AMERICAN RIGHT TO LIFE REJECTS RON PAUL'S PLEDGE

Alaska Native News ^

[mnehring]

American Right To Life calls it politics as usual when Ron Paul tried to mislead pro-life voters by signing a pledge that he actually rejects. Just in time for the 2012 Iowa caucuses Paul pledged that he will "endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children." But then he contradicted his pledge by stating, "I can't agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here."

"Shockingly, Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself," says Darrell Birkey, director of research for American Right To Life, "that the constitutional protection of human rights does not apply to unborn children." And Birkey adds, "Ron Paul as president would defend a fictitious right of states to legalize the murder of children, but any country that permits kids to be intentionally killed is not even civilized."

"Ron Paul is not who he claims to be," says Lolita Hanks, president of American RTL. "Paul is pro-choice, state-by-state. He believes states should be allowed to keep abortion, which is like allowing states to keep slavery." Thus as president, Paul would refuse to enforce the 14th amendment, which declares, "No State shall… deprive any person of life… without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (See more at AmericanRTL.org/constitution.)

"Today's pro-life movement is strong and growing, not weak and willing to accept whatever we can get," says Hanks. "We're not going to swoon because Ron Paul or any other candidate merely claims to be pro-life. Either Ron Paul will use governmental authority to stop the slaughter of children, or he is just another worthless politician." SOURCE American Right To Life

[Allegra]

I’ve lost count of lefty Paultard zottings...

There have been so many the last couple of days, FR has tilted a little more over to the right.

[Allegra]

His worshippers commonly say things like "If you support the Constitution you HAVE to support Ron Paul," which is a non-starter.

And don't forget "Ron Paul is the ONLY one who can save us. Everyone else is just a neocon."

[Darkwolf377]

His fans certainly are absolutists. It must be comforting to live in such a simple world.

I just can’t figure out how they think Paul is going to win when most people think he’s just plain nuts, and if he somehow did win, how would he achieve anything? By the sheer force of his winning personality, ala Reagan?

Copying from myself, Paul is the Republican version of Obama—a stupid person’s idea of a smart person.

[Stonewall Jackson]

I went back and read through some of their posts. I now have a headache from trying to follow their convoluted logic. I don’t recommend anyone else try it, there is no logic. Woody Woodpecker and Screwball Squirrel make more sense.

[Allegra]

I know what you mean.

Back in ‘07, I naively tried to have logical discussions with some of them and my head would start hurting.

I eventually realized the futility of that endeavor and just started making fun of ‘em. ;-)

[Allegra]

It must be comforting to live in such a simple world.

Yep....a room in Mom's basement, nice little job at Starbucks to pay for the weed and resulting snack food....ahhhh, the simple life!

[reaganaut]

I went back and checked my pings, with the Paultards and Mittbot zots I counted 11 VK list pings just today.

[Allegra]

I went back and checked my pings, with the Paultards and Mittbot zots I counted 11 VK list pings just today.

I've got to tip my hat to the Mods and the Zot Ping List folks for all the hard work they've done over the last few days.

[reaganaut]

Agreed.

[Darkwolf377]

That’s a good observation. Paul’s fortunes seem to have risen as the Occupyists have gone back to mom’s basement and been available for phone polls.

[Pikachu_Dad]

