strong stand.

The practice of abortion in this country affects the nation’s blessings and its future in a most negative way.

[Rudder]

He has introduced legislation to define life at conception EVERY year he has been in office.

This is not at all well-known except to Paulites

Wake up.

I am awake, I just don't follow Paul's every move---he's so far out of touch with reality he's in la-la land.

He is the only candidate worth voting for.

You also live in la-la land.

don't waste your vote on Hillary.

Thanks for the sage advice. You ARE out of touch.

[John Leland 1789]

This was not written by, or endorsed by, any crazy man.

[Rudder]

The practice of abortion in this country affects the nation’s blessings and its future in a most negative way.

Who seeks abortion? Pregnant Women.

Target them not some pandering, male politician.

[Sun]

Ron Paul is very pro-life, but not as pro-life as Sam Brownback and Duncan Hunter.

Sometimes Ron Paul’s libertarian views get in the way:

From this site,
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999

SHOULDN’T PARENTS DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR MINOR CHILDREN??

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Ron Paul pro-life ping

[John Leland 1789]

The Republican Party is not yet ready or capable of electing people on principle. “Electability” is the standard, regardless of how low that standard drags us.

Duncan Hunter should be way up at the top of the polls scaring Rudy’s socks off. But “electability” keeps Rudy up and Mr. Hunter down.

[dcwusmc]

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878515/posts#17 which is the latest incarnation of Dr. Paul’s bill as introduced every session probably since he’s been in congress. Can Dunc say the same?

[Rudder]

Dr. Paul’s bill as introduced every session probably since he’s been in congress...

Apparently a waste of time.

[Regulator]

A well-kept secret then

Perhaps you could propose someone else.

One who, say, has actually been in the position of delivering newborns, and also having been in the position where he legally might have been able to do such a thing as abortion, but refused. Which was not such a common attitude in the 1970s, as you must know, if your homepage information is true.

Pray propose such an individual from the magnificent ranks of ideologically pure candidates whom we are now confronted with.

[dcwusmc]

Define reality... I think it is YOU out of touch with the reality of the Constitutional Republic handed us by the Founders and screwed up so badly by our current fedgov, this administration and 95+% of the current crop of congress critters. EXCLUDING Dr. Paul. But you strike me as just another Big Government “Conservative.”

[John Leland 1789]

It still means much in his influence on others, pressure on other candidates and the process as a whole. Therefore, I’m very glad to see it highlighted, and highlighted by a Republican candidate.

I am not saying that he is the only one, I know that he is not. But I’m glad for as many as possible, who are in the public eye, take this stand. It is good for our nation. Whether he has a chance or not, would to God that the entire list of Republican candidates would be working together to make this the REPUBLICAN PARTY position.

[George W. Bush]

From this site, http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Didn't you forget the part where he was rated 0% by NARAL? Maybe you overlooked that.

[dcwusmc]

Yep. Because mindless morons wrongly call him a kook and ignore what he’s saying... but NO ONE ELSE wants to point out all the Unconstitutional CRAP that’s going on because too many big gov’t “conservatives” want their slice of the federal pie.

[Sun]

Maybe the RINOs will make themselves unelectable, and one of the so-called dark horses will move to the top tier.

Somebody told me that on the radio they heard that Romney said Rudy turned NYC into a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Rudy responded by saying he did not turn NYC into a base of any illegality. Rudy DID choose not to target illegals.

[dcwusmc]

“SHOULDN’T PARENTS DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR MINOR CHILDREN??”

Exactly correct... NOT FEDGOV. Which is what Dr. Paul is saying... in a MOST CONSISTENT way, unlike too many of you.

[Rudder]

Perhaps you could propose someone else.

a politician is NOT going to solve your problem. Changing the minds of people who seek abortions (do you know who that is?) is the only way.

[elhombrelibre]

The man is a flake and a phony. Don’t buy the Ron Paul solution on pro-life unless you’re willingly to give into a lot of other immoral Paulisms that are equally anti-life.