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

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Pro-Life Rand Paul Wins by Landslide in Republican Primary in Kentucky
Catholic Online ^ | 5/19/10 | Deacon Keith Fournier

Posted on 05/18/2010 5:57:46 PM PDT by tcg

The Major news sources have all called the Republican Primary in Kentucky and Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, has soundly defeated Trey Grayson for the Republic Party nomination for a seat in the US Senate.

By the time the votes are all counted it could be a near landslide for the first time Senatorial candidate. Dr. Paul is a family man who has been married to his wife Kelley for 19 years. They have three sons. He is a doctor, and not a politician. That is part of the appeal he had for the voters of Kentucky.

There will be pundits parsing the meaning of this election all evening. They will discuss the meaning of this strong showing. Rand Paul certainly was not the preferred candidate of the Republican Party establishment. He had the backing of the broad coalition being called the "Tea Party" movement.

He has never run for public office. He all but eschewed the traditional fundraising model, opting instead to utilize the internet in the manner that his father used the internet in his outsider bid for the Presidency.

While the pundit class pontificates, those who recognize that the foundation of all human rights is the fundamental Right to life should take heart from Rand Paul's position in defense of the dignity of every human life from conception to natural death.

Here are his own words:

"I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion.

(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: 2010midterms; abortion; gop; ky2010; liberaltarians; prolife; prolifevote; randpaul; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 next last
To: EternalVigilance
On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.
I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“
I know we’re all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn’t go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order
Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008
51 posted on 05/19/2010 12:25:57 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The power to do so isn't there.

That's strange. How could there not be the power to do something that the Constitution explicitly requires them to do? Especially when it is the very thing that the Founders of this country said government exists to do?

52 posted on 05/19/2010 12:26:43 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: tcg

He’s only half way there. The real contest comes in November. It should prove interesting.


53 posted on 05/19/2010 12:27:04 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcg

He’s only half way there. The real contest comes in November. It should prove interesting.


54 posted on 05/19/2010 12:27:04 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Ah, so you and Ron Paul are going to exclude the Supreme Court from fulfilling their primary sworn duty, which is to protect the unalienable rights of all. That’s one of the most dangerously stupid ideas that ever came down the pike.


55 posted on 05/19/2010 12:28:29 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

MDN: You also stated on Kentucky Tonight that: ‘I think that it’s a mistake to legislate morality and health from the state.’ We’ve talked about healthcare and privacy. You’re pro-life. Are there any exceptions to that?

RP: Yes, in the case of the mortality of the mother.

MDN: What about instances of rape or incest or where the outcome may not be death, but severe medical problems for the mother or child. Do you think that in these cases the decision should be left to the government rather than the families?

RP: In cases of rape, trying to prevent pregnancies is obviously the best thing. The morning-after pill works successfully most of the time. Ultimately we do better if we do have better education about family planning.

With partial-birth abortion, there were five women who testified that it threatened their life. It wasn’t completely true in all cases. They were non-viable babies. They were babies with awful genetic mutations that were not going to survive, and I tend to think we let nature take its course.

http://www.middlesborodailynews.com/view/full_story/5661743/article-US-Senate-hopeful-Rand-Paul-visits-Middlesboro?instance=home_news_lead

Pro-life, but partial birth abortion is acceptable?


56 posted on 05/19/2010 12:29:13 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Still not quite up on how this whole Constitution thing works are you...

Think of a Right to Life Amendment being enforced via Art 6 Para 2. The way freedom OF religion, the right to keep and bear arms, etc... are supposed to be applied to the States. It's the way the system was designed.

Trying it your way only gives credence to the same extra-Constitutional crap we're trying to get rid of.

57 posted on 05/19/2010 12:30:01 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Even the SCOTUS is limited by the Constitution. You would give them more power than is their due.

How very liberal of you...

58 posted on 05/19/2010 12:31:30 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

So no abortion at all? Even spontaneous? Should the Mother be tried for murder if she miscarries?


59 posted on 05/19/2010 12:32:03 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The Constitution clearly states as its ultimate purpose: "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY."

It clearly prohibits the killing of innocent persons in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

And the Fourteenth Amendment clearly enjoins upon the states not only the sworn obligation to protect all innocent persons in their jurisdiction but that each and every one of them be provided with the equal protection of the laws.

These Constitutional facts clearly expose your position to be the patent nonsense that it is.

60 posted on 05/19/2010 12:36:27 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Even the SCOTUS is limited by the Constitution. You would give them more power than is their due. How very liberal of you...