So lets see what Ron Paul wrote that got that supposedly got them so upset. Link to Ron Paul's clarifying statement on his pledge: http://www.personhoodusa.com/files/Keith%20Ashley/Ron%20Paul%20Personhood%20Statement_0.pdf December 19, 2011 As a pro-life OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always opposed abortion. Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents. While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life. I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law. Today, I want to tell you a bit more about my views on life than the attached pledge really allows me to explain. I think it is important for us all to describe our views on life in our own words. I believe the attached pledge is important. The fight for the Right to Life is unlike any other in our society right now, and I am proud to be a soldier in that fight. But it is also important to fight every battle with principle. At this point, I think I am well-known for my constitutional views and sticking to my principles, even when doing so is hard and forces me to stand alone. Both this pledge and the pro-life issue itself require some careful thought from my fellow pro-lifers so we can avoid the trap of throwing out the Constitution in our effort to save lives. Just as we cannot have liberty without life, I believe the opposite is also true: we must keep the Constitution and liberty in mind when fighting for the rights of the unborn. Otherwise, we undermine the entire system our Founders put their lives on the line to create in order to protect life and liberty. I guarantee you that no one would work harder to be the most ardent and active pro-life President in history. I do not say that lightly. My entire life's work has touched on this issue in a way few others have. So as I pondered this pledge, as I do all pledges, I had to ensure I would continue to stand with the Constitution. I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments - another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue. A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does - through state laws. To summarize my views - I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence. I don't see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a "Federal Department of Abortion." Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level. As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state. I would place a priority in my administration on ending federal abortion funding, defunding Planned Parenthood, and defunding any state department or UN agency that encourages abortion in their "family planning" activities. As a Congressman, I have consistently voted against giving federal funds to any organization that performs abortions or engages in "family planning" activities, and I have offered legislation on the floor of the House to defund all international family planning programs. No one has ever completely defunded these programs, because they weren't willing to undertake the fight that would result from vetoing the spending bills. I will veto these bills every time it takes until no taxpayer dollars go to abortion. I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans. In addition, I will only put pro-life judges who adhere to the Constitution on the federal bench. Finally, I will fight back against our depraved culture by ending all federal programs that undermine the family and our traditional American values of respect for life and personal responsibility. I will lead by example, as I have done every day in my medical practice and in Congress. We CAN both fight for life AND liberty. We can remain true to our principle of following the Constitution while also fighting for our moral values. In fact, we must. I ask for the support of every one of my fellow pro-lifers. This is an important moment in history. You can vote for any of the many folks who will sign a pledge, or you can vote for the one who stands by everything he has ever said on this critical issue over the years. You can choose the candidate whose principles and consistency are unquestioned, and whose record is unmatched. You can vote for BOTH a pro-life champion and a different kind of President, who will end business as usual all across Washington, fix our budget mess, and strengthen our families by restoring jobs and upholding our values. Thank you for your consideration. For Life and Liberty,

[Arrowhead1952]

10,000 dollars Right to life is backing Romney.

U R NUTS too, and need to go to other web sites.

[Arrowhead1952]

I've got to tip my hat to the Mods and the Zot Ping List folks for all the hard work they've done over the last few days.

Between the Paulturds and the mitten backers, we've had plenty of VK activity.

[caww]

Agreed....Hats off to those V.Kitties!

[joe212]

So now we have conservative judicial activists here (in a creative re-interpretation of the 14th amendment). Just because Ron Paul does not support this creative re-interpretation he is labeled as not being pro-life. It is really a stretch to make the case that now, in 2011, suddenly the 14th amendment protects the unborn. And that anybody who disagrees is not pro-life.

This particular Right to Life group would greatly benefit from a Ron Paul presidency, because the stuff they are smoking (illegal now) migh become legal with Ron Paul as president.

Changes to current situation, in order from least effective to most effective) would be:
- act of Congress (might be iffy constitutionally)
- overturning Roe vs. Wade (back to the states)
- Constitutional Amendment

Notice that president is not really involved here (apart from signing an act of Congress).

I am fine with any of the current GOP candidates, including Ron Paul. I am just a little sick and tired of all this in-fighting. It is making Obama look good in comparison... I am just hoping that the GOP nomination will be decided quickly and decisively so that this infighting ends.

[zeugma]

Thanks for posting the actual facts (though paragraphs would have helped). Not that it will matter, as PDS is pretty strong here at FR. Paul has forcefully stated his pro-life position for years, and is the only candidate that has personally delivered babies into this world.

The disagreement really is over where the pro-life position is properly regulated. Paul believes this is a state issue, and on this point I agree with him.

The closest analogy I can find in relation to this is that murder is not against federal law.(with some unconstitutional (IMO) exceptions). Murder is a crime properly dealt with by the states. So, if a candidate doesn't support a national law against unjustifiable killing, does that make them supportive of murderers?

Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution sets forth the delegated powers of the national government. I find no mention of abortion or anything related there.

[Old Sarge]

[Old Sarge]

We are on Christmas Break from the colleges. All the paultards and Mittbots have the extra time on their hands to spam the forum.

Talk radio is getting spammed, too. The Paulbots are reading off of 3X5 index cards with their talking points and jamming the hosts.

[Allegra]

Talk radio is getting spammed, too. The Paulbots are reading off of 3X5 index cards with their talking points and jamming the hosts.

Yep...Paultards excel at swarming and spamming.

They're quite annoying.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Yep, paragraphs would have been nice. That’s what I get for posting without previewing. The nice paragraphs in the post all disappeared... (: