Skip to comments.Rand Paul Maintains Pro-Life Position Despite 'Thousands of Exceptions to Abortion Ban' Comment
Posted on 04/26/2014 10:45:28 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who stirred up controversy after saying that there can be "thousands of exceptions" to a ban on abortion, has clarified that he is still a pro-life politician.
"What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions," Paul told CNN on Tuesday.
"You know, I'm a physician and every individual case is going to be different and everything's going to be particular to that individual case and what's going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother," he stated.
The senator has introduced a "Life at Conception Act," which upholds traditional religious beliefs that human life begins at conception. Despite his proposed bill, he admitted that many Americans aren't ready for such a drastic change.
"My intention is to bring it forward and to have a healthy philosophic and moral discussion over what we should do, what the state should be involved with, when should life be protected. And I don't think we're ready yet, our society, maybe, to change any laws, but I think it's worthwhile having the discussion if we can keep it from being too much of a flippant of a discussion over this that concrete this and that," Paul explained.
Paul spokesman Doug Stafford explained to LifeNews, however, that the senator's statements were not fully understood by the media.
"Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother's life," Stafford clarified.
As to Paul's comments that he doesn't expect to see a full abortion ban in America any time soon, the spokesperson insisted that that is just looking at the reality of the situation.
"[Paul] was trying to say that while he believes in all of these things and will keep pushing them, he won't succeed soon because the country isn't there yet. I think public opinion polls show that. The country is at best split, and we don't yet have a culture that fully supports life," Stafford added.
Caffeinated Thoughts, a conservative news and commentary website, argued that even if the senator's comments were misunderstood, his stance on pro-life issues is still troublesome.
"If you believe in 'thousands of exceptions' you are not pro-life. If you believe that life begins at conception and believe in ANY exceptions other than perhaps the life of the mother then there is something seriously flawed with your worldview," wrote Shane Vander Hart, founder and editor-in-chief of Caffeinated Thoughts.
"Some say he was taken out of context, but even so, it was not a well-thought out statement. It was politically flawed. It made him look like a flip-flopper."
At the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., last September, Paul revealed that he struggles with doubt in his Christian faith.
"My faith has never been easy for me," Paul said, "never been easy to talk about and never been without obstacles. I do not and cannot wear my religion on my sleeve. I am a Christian but not always a good one. I'm not completely free of doubts. I struggle to understand man's inhumanity to man. I struggle to understand the horrible tragedies that war inflicts on our young men and women."
Rand Paul is morphing into Mitt Romney with a different “nuanced” position on every policy position for whatever audience he is in front of.
Rand is against abortion, except when he’s for it.
Gee, almost sounds familiar.
What we have now is a situation where any woman can forego the use of contraceptives and use abortion for birth control all the way up until and during the time she is in labor. That situation is horrific.
It would be easy enough to make a law that no woman can use abortion as birth control any time after an embryo can reasonably be expected to be aware—any time after the brain starts to form, 3 weeks after conception. Or even to say that abortion is not acceptable birth control, ever, so that if she wants to avoid pregnancy, she’ll actually have to take proactive measures to prevent implantation.
The law can be written in such a way that it doesn’t spell out in detail every single possible exception, while being specific that the only allowable exceptions are for when the woman’s life or physical health are seriously endangered. None of this “for the health of the mother” bunk, since that can be used to excuse any abortion.
There are quite a few common-sense measures that can be taken to curb abortion. I think it’s great that some abortuaries are closing down rather than making the effort to adhere to the same health and safety standards that regulate actual health care facilities. (We can only surmise why they choose to close instead of meet standards—maybe inspections would reveal that many of them are committing after-birth infanticide, and they don’t want to risk prosecution.)
Why don’t you all read what he said instead of what somebody infers that he meant from what he said?
If you have an exception for the life of the mother - and all pro-lifers I know support that exception - then there will be thousands of those exceptions. Read what he said. He talked about specific situations that might threaten the mother’s life, he specifically limited his comments to life of the mother situations. So yeah, I am as pro-life as it gets, and I will say clearly, there would be thousand of exceptions.
I need Jack Nicholson to scream at you, “You can’t handle the truth!” This is the truth - and the fact that the American public isn’t ready to fully support life (which just frustrates me) is also the truth. Why start dumping on the guy for telling the truth about a very important issue? Would you rather a Clintobama type person blow the smoke of “there will be no exceptions, and the country is ready for a total ban now” up your skirts?
No, I am not a Rand supporter; but when you twist a man’s words into something he didn’t say in order to help justify your dislike of the man, you’re no better than the dims.
Good grief this guy’s turning into a flake before our very eyes.
As I said on another thread:
Rand Paul is Mitt Romney with bad hair.
I think Rand Paul knows he's never going to win over social conservatives no matter what he says so why bother. He wants a coalition of every last voter who voted for Romney plus younger, libertarian-leaning former Democrats unhappy with Obama and the economy.
If he can keep Romney's voters and swing some younger Obama voters, he can win without social conservatives.
Gee, the same line rino's have been spewing since Bush I.....Didn't work then or with Doyle, McCain or Romney but it is supposed to magically work for Rand Paul.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Hey, why not do what has been proven to work....GET YOU BASE EXCITED WITH A CONSERVATIVE even a sort of one like Bush II.....
Maybe, just maybe the agenda is not about winning....if that is the case then you have to ask why.
Younger, libertarian-leaning voters wanted nothing to do with Dole, McCain or Romney.
Paul has turned out to be a real nut case. No real principals, just swerving
all over the place, like a drunk driver.
The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.
I wonder if Rand Paul smokes dope. People who smoke dope can’t think straight; they lose their ability to reason and have good judgement.
It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. There are many ways we can work toward this ultimate goal and items we can hope to accomplish in the near term. I strongly oppose any federal funding of abortion and will attempt to stop the flow of tax dollars to groups who perform or advocate for abortion.
Trying to portray Paul as anything but pro-life is beyond spin and into lying territory.
Rand Paul is moving left on all social issues, not just abortion, but also gay marriage and the party platform.
When he was campaigning for Romney he explained his goal to libertarian audiences, as wanting to change the GOP platform.
Now we have this new position of being not exactly pro-life and his adopting this anti-conservative position on the party platform.
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “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 dont want to be festooned by those issues.”
I have to take a walk to stop my head from spinning. Another ADHD-type policy pronouncement from Rand Paul?
You mean he really is a drug addled, baby killing packophile (who wants smaller government) Libertarian?
That proves how totally clueless you are about who votes and how those voters break down.
Conservatism is based on the social conservative vote, without it, the democrats own everything.
The tea party members are more religious and socially conservative than the GOP voters. Social conservatism and conservatism go hand in hand, social liberals, are almost all liberals, with a few being rino republicans.
Why don’t YOU read what he said?
Rand Paul backed away from a pro-life position. For all his rambling and evasion, his “flexibility” was what he was expressing, Paul is another Mitt Romney on abortion.
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.
I would say that after birth, you know, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.
I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one-pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I’ve been there at the end of life.
And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.
BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.
So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.
This goes for the same with the end of life. I do think life ought to be protected to the end. I don’t believe in, you know, officially euthanizing people, but I also think there is some privacy at the end of life also, and we make difficult decisions all the time on resuscitation, how long to extend medical treatment, and a lot of these are medical decisions.