I can't believe you are still pandering that blatant lie.
It’s no lie. They’ve both said it and never repudiated it. Ever. It’s the core problem with their false ideology.
Show us a “Right to Life Amendment” that the Pauls have ever supported that would actually require the States to protect the unalienable right to life.
And if you can find one, which I seriously doubt, it would fly in the face of their oft-repeated claim that the States should be able to allow abortion if they want.
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.
Pro-life, but partial birth abortion is acceptable?