Posted on 05/20/2015 6:41:13 AM PDT by wagglebee
PHILADELPHIA, PA, May 19, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Rand Paul wants to be president – but abortion is less of an issue for him than the national debt, the senator said yesterday.
Paul had completed a campaign stop at Philadelphia's National Constitution Center, where he attacked both Bill and Hillary Clinton with relish, when a local media personality asked him about abortion.
“I will answer the question as honestly as I can,” he said. “I didn’t run for office because of this issue. It wasn’t what got me to leave my practice” to enter politics.
Instead, it was the nation's ballooning debt that made the younger Paul run for the open Senate seat in Kentucky.
“I ran for office mainly because I became concerned that we’re going to destroy the country with debt – that we would borrow much money, that we would just destroy the currency,” he said.
The national debt has exploded from less than $1 trillion in 1980 to a staggering $18 trillion and climbing. President Obama, whose annual deficits have exceeded $1 trillion, has added more to the debt than every president from George Washington to Bill Clinton combined.
Pressed on abortion, Paul told the audience that, under the Constitution's federalist principles, abortion would be handled “best by the states.” Conservative jurists have debated whether the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate abortion.
To make national policy, the nation needs to decide “when life begins,” he said, according to The Daily Caller. “I think we go down all kinds of rabbit holes talking about other stuff.”
He referenced his own history as an ophthalmologist who treated premature newborns. “If someone were to hurt that one-pound baby in the neonatal nursery, it’s a problem. That baby has rights,” he said. “But we somewhat inconsistently say that seven-pound baby at birth or just before birth has no rights.”
His remarks echoed his rejoinder to a reporter last month to ask Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, “Is it OK to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?” Congresswoman Schultz replied that there should be no legal restrictions on late-term abortion. The Democratic Party platform currently calls for taxpayer-funded abortion through all nine months of pregnancy.
Deciding when Constitutional protections and the right to life apply is the key goal to advancing pro-life legislation, Paul said yesterday.
“We just have to figure when we agree life begins,” he concluded.
The first-term senator, who will also run for re-election in Kentucky next year, has a strong pro-life voting record – as strong as anyone can in a chamber where pro-life legislation was bottled by former Majority Leader Harry Reid until this year. In 2013, he introduced the Life Begins at Conception Act.
The previous year, he had been stopped by TSA agents while en route to address the annual March for Life. “I don’t think a civilization can long endure that does not have respect for all human life – born and not yet born,” he has said.
He has, however, said he supports the use of Plan B, a potentially abortifacient method of "emergency contraception," as birth control.
His concern over the proper role of the government under an originalist reading of the Constitution has caused Paul, an outspoken personal supporter of life and marriage, to question whether the government should withdraw from marriage contracts and establish alternate legal arrangements.
Framed by Independence Hall, Paul touted his libertarian credentials as someone who could attract unconventional support to the Republican ticket, including minorities who support his opposition to militarizing local police forces. Such opposition exploded in the city during riots in nearby Baltimore.
“I see no reason why a 20-ton mine resistant ambush protection vehicle should ever roll down any city in our country,” he said on Monday. “There is no reason that the police force should be the same as the army.”
Paul also stated he would oppose reauthorization of the Patriot Act, although he conceded the votes did not exist to impeded final passage.
He was particularly incensed over the NSA's broad interception of phone calls without a warrant.
“That's what we fought the Revolution over!” he said. "Our Founding Fathers would be appalled to know that we are writing one single warrant and collecting everyone's phone records all the time.”
That still wasn’t the point, but so it goes.
See posts 38 and 52.
If it were a winning strategy then McInsain and the Romulan should have easily won their elections. But the GOPE is not known for actually wanting to win, just getting their place at the feeding trough of the US government.
Well I hope you are going to enjoy gay marriage as the law in all 57 states just like abortion is. Once the SCOTUS rules on it getting it changed will take 100 years.
The Federal Government is the creation of the State, not vice versa. The Constitution clearly articulates what the role of the Federal Government is *limited* to. This is the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8.
The current legality of abortion is due to liberal justices abusing the Constitution and finding powers for the Federal Government that do not exist.
The Constitution is silent on abortion, therefore it is a State issue.
It's a ridiculous claim to say that they Rand and Ron Paul condone tyranny at the State level. Rand is a US Sentator, and he's trying to make sure the body he is a part of is following the Constitution, that's his job.