Well, I guess so if that means asking that they do the main thing they were placed on the bench to do, which is to protect and secure the God-given, unalienable rights of the people.

61 posted on 05/19/2010 12:37:54 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Back then, life back at birth. It's why they didn't fill out a "life" certificate, but a "birth" certificate.

Again, look up the legal definition of a person. Can a fetus sign a contract? Run a business? Buy property? Vote? All of those do into the legal definition of "person".

You'd need an AMENDMENT to extend legal protections to the unborn.

But no, you'd rather fight against a viable approach and continue to allow abortions on demand.

Nice going Ace...

62 posted on 05/19/2010 12:39:41 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
What if they rule dogs are people? Trees? Bacteria?

Don't be any more of a moron than you've already exhibited.

63 posted on 05/19/2010 12:40:47 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Back then, life back at birth. It's why they didn't fill out a "life" certificate, but a "birth" certificate.

You'd need an AMENDMENT to extend legal protections to the unborn.

You're laying out what is essentially a pro-choice position. Which is no surprise. That's where the Paul ideology ultimately leaves you if you try to defend it.

But no, you'd rather fight against a viable approach and continue to allow abortions on demand.

The Paul position is the Gerald R. Ford position, in detail. Over 37 years, that is the position that has proven not to be viable. No surprise, since it is not moral or constitutional, and it gives every politician political cover for inaction.

64 posted on 05/19/2010 12:51:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
What if they rule dogs are people? Trees? Bacteria?

They already treat dogs better than they treat certain classes of people. If you did to a dog what they do to little children every day in the abortuaries, or what they did to Terri Schindler Schiavo, you'd go to jail.

If you don't believe in protecting the God-given unalienable right to life of every single person in this country, how are you any different than them?

65 posted on 05/19/2010 12:54:47 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You're laying out what is essentially a pro-choice position.

By purposing a "life begins at conception" Amendment? Only in your bizzaro world. :-\

66 posted on 05/19/2010 1:21:34 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If you don't believe in protecting the God-given unalienable right to life of every single person in this country, how are you any different than them?

I am for protecting the Right of all individuals. I also believe in following the process instead of shoe-horning in definitions willy-nilly.

It isn't a living document. Amend the language, don't change the meaning.

67 posted on 05/19/2010 1:23:28 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I am for protecting the Right of all individuals.

No, you're not. You're defending the Paul position, which is that states' "rights" are superior to individual unalienable rights.

Not very well, but you're trying.

68 posted on 05/19/2010 1:29:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
It isn't a living document. Amend the language, don't change the meaning.

Pray tell what is at all amorphous about this language:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

69 posted on 05/19/2010 1:31:48 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
By purposing a "life begins at conception" Amendment? Only in your bizzaro world.

Only in "bizzaro world" would you accept something that doesn't require the States to do their sworn duty under the Fourteenth Amendment and protect all persons equally as being "pro-life."

70 posted on 05/19/2010 1:34:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You're defending the Paul position, which is that states' "rights" are superior to individual unalienable rights.

Which isn't Paul's position. Or mine.

71 posted on 05/19/2010 1:44:51 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You still haven’t looked up the legal definition of “person” yet have you.


72 posted on 05/19/2010 1:45:29 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
that doesn't require the States to do their sworn duty

Yer' just a big ol' ball of stupid aren't you.

73 posted on 05/19/2010 1:46:18 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Hey, you are who claims he is pro-life.

I only showed you that to him, there are exceptions and to him, partial borth abortion amounts to “letting nature take its course.”

Rand Paul’s words, not mine.


74 posted on 05/19/2010 1:50:09 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tcg

I salute this stand but cant go along with much else from th Paul gang. Glad he won because its a slap at McConnel/Cornyn


75 posted on 05/19/2010 1:52:14 PM PDT by rrrod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
No. That's not the whole quote and you know it.

A non-viable fetus that is a serious health risk to the mother?

Hardly a blank check for abortion on demand.

But please feel free to continue to misrepresent the facts.

76 posted on 05/19/2010 1:55:39 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You still haven’t looked up the legal definition of “person” yet have you.

I don't need a lawyer or a politician to tell me what a person is. It's self-evident.

But Blackmun, the author of the Roe majority opinion, said in the opinion that if the fetus is a person that they are "OF COURSE" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Is the fetus a person?

77 posted on 05/19/2010 1:58:24 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Yer' just a big ol' ball of stupid aren't you.

Your repeated personal attacks are nothing more than a clear indication to honest observers that you are losing the debate.

