Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul on abortion: “We’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise”
Hotair ^ | 04/23/2014 | AllahPundit

Posted on 04/23/2014 10:35:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Via MFP, an eyebrow-raiser from yesterday’s chat with David Axelrod(!) at the University of Chicago. David Corn and Mother Jones are out with another gotcha piece on Paul this morning citing his (mild) criticism of Reagan in the past for not cutting spending more as president, but this clip is more interesting, I think. Knocking the Gipper for not doing enough to shrink government is Libertarianism 101; even mainstream conservatives who venerate him will grudgingly concede that they wish he’d done better before quickly adding that he did what he could with a liberal Congress. And needless to say, no one’s going to stand onstage next to Paul at the 2015 primary debates and rip him for criticizing deficit spending. It’s okay to criticize Reagan as long as you’re respectful and as long as you’re doing it from the right.

So forget the Mother Jones piece. What about this exchange with Axelrod, though? MFP headlines the clip, “Rand Paul: Relax, I’m not going to ban abortion” — which does seem a fair interpretation of what Paul’s saying. (Maybe it’d be fairer to say, “Rand Paul: Relax, I’m not going to ban abortion anytime soon.”) He notes that he believes that life begins at conception and points out, correctly, that the public takes a middle-ground approach to abortion in most polls. They support giving women a right to terminate in the first trimester, oppose giving them that right in the third trimester, and usually take a skeptical “if necessary” view of the second trimester. If anything, says Paul, current law is far too biased towards the pro-abortion view since it effectively allows for terminations in the third trimester too, which most Americans believe should be illegal. Axelrod, though, keeps pressing: What does that mean we should or could expect from President Paul once in office? Paul’s answer: Not much. Certainly not an all-out ban; there’s still much persuading to be done before most Americans come around to that view. Presumably, if public opinion changes while he’s in office, he’d consider a ban. If it doesn’t, presumably he wouldn’t. Maybe he’d try at least to bring the law in line with opinion by banning terminations in the third trimester, but judge for yourself at the end here whether you think he’d push on that.

You can see what he’s trying to do with this answer. He’s pitching himself as a “different kind of Republican,” someone who can appeal to young voters and minorities in a way that no one else in the party can. One splashy way to do that is to position himself as a pro-life but modest, incrementalist candidate on abortion; not only will it make the left’s “war on women” demagoguery a bit harder but it might also reassure libertarians, not all of whom are as pro-life as the Pauls are, that he hasn’t completely sold out to conservatives in running for the GOP nomination. Meanwhile, though, he’ll be lambasted for this by whoever ends up as the social-conservative champion in the primaries — maybe Huckabee, maybe Santorum, maybe (most dangerously of all for Paul) Ted Cruz. If abortion is morally equivalent to slavery, as many social cons believe, then Paul’s approach is intolerable. He’d have a moral duty to work with the legislature and the courts to ban it, whatever the political consequences. Paul can sustain an attack like that from Huck or Santorum, I think, because they’re niche candidates who aren’t competing with him for the wider grassroots conservative vote. I’m not so sure he can sustain it from Cruz, who is competing. The question for Cruz is, how forcefully does he want to push the “ban at all costs” position? It might give him an opening against Paul in the primaries but it’d also make things easier for Democrats in attacking him in the general. Paul is right about the polling on this. It’s purely a question of how the GOP wants to deal with the reality of it.

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru notes that it’s hard to call Paul wishy-washy on this topic when he’s the lead sponsor of the “Life at Conception Act.” Right, but it’s one thing for a legislator to float a bill and another for a president, with his bully-pulpit power to set agendas, to push for it. The question raised by the clip, I think, is what sort of priority abortion would be for Paul as president. He’s right that it’ll take lots of persuasion to build congressional support to act. Would a “different kind of Republican” be willing to do that? Many of the not-so-different kinds haven’t been in the past.

Update: Matt Lewis responds:

Shorter Rand Paul: First you win the argument, then you win the vote – http://t.co/FskwxLOMOD

— Matt Lewis (@mattklewis) April 23, 2014

Yeah, but what if you’ve spent 40 years making the argument against abortion and the public still supports terminations in the first trimester? Should you ban it anyway, assuming you have the votes in Congress, or do you bow to public opinion? That’s what makes the Paul clip interesting. The public opposed ObamaCare in 2010 and that didn’t stop Democrats from passing it anyway. They’ve paid a price for that politically, but Nancy Pelosi herself said recently that it was all worth it. Would the next GOP president agree?

Update: Good point by John McCormack. One reason Paul is respected on the right is because he’s a man of principle. Agree or disagree, but when it comes to libertarian priorities like shrinking government or surveillance, he fights hard for what he thinks is right whether or not the public agrees. Why the difference in abortion?

@allahpundit @mattklewis True: Paul's position on FP/cutting spending is public opinion be damned.

— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) April 23, 2014

Update: Almost forgot — here’s what Paul said not long ago about another hot-button social issue.

[Q:] Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

[A:] I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

Not unlike Mitch Daniels’s “truce” comment on social issues. If Rand’s trying to build the party by pushing his core issues, namely, smaller government and protecting civil liberties, a strong push on abortion or gay marriage might alienate some of the voters he’s trying to reach. Again: How much of a priority would social issues be to his administration?

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; libtardian; queermarriage; randpaul; randpaultruthfile; ronpaultruthfile
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

1 posted on 04/23/2014 10:35:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

???

So the opposite of what happened with Obamacare?

We just love to play nice while the left plays for keeps with their agenda.


2 posted on 04/23/2014 10:38:40 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

He’s clearly not in touch with what’s going on.


3 posted on 04/23/2014 10:42:25 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

...and the hits just keep comin’...


4 posted on 04/23/2014 10:49:42 AM PDT by Sans-Culotte (Psalm 14:1 ~ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Isn’t the country already 2/3 opposed to abortion? What is the Paulista waiting for? He’s going Todd Akin.


5 posted on 04/23/2014 10:51:18 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Not changing any of the laws”?

So he’s against parental or spousal notification/consent, waiting periods, mandatory full disclosure including ultrasound, and sanitation that would be good enough for pets?


6 posted on 04/23/2014 10:53:51 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Entropy is high. Wear a hat! And carry an umbrella.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sans-Culotte

None of us are surprised by this guy anymore. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.


7 posted on 04/23/2014 10:56:03 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1Jn4:15;5:4-5,11-13;Mt27:50-54;Mk15:33-34;Jn3:17-18,6:69,11:25,14:6,20:31;Ro10:8-11;1Tm2:5-6;Ti3:4-7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sorry Rand, but if you were truly a Christian, this would not be the approach you would be taking.


8 posted on 04/23/2014 10:57:09 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rand Paul is apparently just another “moderate” in the mold of Dole, McCain & Romney.

Are Repubs just abnormally stupid? Reagan won because he had the courage of his conservative convictions, and he advocated those convictions unashamedly. Modern Repubs aren’t bright enough to break that code.


9 posted on 04/23/2014 10:58:22 AM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

He’s clearly not in touch with what’s going on.


And he’s another weasel politician without strong moral values.


10 posted on 04/23/2014 11:08:59 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
"Isn’t the country already 2/3 opposed to abortion?"

No, that's the point. He's just expressing reality. In a country where the Supreme Court has already ruled that abortion is a right, and there is a majority in favor of that, no President is going to change it.

11 posted on 04/23/2014 11:13:15 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Libertarianism is a mental disorder.

(with apologies to Michael Savage for modifying his phrase.)


12 posted on 04/23/2014 11:16:24 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Really,Rand?

Then, how did we get gay marriage laws all of a sudden?


13 posted on 04/23/2014 11:16:52 AM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: demshateGod

No he isn’t. Most of the country already is persuaded otherwise, and has been for a while. He is just already eaten up with Beltway disease.


15 posted on 04/23/2014 11:28:43 AM PDT by Psalm 144 (FIGHT! FIGHT! SEVERE CONSERVATIVE AND THE WILD RIGHT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
CNN-Poll 58-percent-of-americans-oppose-abortion-in-all-or-most-circumstances

That's one of the most useless polls I've ever seen. The 58% includes 38% who say that abortion "should be legal in few circumstances" -- what the heck does that mean? Without clarifying the scope of "few," the poll is meaningless...

16 posted on 04/23/2014 11:35:58 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

Which abortion laws do you want to change a the federal level?


17 posted on 04/23/2014 11:37:07 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: VRWC For Truth

In other words, it’s just as easy to look at the poll results and say “78 percent say that abortion should be legal in all or some circumstances.” “Few” is the key to the poll, and “few” is about as vague as it gets.


19 posted on 04/23/2014 11:38:19 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: afsnco

Runt Paul is a libtardian , just like his old man.

You can read the libtardian platform and see where he is on the issues.


23 posted on 04/23/2014 11:40:54 AM PDT by Beagle8U (Unions are an Affirmative Action program for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: afsnco

“Are Repubs just abnormally stupid? Reagan won because he had the courage of his conservative convictions”

Please list the abortion laws that Reagan changed in the 8 years that he has president. Thanks.


25 posted on 04/23/2014 11:41:58 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: VRWC For Truth

What part of “I’m not a ‘Paulista’” don’t you understand? I haven’t said a damn thing supporting Paul. I think his statement here was idiotic — of course we should be “changing . . . the laws,” and of course much of the country has already “been persuaded” on pro-life issues. All I did was criticize an idiotic CNN poll. And you, for some reason, responded with name-calling and insults.


28 posted on 04/23/2014 11:48:24 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: SeekAndFind

When Rand speaks of public opinion, he is talking about people willing to get out and vote. You want to change the abortion laws in this country? Vote in people to the House and Senate that are willing to change the law. Make sure the Supreme Court has a clear cut group of Judges that will respect the voting public.