Were he a State Senator I am sure he'd be working against abortion there, but he's not.
And, sadly, States hands are tied because of Supreme Court decisions made by justices who have an expansive view of what it permits. They are wrong.
We are talking about the arbitrary taking of human life in direct opposition to the 5th and 14th Amendments. By what logic do you believe this authority exists at ANY level of government?
I’d much rather that DC would stick to the small number of responsibilities given to it in the Constitution, and that’s it.
Yes, and to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and insuring that persons not be deprived of life without due process of law is at the core of the Constitution.
Fiscal problems (which were in no small part CREATED by abortion) don't mean a damn thing if governments have the power to declare someone a nonperson and kill them whenever it suits their purpose.
Why do you think Obamacare included death panels? The simplest way to fix impending insolvency in Social Security or Medicare is to kill the recipients.
Social Security and Medicare are both Ponzi schemes, but they were VIABLE Ponzi schemes as long as population growth continued at historical levels. The combination of the Pill and abortion put the Ponzi schemes on a course that could only end in disaster.
Our fiscal problems exist in large part because we are missing 60 MILLION PLUS people who should be working, paying taxes and spending money.
Why do you think there is all of this push for immigration "reform"? Why do you think the GOP seems so eager to let it happen even while appearing to oppose it? The answer is simple, we have tens of millions of people working in the United States who DO NOT PAY PAYROLL TAXES and legalizing them will help delay the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Anything that can be local initiative should be. We’ve lost control, because power and wealth have gravitated upward, away from ordinary US citizens.
And what you propose is to give the power to states to arbitrarily determine who is and who isn't a person.
Here is what your pro-choice-by-state approach would mean in real numbers:
In 2008 just over 1.2 MILLION babies were slaughtered in the United States. Here is a partial breakdown:
California: 214,190 abortions
New York: 153,110 abortions
Florida: 94,360 abortions
Texas: 84,610 abortions
Illinois: 54,920 abortions
So, five states which will NEVER abolish abortion if given the choice that you and others want to give them perform over SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND, or roughly half, of all abortions in the United States.
Sure states like South Dakota and Wyoming would end abortion, but these states perform less abortions in a year than the ones listed above perform in a day. Besides, all a woman would need to do is travel to a nearby abortion Mecca.
The "states rights" approach to abortion is this, "if you are willing to travel, you can kill your baby."
I’m as totally opposed to abortion as is possible. I believe that the way to win hearts and minds is on the local and state-wide level. Whenever anything gets settled by the DC crowd and the courts, it seems to go against anything ethical or even remotely conservative.
What is it that you think Libertarian's don't understand about the 5th Amendment? It seems very stratight forward and clear.
I've never heard any Libertarian say bad things about the 14th Amendment either. Are you suggesting that Libertarian's don't think blacks should have been given citizenship? I know some conservatives object to the "birthright citizenship" interpretation. Again, what are you referring to exactly. Can you provide links?
I love watching libertarians go out on a limb.
The Federal Government is the creation of the State, not vice versa.
Actually, it was created by WE THE PEOPLE, but I'll play along.
The Constitution clearly articulates what the role of the Federal Government is *limited* to. This is the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8.
Actually, Article 1, Section 8 articulates the powers of Congress, not the Federal Government. However, it also concludes with this:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This means that the Government is empowered to protect the due process RIGHTS of the citizens under the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The current legality of abortion is due to liberal justices abusing the Constitution and finding powers for the Federal Government that do not exist.
No, it's due to governments bowing before judges and not obeying their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution is silent on abortion, therefore it is a State issue.
No, it twice states that a person cannot be deprived of life without due process, this is even reiterated in the Roe opinion.
It's a ridiculous claim to say that they Rand and Ron Paul condone tyranny at the State level.
Ridiculous to whom? I honestly don't care what basement-dwelling potheads who spray paint bed sheets to hang from highway overpass promoting the Pauls' "Revolution" think is ridiculous.
Rand is a US Sentator, and he's trying to make sure the body he is a part of is following the Constitution, that's his job.
As best I can tell, he is following what his maniacal father and a Russian atheist THINK is the Constitution. Keep in mind that ALL mad men believe they are doing what is right.
Were he a State Senator I am sure he'd be working against abortion there, but he's not.
He's already made it clear that he's "personally opposed, but thinks there should be loopholes."
And, sadly, States hands are tied because of Supreme Court decisions made by justices who have an expansive view of what it permits. They are wrong.
