Dr. RON Paul's life at conception act

[itshappening]

Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of banning abortion without even an exception for rape and incest. He won 49 states in his reelection bid. The American people weren't any more pro life back then than they are now.

And? Tip O'Neill had no interest and Congress has no interest in restricting abortion. Even when the GOP controlled the House, Senate, Presidency and Supreme Court for 5 long years they did nothing to restrict abortions and they're not going to do it in the future either.

 

[GregSarnowski]

If Ron had gotten the nomination or even made a serious run at it, the media would've made sure this was a huge issue, along with everything else that could be used to push the liberal victimization narrative.

 

[Carlybee]

Ron never won the nomination. He didn't get close!

When the choice is between a Democrat and a GOPer promising a national ban on abortion by stretching the 14th amendment there is only one choice they will make and it's not going to be us.

Yep and they are already hammering the GOP on the "war on women"...it will just quadruple that effort and make Rand look like Rick Santorum's brother from another mother. IMO.

 

[jmdrake]

I guess I'll have to actually go read it. But I'm not sure what the point of Rand supporting a bill like this does if it doesn't actually do anything.

You have to go back and re-read Roe v. Wade carefully to get what's going on. The SCOTUS stated that state abortion laws could be upheld if there was a compelling state interest like protecting human life. Then it went on to say that "we don't know" when human life begins, but that "science may change that." Since that time there have been many advances in pre-natal medicine/science (3D ultrasounds for example) and we know a lot more about pre-natal life now then we did back 30+ years ago. But abortion law hasn't really changed with respect to that. The way I see this is an effort to say to the court "re-read your own ruling in line with modern science and say with a straight face that Roe v. Wade as written still makes sense." All the arguments about "back alley abortions" etc really ignore the fundamental question of R v W which is "Is it or is it not a person?" Overturning Roe v. Wade would not mean a national abortion ban. Someone wouldn't have to leave the country to get an abortion, just their particular state.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He will have to drop it if he became the nominee.

America will not vote for a president who wants a national ban on abortions from New York to California. Not a chance. No matter how strongly you feel about the issue he will have to drop it or risk losing in a landslide akin to Goldwater.

It would never get through Congress either so it's actually pointless.

Not even when the GOP controlled everything between 2001-2006 did they pass anything like this

That says more about the GOP than it does about Rand....

I actually don't agree with him on this, because the 14th doesn't apply (Although people, the unborn aren't citizens) and so its a state's rights issue under the 10th. And NOTHING will make me accept a Federal usurption of power. All that said, I'd rather Rand go a little too far in the pro-life direction than to do so in the pro-choice direction. A constitutional error is not as serious as an error in interpretation of the NAP. I'd rather a nationwide ban than the status quo.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron never won the nomination. He didn't get close!

And Rand's doing everything he can to change that. But that doesn't change my point.

When the choice is between a Democrat and a GOPer promising a national ban on abortion by stretching the 14th amendment there is only one choice they will make and it's not going to be us.

Except Rand isn't promising a national abortion ban. Of course if you want to write the dems propaganda for them I can't stop you. That said, as i said this will probably play well if Florida and may work fine in other battleground states. If Rand flip flops....he'll be like McCain and Romney and he'll lose just like them as well. Not a winning strategy, no matter how many times you play it out in your mind.

 

[Brett85]

You have to go back and re-read Roe v. Wade carefully to get what's going on. The SCOTUS stated that state abortion laws could be upheld if there was a compelling state interest like protecting human life. Then it went on to say that "we don't know" when human life begins, but that "science may change that." Since that time there have been many advances in pre-natal medicine/science (3D ultrasounds for example) and we know a lot more about pre-natal life now then we did back 30+ years ago. But abortion law hasn't really changed with respect to that. The way I see this is an effort to say to the court "re-read your own ruling in line with modern science and say with a straight face that Roe v. Wade as written still makes sense." All the arguments about "back alley abortions" etc really ignore the fundamental question of R v W which is "Is it or is it not a person?" Overturning Roe v. Wade would not mean a national abortion ban. Someone wouldn't have to leave the country to get an abortion, just their particular state.

Yeah, but when Rand was actually speaking about this bill he made a statement that the bill would "outlaw abortion once and for all." It sounds to me like it goes further than simply overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He came around to this because the Federal government HAD impermissibly overturned Roe v Wade, to get the topic from the federal courts back to the states. He ultimately became convinced it would take federal action to undo federal action. But he has no question in his mind, even most remotely, that a life doesn't begin at conception.

I've got no question that life begins at conception either. Doesn't mean that the Federal government has any authority to define it as such.

Its not really something I'd make a huge issue out of but constitutitonally I believe that its a state issue. And this coming from someone who believes it should be a capital offense. Most people who believe it should be a Federal issue probably don't believe it should be a capital offense.

 

[Brett85]

Yep and they are already hammering the GOP on the "war on women"...it will just quadruple that effort and make Rand look like Rick Santorum's brother from another mother. IMO.

Yeah, the Rick Santorum who wants to legalize drugs and get the government out of marriage. But I guess people will just ignore those issues and focus solely on the abortion issue, since apparently that's the most important issue to people.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, the Rick Santorum who wants to legalize drugs and get the government out of marriage. But I guess people will just ignore those issues and focus solely on the abortion issue, since apparently that's the most important issue to people.

Well, yeah, some people on both sides. It makes more sense for a pro-lifer to emphasize it as opposed to a pro-choicer, but yeah...

Anyone who seriously compares Rand to Santorum is an idiot. Rand is actually conservative. Santorum is a baffoon.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, but when Rand was actually speaking about this bill he made a statement that the bill would "outlaw abortion once and for all." It sounds to me like it goes further than simply overturning Roe v. Wade.

