Posted on 04/30/2014 9:16:48 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)(CNSNews.com) – Although he is pro-life and believes life begins at the moment of conception, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential presidential contender in 2016, said that because of the polarization over abortion, Americans need to be persuaded on the issue and “we’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise.”
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 Chicago’s 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, it’s all life and no abortion or all abortion and no life – that’s where we are right now. We’re 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, it’s 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, that’s what I’m trying to get at,” Axelrod said.
“I think that’s where the law would be,” Paul said. “My religious and personal belief is that life begins at the very beginning.”
David Axelrod, former senior adviser to President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/NBC, William B. Plowman)Axelrod then said, “Well, would you sign or promote a law that would add –“ apparently in reference to restricting abortion.
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 we’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise.”
Commenting on Senator Paul’s 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.
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 Kerminut Gosnell?
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, 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.”
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 Paul’s 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 it’s at the federal level or at the state level, we’ve always had marriage certificates and we’ve 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 we’re only going to have a federally mandated one-man, one-woman marriage, we’re 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.
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.