78 posted on 05/19/2010 2:00:00 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Which isn't Paul's position. Or mine.

Sure it is.

79 posted on 05/19/2010 2:00:56 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Like I said, his words are right there for all to see.

But, feel free to explain just what made these births a “non-viable fetus that is a serious health risk to the mother”

Isn’t that pretty much what has been said about the Zero’s position on partial birth abortion where the premature fetus was allowed to languish for some 45 minutes until it finally expired?

And, if you really wish to back up Paul’s stand, why not supply statistical evidence of just how many partial birth abortions fall into this category of “non-viable fetus that is a serious health risk to the mother?”


80 posted on 05/19/2010 2:01:18 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Is the fetus a person?

A human fetus is alive. The Constitution needs to be Amended to protect a fetus as a Person.

That's how these things work.

81 posted on 05/19/2010 2:22:18 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Your repeated absurdities already lost you the debate. This is just a free-for-all at this point.


82 posted on 05/19/2010 2:23:06 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Sure it is.

Absurdity case in point...

83 posted on 05/19/2010 2:23:40 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
But, feel free to explain just what made these births a “non-viable fetus that is a serious health risk to the mother”

If I were an OB-GYM, I might be able to. I'm a Sys/Net Admin. I could probably puzzle it out if I saw the patient files, but I don't have access to any of that.

Do you?

84 posted on 05/19/2010 2:33:58 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
A human fetus is alive. The Constitution needs to be Amended to protect a fetus as a Person.

So your answer is "no," the same as the Roe Court.

85 posted on 05/19/2010 2:36:24 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Your repeated absurdities

What, like the words of the Fourteenth Amendment, the words that you and your idols the Pauls pretend aren't in the Constitution?

86 posted on 05/19/2010 2:48:44 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Nope, but I am not who is making the claim that he is 100% pro-life, am I?


87 posted on 05/19/2010 5:47:27 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You can only come to that conclusion if you use the same logic that led to the current state of the Commerce Clause.

Face it. You aren't really a Conservative are you. You don't give a piss about the Constitution.

88 posted on 05/19/2010 6:12:32 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
So you'd force a woman to give up her life to give birth to a child that won't live?

That's kinda screwed up logic there...

89 posted on 05/19/2010 6:13:29 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

And yet, you continue to pretend that the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments do not exist. You must be working from the Ron Paul Constitution. It seems to have those, among other important portions, excised out.


90 posted on 05/19/2010 6:17:37 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Our founding documents speak for themselves.

And they make my case, not yours.


91 posted on 05/19/2010 6:24:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

No, the screwed up logic is thinking I’d fall for that lame rhetoric.

Less than 1% of all abortions have anything to do with mothers health, rape, incest or such.

It’s lame to bill him as “100% pro-life” when he says there are exceptions.

I’ll bet you never even knew he supported exceptions, did you?


92 posted on 05/19/2010 7:00:35 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Paulies don’t get it. Once an amendment is passed and ratified, it IS part of the constitution, whether we agree with it or not.


93 posted on 05/19/2010 7:02:28 PM PDT by DakotaRed (What happened to the country I fought for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

No, they don’t. Mainly because they don’t want to.

Because of their loyalty to a man, and their commitment to a particular ideology, they can’t see what is as plain as the nose on their face...or, as the Founders put it: “self-evident.”


94 posted on 05/19/2010 7:05:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed

Push ‘em hard enough and many of them will in the last pass claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, by the way. It’s something to see.

As if that would matter to anyone who believes in natural rights, in the core principles of America. The Right to Life of all persons was always God-given and therefore unalienable, with or without the Fourteenth Amendment. But they just don’t care about that.


95 posted on 05/19/2010 7:09:26 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
And yet, you continue to pretend that the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments do not exist.

I'm doing no such thing. That is just your fevered imagination.

96 posted on 05/20/2010 6:40:40 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DakotaRed
Most reasonable people would assume that terminating a non-viable pregnancy to save the life of the Mother is an exception. Why lose both if you can save one?

You'd have them both die.

Nice going...

97 posted on 05/20/2010 6:42:44 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Then how can you miss the plain sense of the words?


98 posted on 05/20/2010 8:54:23 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’m not. You are.


99 posted on 05/20/2010 9:36:46 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III, Alarm and Muster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

How? The Fourteenth Amendment clearly enjoins the protection of innocent human life and the equal protection of the laws on all the States. Even Judge Blackmun admitted such. How could he not? It’s so obvious even a child could understand it.


100 posted on 05/20/2010 10:43:02 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150 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