If that's the case...

 

[itshappening]

And Rand's doing everything he can to change that. But that doesn't change my point.



Except Rand isn't promising a national abortion ban. Of course if you want to write the dems propaganda for them I can't stop you. That said, as i said this will probably play well if Florida and may work fine in other battleground states. If Rand flip flops....he'll be like McCain and Romney and he'll lose just like them as well. Not a winning strategy, no matter how many times you play it out in your mind.

A flip flop on this will be necessary for Rand should he succeed in getting the nomination and every consultant, pollster and professional campaign person will tell him to flip flop or go down in flames like Goldwater. I suspect Rand will choose to drop it, swallow his pride and perform the flip flop and continue hammering the Dems on the economy, jobs and Obamacare instead of spending months defending a personhood bill to the lamestream media

 

[sailingaway]

Ron never won the nomination. He didn't get close!

When the choice is between a Democrat and a GOPer promising a national ban on abortion by stretching the 14th amendment there is only one choice they will make and it's not going to be us.

Ron polled excellently in the general election, because the people who are really pro abortion 'rights' tend to care more about other things.

 

[jmdrake]

A flip flop on this will be necessary for Rand should he succeed in getting the nomination and every consultant, pollster and professional campaign person will tell him to flip flop or go down in flames like Goldwater. I suspect Rand will choose to drop it, swallow his pride and perform the flip flop and continue hammering the Dems on the economy, jobs and Obamacare instead of spending months defending a personhood bill to the lamestream media

Right. Because the more recent defeats of McCain and Romney count for nothing. Whatever. You think you know everything. I'll leave you to your thoughts. FTR Goldwater was pro-choice. He went down in flames largely due to fear mongering over the idea that he would cause a nuclear war. People's fears over WW III >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's concerns over abortion.

 

[itshappening]

Yeah, the Rick Santorum who wants to legalize drugs and get the government out of marriage. But I guess people will just ignore those issues and focus solely on the abortion issue, since apparently that's the most important issue to people.

You underestimate the power of CBS, ABC, NBC to define the narrative in a campaign. They do it every 4 years like clockwork and when they're finished with Rand will make him look absolutely crazy. They will dissect every line of this bill and trot out experts, lawyers, doctors etc to explain what this means and then you'll have the professional left making their noises, women and feminist groups... it will go on and on for months. When they're done with Rand no woman will vote for him in a swing state so he can't win the White House, ergo he will drop it

 

[sailingaway]

You underestimate the power of CBS, ABC, NBC to define the narrative in a campaign. They do it every 4 years like clockwork and when they're finished with Rand will make him look absolutely crazy. They will dissect every line of this bill and trot out experts, lawyers, doctors etc to explain what this means and then you'll have the professional left making their noises, women and feminist groups... it will go on and on for months. When they're done with Rand no woman will vote for him in a swing state so he can't win the White House, ergo he will drop it

They are going to call him fringe. So the question is if he can get out an attractive picture of who he is through the noise. If he can't they can define him, as they did Ron, to many who don't question media.

So its no use worrying about giving them ammunition, they make it up if they want it. They knew the truth of the newletters. They didn't care.

 

[itshappening]

Right. Because the more recent defeats of McCain and Romney count for nothing. Whatever. You think you know everything. I'll leave you to your thoughts. FTR Goldwater was pro-choice. He went down in flames largely due to fear mongering over the idea that he would cause a nuclear war. People's fears over WW III >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's concerns over abortion.

Romney and McCain became their parties nominee so they succeeded. They lost to Obama not because they flip flopped on issues which they used to win the primary with or whatever it was simply because Obama was a better campaigner who promised more goodies and was a more appealing candidate than them two idiots. McCain promised to bomb Iran and Romney made stupid comments about 47% of the nation.

 

[sailingaway]

Romney and McCain became their parties nominee so they succeeded. They lost to Obama not because they flip flopped on issues which they used to win the primary with or whatever it was simply because Obama was a better campaigner who promised more goodies and was a more appealing candidate than them two idiots. McCain promised to bomb Iran and Romney made stupid comments about 47% of the nation.

Romney and the GOP lost us and many grassroots because of corruption in the primaries and at RNC.

47% didn't lose Romney anything he ever had.

 

[jmdrake]

Romney and McCain became their parties nominee so they succeeded. They lost to Obama not because they flip flopped on issues which they used to win the primary with or whatever it was simply because Obama was a better campaigner who promised more goodies and was a more appealing candidate than them two idiots. McCain promised to bomb Iran and Romney made stupid comments about 47% of the nation.

Barry Goldwater lost because he was out campaigned and didn't adequately respond to TV commercials that made it seem like he wanted to start WW II. "Not flip flopping" had nothing to do with it. Not unless you actually believe Goldwater wanted to start WW III.

Edit: Why Goldwater lost.

 

[GregSarnowski]

Ron polled excellently in the general election, because the people who are really pro abortion 'rights' tend to care more about other things.

There is polling of an extremely unlikely hypothetical and then there is reality. The reality is Ron would've been hammered on the issue by the media and his approval ratings would have suffered greatly.

Your claim that the pro-choice crowd doesn't really care about their beliefs runs directly counter to the results of the last election. The ridiculous "War on Women" narrative was extremely successful for the Dem-Op media. Nearly every women I talked to (and most left-of-center males) was taken in by it hook line and sinker. And all they had to go on was some uncouth statements from fringe candidates. Imagine how hard the push will be when the actual GOP nominee calls for a national ban.