Nonsense. The Founding Fathers were careful to insure that SCOTUS had zero power to enforce their mandates. Moreover, the opinion in Roe has already made it clear that abortion violates the 14th Amendment rights of the baby.
Id never defend Rand Paul but some pro life folks, while good intentioned, wont take yes for an answer. If abortion isnt talked about CONSTANTLY by someone then they get labeled as anti pro life. These folks are there own worst enemies.
If you want to ban all abortion in the entire USA and not leave it to the States, for the reasons you did a good job of explaining, the the only really correct way to do that is via a Constitutional Amendment.
Reversing Roe v. Wade isn't going to do it. That just sends it back to the States. Abortion was legal in some states prior to Roe V. Wade, so you are really working to create a new Federal Law. That is what amendments are for.
This was attempted in the 1970s and early 1980s several times in the Senate. The last time, in 1983 a full vote was held in the Senate, it failed to reach a majority, 49-50. Of course for it to advance to the states it needs 2/3 vote, so it wasn't even close.
Realistically do you think that such an Amendment could pass either house today? I do not.
In the last two elections, it really wasn't talked about at all by the Republicans. They NEVER made an issue out of the fact that Obama favors killing babies any time and for any reason.
Nevertheless, in this case, Rand Paul was asked about abortion and said that the states should decide. This IS NOT a pro-life position.
I agree this is the easiest, though I contend that personhood is the key and therefore no amendment is required.
Reversing Roe v. Wade isn't going to do it. That just sends it back to the States. Abortion was legal in some states prior to Roe V. Wade, so you are really working to create a new Federal Law. That is what amendments are for.
Not quite. Read what Blackmun wrote about personhood.
Realistically do you think that such an Amendment could pass either house today? I do not.
Truthfully no. I don't think there are more than a handful of Congressmen and Senators who are actually pro-life.
Most of the "pro-life movement" today is about codifying and regulating abortion. They want to use it to raise money, they don't have any actual interest in ending it. Their position is nearly identical to the position that many early 19th century Whigs held on slavery.
Rand Paul talks about abortion a lot, and it is always to undermine the pro-life movement.
Abortion was being performed at the federal level in the 1960s and before Roe.
It makes a difference who the president is and who makes federal abortion policy.
1. Life is a RIGHT.
2. Marriage is a non-enumerated power, therefore, regulated by the PEOPLE or by States, but not by the FED.
Nobody has the power to control LIFE....excepting God, of course.
Is your argument not substantially damaged by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment and its restrictions on state government's alleged power to deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law?
The Fourteenth Amendment was obviously enacted well after the Tenth Amendment and therefore limited the Tenth Amendment as necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such is the uniform analysis of conflicts between prior and subsequent enactments.
Like it or not, the Fourteenth Amendment is broad and sweeping in its scope and, as to abortion being permitted by the states after 1865, seems to be a dispositive prohibition of any power of states (to allow abortion) and another praiseworthy restriction of government powers and that amendment does not grant to the federales any new power to approve much less mandate abortion on a federal level.
Libertarians should applaud and support a constitutional provision that prohibits state governments from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
To the extent that it may be claimed that there is a conflict between the right to life of the child in utero and the liberty interest of that child's mother, it would seem fairly obvious that both mother and child are persons and that, without life, there can be no liberty or property interest. Life is the primary right.
It is no solution to do as Herod Blackmun did and define the unborn out of the human race and thereby deny the personhood and rights of the unborn for the convenience of the adults. Blackmun reached his conclusion by relying on the ancient pagan Roman law of paterfamilia under which the father (not the mother) had the sole right to order his offspring killed without due process and without interference by government up until the offspring reached the age of 21 years.
Federal officials and judges are likewise constrained by the Fifth Amendment (enacted simultaneously with the Tenth as parts of the Bill of Rights). The unborn are guilty of nothing but being perceived as an inconvenience to some related adults which is no excuse for giving the mother the sole right to order the child killed.
“Like it or not, the Fourteenth Amendment is broad and sweeping in its scope”
I hate to sound rude but like it or not the SCOTUS has upheld Roe v Wade and apparently doesn’t give a hoot about the 14th amendment. Roe v Wade is now considered “settled law” The Supremes will likely never go back on it. So that argument is moot. Look for gay marriage to be the law of the land in the near future.
I would rather see abortion and gay marriage illegal in at least a good portion of the states than legal in all of them.
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.