No President has the power to stop abortions. He can push legislation that will severely affect them through funding and when they are allowed to occur. He can be an advocate for changing the perception of abortions. You need to change the law and that comes from the Legislators and the courts.

He clearly states his opinion of abortion:

“He notes that he believes that life begins at
conception..”

Rand would not be an Obama type president. He respects the Constitution...Obama thinks he is the King of America and can legislate with his phone and a pen. Obama clearly believes he can ban laws just because he doesn’t like them.
It isn’t Constitutional and is very dangerous to our country.


33 posted on 04/23/2014 12:00:08 PM PDT by BlessingsofLiberty (Remember Brian Terry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: SeekAndFind

Change WHAT laws?

What we are trying to change is a SCOTUS ruling which found a perverted “right” to abortion on demand.

No elected representative ever cast a vote on it.


36 posted on 04/23/2014 12:05:13 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth

And in the words of Jim Robinson, “please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience.”


37 posted on 04/23/2014 12:06:37 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: BarnacleCenturion

With a Dimmo congress that whole 8 years? None. But he did propose a Constitutional amendment which would have outlawed abortion except to save the mother’s life. That’s far more courage than Rand Paul is showing. He’s given up without a fight. He’s already tacking left and he hasn’t even received the nomination. He obviously don’t care about the traditional Repub base.


39 posted on 04/23/2014 12:15:19 PM PDT by afsnco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

KNOCK IT OFF!


40 posted on 04/23/2014 12:17:27 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
In a country where the Supreme Court has already ruled that abortion is a right, and there is a majority in favor of that, no President is going to change it. The President has ALL the power in regard to overturning Roe. It's the President that nominates Supreme Court justices.

And, Paul is grossly ignorant if he doesn't know the majority believes that abortion should be banned in all cases except in cases of rape, incest and the mother's life being endanger. That has been true in polls for 40 years.

And, since the states would decide the issue, more than half of them would ban abortion immediately in most cases.

Paul also fails to acknowlege a 15% or so shift in favor of the pro-life position over the past 20 years and that the younger generation is the most pro-life generation.

\ Paul is either completely ignorant of the subject matter or is really pro-life.

41 posted on 04/23/2014 12:29:02 PM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
The 58% includes 38% who say that abortion "should be legal in few circumstances" -- what the heck does that mean?

Other polls show it means that the majority (55-60%) favor only allowing abortion in the case of rape, incest and the mother's life being endangered.

42 posted on 04/23/2014 12:31:02 PM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
Never accept the premise of your opponent's argument.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

What Rand Paul is not pointing out about the so-called right to an abortion is the following. The states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect having an abortion as a right. This so-called right was not only wrongly legislated from the bench by activist justices imo, but the legislative powers that they usurped were 10th Amendment-protected state powers.

43 posted on 04/23/2014 12:32:13 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlessingsofLiberty
You need to change the law and that comes from the Legislators and the courts.

That would have been done decades ago in half or more of the states if not for Roe.

The only question on the issue that matters in regard to Paul is, can he be trusted to put judges on SCOTUS that would overturn Roe. I'm not convinced that he would.

44 posted on 04/23/2014 12:32:51 PM PDT by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

President Reagan was a hero and an inspiration to the pro-life movement.

While everyone (except Rand Paul) knows about Reagan’s aggressive Cold War actions of the early 1980s, some forget that he wrote a book on abortion, published in 1983.
https://encrypted.google.com/books/about/Abortion_and_the_Conscience_of_the_Natio.html?id=bNknAAAAYAAJ

Reagan describes his efforts here. “”Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion-efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of “freedom of choice,” have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.””

One success is mentioned here.
“Moreover, Reagan’s putting the Mexico City Policy during his presidency to cut off taxpayer-funding of groups that promoted and performed abortions in other nations has saved literally millions of lives in the decades since.”


45 posted on 04/23/2014 12:37:43 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: BarnacleCenturion
Which abortion laws do you want to change a the federal level?

Lots, but mostly we want a passionate pro-life president that will do everything he can to sell and promote life to America, a candidate's campaign and positions signals what he will use the world's greatest bully puppet for, and what he won't.

There is abortion at the federal level in regards to foreign policy, military hospitals and other federal health law and hospitals, budget items, all kinds of things, we do not plan to elect people who's politics go against ours, because you want to pretend that a president has no effect on them.

47 posted on 04/23/2014 12:44:08 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VRWC For Truth
Isn’t the country already 2/3 opposed to abortion?

Two thirds of the country are opposed to late term abortions, or abortions as a form of birth control.

Maybe one third of that two thirds is opposed to any abortion for any reason or at any time, including the morning after pill.

Any discussion of what can and can't be done about abortion at the ballot box needs to start with those numbers.

48 posted on 04/23/2014 1:06:15 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
we want a passionate pro-life president

Could a president be much more pro life than GWB was??? How many abortions was he able to stop, other than by the force of personality (which I do not at all demean)?

49 posted on 04/23/2014 1:09:18 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

The Bushies are not Conservatives.


50 posted on 04/23/2014 1:14:13 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson