Skip to comments.Sen. Paul: ‘We’re Not Changing Any’ Abortion ‘Laws Until the Country is Persuaded Otherwise’
Posted on 04/30/2014 9:16:48 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Paul himself has introduced the Life at Conception Act (S. 583), which would provide constitutional protection to children at the moment of conception.
Last week, Paul was interviewed at the University of Chicagos Institute of Politics by liberal David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama.
Speaking about the polarization in America over abortion, Paul said, So, instead of saying the debate is, gosh, its all life and no abortion or all abortion and no life thats where we are right now. Were nine months of gestation, or 40 weeks of gestation, with no real exceptions for life right now.
And if you say the health of the mother, in any fashion, its not really defined, can be affected, you can have an abortion at any time, said Paul. So really the question is whether or not I think the public is somewhere in the middle of those two.
And where are you, thats what Im trying to get at, Axelrod said.
I think thats where the law would be, Paul said. My religious and personal belief is that life begins at the very beginning.
Paul said, No. I think where the country is I think persuasion is part of this. I think where the country is, is somewhere in the middle, that were not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise.
Commenting on Senator Pauls remarks, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said, Obviously, no president has the power to unilaterally ban abortion, but he does have the power to make the issue a priority -- something most Americans assumed Rand Paul would do.
Regardless of the GOP's pick, conservatives expect their nominee to use the Oval Office to advance a culture of life, said Perkins in his Washington Update column. Changing minds is important, but what better way to accomplish it than using a national platform to talk about its importance?
On his website, Paul has a page devoted to Sanctity of Life, which explains the legislation he introduced.
I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion, Paul says on his website. I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.
It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution, the text states. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception.
It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life, the text states. I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.
I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion, Paul states on his website where he explains his legislation.
Rand Paul throws up the white flag of surrender before the battle even begins.
Now that is Leadership!<\SARCASM>
He has been crumbing on numerous fronts lately.
Someone has his number.
Rand Paul sucks more and more every time he opens his stupid mouth.
Paul is not a conservative
Why not Rand, if the creeps passed Obamacare against the wishes of the american people, they can pass abortion legislation in the same manner. You are wimping out dude, big time.
This statement alone makes Rand unfit for public office.
Hes just doing what the pauls do.
60% of the country supports tighter laws. Whats enough for him to do something?
The country IS being persuaded.
Abortion laws are changing EVERYWHERE on the state level.
Abortion law is not really an issue at the Federal level because their IS not Federal Law authorizing abortion. Just an overreaching SCOUTS ruling declaring a “right “ to one.
Paul is doing the usual libertarian song and dance, a lot of blah, blah, flowery baloney, and at the end of it is....the liberalism, in this case, abortion.
From the CNN transcript.
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.
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.
The main point about abortion is that it is not a federal issue. If you really want to end abortion the most effective way is through the back door: Convention of the States. A simple amendment to take jurisdiction away from the Surpreme Court and make state courts the legal terminus for this issue.
What a loser! I wonder if he could use that same logic and be against legalizing pot?
Maybe he should spend a little more time assuring everyone he's no leftwing wacko.
After all, thats what we're being governed by today and how well is that working out for everyone.
Time for some photo editing with Paul waiving the white flag.
“The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree”
He gets more like his father everyday.
Why not fight the law? Roe v Wade decision was based on lies. So fight it.
Anyone who votes for this fraud might as well write in McCain or Romney. He was hanging out with David Axelrod for God’s sake.
Of course every poll indicates that a majority of Americans are Pro-Life and an even greater majority believe that Abortion should be illegal in MOST situations. So how many more minds do we have to change. Perhaps ONE MORE on the SCOTUS? Or is it time for the other two branches of the Federal government and the fifty states to assert their Constitutional authority and ignore and even imprison the SCOTUS and Federal courts members who over step their authority.
John Marshal and his fellow ‘justices’ should have been arrested, tried, imprisoned and or executed treason after the BS power grab ruling of Marbury VS. Madison as the SCOTUS stole powers they where never intended to have.
Jefferson was absolutely correct about this abominable ruling when he said:
“You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves”
This madness has been enacted since 1803 and the last 211 years should be all the testimony necessary to decide that giving this unlimited power to lifetime appointed lawyers is just a stupid idea.
As a practical matter I’d say he was right. We can place some restrictions on abortion but the law as a whole will not change until a lot of people change their minds on abortion.
The main point about abortion is that it is not a federal issue.
You’d think a so-called Libertarian would know that.
Weasel, not a guardian shepherd of the sheep. Just because a fraction of the population scream, whine and carry on in their selfish ignorance does not mean that the majority would NOT be supportive of overturning our laws permitting murder on demand. God Bless Mississippi—
‘Until the Country is Persuaded Otherwise
And how many percent of the country must be persuaded for the laws to change, and by what criteria do you determine that?
What is the point of that irrelevant post?
The pro-life movement is winning, now is not the time to surrender and start undercutting it.
Why would Paul start undercutting the pro-life movement, is it because it is a fundamental rejection of libertarianism, and it is now winning, and that once people switch to pro-life, that they gain a new awareness of the depth and meaning of the Christian right, and conservatism and start doubting the image that social issues are meaningless to the soul and future of America?
Ever hear of Ker
If we can pass a pile of bullsh*t, useless, ineffective economically hamstringing legislation like Sarbanes-Oxley over Enron, then why can't we pass common sense regulations over Gosnell?
I think we both know the answer.
Huh? You would hope that a presidential candidate would know more about it than you.
The president is the single most important individual in abortion policy, it is why Reagan and Bush were such important figures in preserving lives, internationally.
and not much of a Catholic, either -the evil Pelosis of the world get away with what they do because of the ‘pandering’ Ryans of the world.
Not sounding vote-worthy.
I don’t understand why some folks love Rand Paul so much. The guy is weak, weak, weak on so many issues—abortion, immigration, national defense, gay marriage, etc. Do I think he’s better than a Democrat? Yeah, but he seems totally oblivious to America’s raging culture war. He’s “sympathetic” of course, but he’s not going to lift a finger to do anything about it!
Abortion is one of those deal-breaking issues for me. A small minority stand on either side of the issue. Some want abortion on demand for any reason and at any time. They even support infanticide if the baby somehow survives the abortion attempt! Others want to outlaw abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, and prosecute women who have an abortion for first degree murder. The vast majority of Americans are somewhere in between those two polar extremes, but most—I’m talking about clear voting majorities—favor all sorts of abortion restrictions.
I think Senator Paul is being disingenuous when he claims to be pro-life, but he says he won’t vote for laws to restrict abortion until “the country is persuaded otherwise”—whatever that means. No, Senator Paul. If you’re pro life, you eagerly go for any law that saves babies in the here and now! Maybe we can’t stop all abortions, but we can certainly pass laws to make them safe, legal, and rare (emphasis on rare).
The very selling point used by Democrats to protect abortion can be used against them! Safe means requiring abortion clinics to be closely regulated like any other health care provider. Legal means legal only in extreme cases, like rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Rare means just that. These are politically achievable goals right now that don’t require us to persuade many more voters than we already have on our side of the abortion issue.
Again, you don’t hold out for the perfect when you can achieve good by saving babies right here and now!
“So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, lets say, the people came more to my way of thinking, its 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.”
If Senator Paul said that, then he’s essentially no different than the Democrats. They always have some sort of excuse to demand no limits on abortion whatsoever.
We aren’t winning. There are some more restrictions; there are fewer abortions; these are positive signs but not clear enough to say the pro-life side is winning.
Roe v. Wade is nowhere near being overturned, and never will be unless a great majority of Americans stops having abortions and rejects the right to abortion in law. That is different from thinking abortion is a bad thing.
Libertarians and Popeye: "Give me the left's social agenda today, and I will gladly give you conservative economics on Tuesday".
""Rand Pauls Same-Sex Marriage Plan: Continue The Debate For Another Couple Of Decades""
In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network
PAUL: Where marriage is adjudicated, whether its at the federal level or at the state level, weve always had marriage certificates and weve had them at the state level. If we keep it that way, maybe we can still have the discussion go on without make the decision go all the way one way or all the way the other way. I think right now if we say were only going to have a federally mandated one-man, one-woman marriage, were going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now. If we were to say each state can decide, I think a good 25, 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people.
When something like 25-30% of women have an abortion in their lifetimes, and most people know and care for someone who has had an abortion, and a lot of men and women still think the pursuit of recreational sex is a primary right, and the media and entertainment industries continue to portray pro-lifers as equivalent to the Taliban, we are a long, long way from whatever the critical percentage is.
We are far from enacting a Constitutional Amendment and we are far from electing a President and a Senate who will appoint and confirm judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Of course we should vote for a president who will appoint pro-life judges and judges who think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - that doesn’t mean it will actually be overturned.
We are winning, and are on the verge of entire states with no abortion facilities.
What is the purpose of your irrelevant posts? What are you trying to instruct us in, support for Paul?
Thank you for referencing that article SoConPubbie. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at Sen. Paul and not at you.
Beware pro-lifers! While I agree with Sen. Paul in principle concerning his Life at Conception Act, politicking RINO Paul should know better that the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to legislatively address life issues. Such an issue is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.
Paul's only option to address life issues which he is ignoring is the following. He should be using his Article V power as a federal lawmaker to rally Congress to propose a Life at Conception amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification. Then, if the states should choose to ratify Paul's proposed amendment, life at conception would be a constitutionally protected right and Paul would be a hero.
Otherwise, Paul is doing election year politicking, his sights undoubtedly on the Oval Office.
It seems a little bit too convenient to claim we can’t do anything to restrict abortion if we can’t ban it outright. Senator Paul tries to pass a law that he knows has zero chance of passing, but he won’t vote to pass laws to restrict abortion? That seems like a political ploy used to fool voters when one really doesn’t want to act, much like the zillion times the House voted to repeal Obamacare.
I don’t like Paul at all, because of his open borders position.
You keep saying “irrelevant.” I might be wrong, but my comments are not irrelevant.
My point is that Paul is supposed to be a libertarian. And libertarians believe the federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with anything.
If you believe you are right, then campaign to win public support and shut up about how hard it is.
We may already be at critical mass of public support on the subject of abortion. But apparently our representatives are happy only with using the issue to whip up grassroots support, but then doing nothing tangible to change the law. Kinda like the democrats are happy with the welfare state as it is because it wins them votes.
Well my point is that presidential candidate to head the federal government, Rand Paul, knows full well that is just a lie, he isn’t an idiot, and neither are you.
The federal government has a lot to do with abortion, and not just abortion on military bases for federal employees, but in foreign policy, and their national issue influence is immeasurable.
Here is just one example:
*The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.*
What is their relevancy? What is your argument?
The Supreme Court has its power only through convention and tradition. There’s nothing in the US Constitution that says they have final say on what the constitution means. Additionally, Congress and the president abide by the Supreme Court rulings mostly because they themselves love the federal power grab! Do you think the SCOTUS could truly stand down Congress and the president if the other two branches were adamantly opposed to a ruling? Probably not. The courts get away with all sorts of nonsense because it tends to take political heat off of the president and Congress!
So, what’s my point? Congress and the president, if they had the will, could easily reign in the courts. They do have impeachment and appointment power should they have the will to use it. They could simply refuse to follow the courts, because the courts have no enforcement power. The fact that they don’t simply adds more credence to my point that Congress and the president don’t act because they secretly like what the courts do!
I will grant that some politicians support Supreme Court rulings out of fear of the chaos that could ensue if the court was simply ignored. However, I really do believe most politicians secretly like courts to act as super legislators. I’d love to see evidence to the contrary and try to keep an open mind, but if politicians were truly opposed to all the anti-constitutional nonsense spewing from the courts, why isn’t there more outrage and condemnation of the courts from our political leaders?
For a presidential candidate running to head the federal government, of course it is.
See post 41, pro-life presidents, and non-pro-life presidents, affect the life and death issue, for millions.
This is interesting watching this guy play political football. Kick it one way, then kick it another. Wont stand on principles and then wonders why he gets his ass in hot water.
True, as a practical matter, but the attempt to do so helps persuade. It’s about 50-50 as is.
Is it possible to change the word “until” to “UNLESS”?
There is a difference.
It’s off the topic of this thread, but I support federalism. Accordingly, I think homosexual marriage should be left to the states. I also think the federal government has an obligation to recognize marriages that are legally performed in a given state. In other words, it’s not the federal government’s right to tell the states what constitutes a marriage. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for marriage (there’s only one kind of marriage and it ain’t two sodomites!) in my state.
I believe federalism is one of only two ways to ultimately hold this nation together, because the states have widely diverse views. I don’t think I have a right as an Oklahoman to tell Californians how to live. I only wish they treated me with the same respect, and that’s the real problem. We have some people, primarily Democrats, who aren’t content to let people in the states decide these issues for themselves. Democrats think the federal government—or worse, a global government!—should be in charge of everything.
Federalism, of course, means I have to tolerate some states doing things I don’t like and vice versa. It’s called being good neighbors as states and not using the federal government to browbeat each other. That’s the second way to hold the nation together, and it requires an all powerful federal beast that crushes liberty.
You’re absolutely right. Paul’s law has zero chance of getting passed, and if it was, it would be promptly overruled by the courts. Senator Paul likely understands this. If he doesn’t, he’s a moron who has no business in government. If he does, he’s being intentionally deceptive and has no business in government.
A constitutional amendment is the only way to enact a nationwide ban on abortion. Any attempts less than that are highly suspect. That’s why I originally wrote that Senator Paul is being disingenuous. I don’t think he really wants a nationwide ban on abortion. I think he only acts like he does because it’s politically expedient.
It is up to the feds to make it’s own marriage rules for the military, federal employees, and in immigration, and decisions that might involve foreign policy, just as they do for abortion.