Encountering misconceptions on Dr. Paul's abortion positions here in Iowa.

[Driftar]

A good number of the people i've been out talking to seem unsure or even surprised when i tell them that Ron Paul is pro life. I have heard several mention seeing and liking his pro life ad on tv, however. (I myself haven't seen it, but i canceled my cable long ago). It's important for anyone calling or canvasing Iowa to clarify Dr. Paul's abortion position to conservative republicans, especially the older folks. Where the disinformation is coming from, i'm not sure. Perhaps its the whole "he's a libertarian" thing in the media. Libertarians are sometimes known as pro choice.

Also, not that i have any connections to the campaign, but would recommending they create a pro life ad attacking Romney and Cain with several quick media clips, then showing Dr. Paul's position be a good idea? example
-Romney pro choice clip (all it takes is a few seconds to make clear)
-Hermain Cain Pierce Morgan pro choice clip.
-Cain Stossel pro choice clip, cut/include Stossel and his guest seemingly confused.
-then a condensed version of the Ron Paul pro life ad currently running.

The idea would be to deticate a montoge to Cain making it clear he's wishy washy at best, and then ending the final half of the ad with a strong illustration of Ron Paul as an OBGYN with a strong pro life record. As i said, the beginning Romney clip would take all of 2 seconds since he put his foot in his mouth so badly in the kennedy debate. The focus needs to be on taking down Cain.

 

[sailingaway]

It's EXACTLY the 'libertarian' smear. I say smear because half of libertarians are pro life -- it just depends on when you think life begins. But they turn libertarian into a smear word meaning 'libertine' and Ron Paul is anything but libertine. Responsibility is paramount for freedom.

I don't think he needs an attack ad, but a direct mail flyer of HIS views and his long, long record of introducing legislation on this would be a good thing.

On commercials, it is more a matter of them being expensive, and how many pro life ones do you do? I guess it depends on how persistent the false meme is.

 

[Driftar]

You may be right about not doing attack adds. Its honestly the last thing i think of when i think of Ron Paul- Though i do think there's a difference between doing conventional attacks with a low ominious voice, and simply showing clips of canidates placing foot in mouth, then letting Ron Paul speak.

Maybe its just because i've been so frustrated lately talking to all the Cain supporters who think Cain has a strong prolife record. Everything about Cain is proving frustrating on the ground. Makes me want to scream lol.

 

[280Z28]

He introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005, 2007, and 2009, which would overturn Roe v. Wade if passed and prevent the US District Courts or Supreme Court from reviewing/overturning any state law put in place to protect the life of an unborn child.

 

[sailingaway]

He introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in 2007 and 2009, which would overturn Roe v. Wade if passed and prevent the US District Courts or Supreme Court from reviewing/overturning any state law put in place to protect the life of an unborn child.

He's been introducing stuff for decades, and actually working out positions that worry the left, they are getting all up in arms in articles about his proposition to use the federal Congressional power to determine jurisdiction of the federal courts to merely clarify that abortion questions have no jurisdiction in federal courts, so state courts will prevail. This doesn't take a constitutional amendment and the left is freaking, calling it an 'unAmerican attack on the judiciary'.

 

[Eric21ND]

They used that tactic against Rand too.

 

[kazmlsj]

Part of the problem also lies in the fact that during the last election cycle CitizenLink (an off-shoot of Focus on the Family) had Ron Paul listed as pro-choice on their candidate comparison matrix. This little gem is handed out in churches and I would bet it is the ONLY thing many of these people look at when determing who they will vote for.

I wrote them and told them their information was incorrect. Hopefully they will change it this time around.

I had several people call me (last time) and ask me if McCain was pro-life so they could vote for him with a good conscience. It is a frustrating scenario - set them straight - a good fact is that Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate last time who attended the Right-to-Life march and was endorsed by Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the Roe vs. Wade case. Norma became a Christian in 1995.

She said:
"I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/01/22/4433288-jane-roe-endorses-paul

 

[JohnGalt1225]

They used that tactic against Rand too.

Damn, Rand doesn't take any crap.

 

[Karsten]

They used that tactic against Rand too.

Rand Paul's just a better politician than Ron Paul. He knows how to run a campaign better and attack people.
If Ron Paul were to try to answer a charge like this, he'd be all over the place. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I face the facts.

 

[wstrucke]

http://www.ronpaulmyths.com/social-issues.php

 

[sailingaway]

Part of the problem also lies in the fact that during the last election cycle CitizenLink (an off-shoot of Focus on the Family) had Ron Paul listed as pro-choice on their candidate comparison matrix. This little gem is handed out in churches and I would bet it is the ONLY thing many of these people look at when determing who they will vote for.

I wrote them and told them their information was incorrect. Hopefully they will change it this time around.

I had several people call me (last time) and ask me if McCain was pro-life so they could vote for him with a good conscience. It is a frustrating scenario - set them straight - a good fact is that Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate last time who attended the Right-to-Life march and was endorsed by Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the Roe vs. Wade case. Norma became a Christian in 1995.

She said:
"I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/01/22/4433288-jane-roe-endorses-paul

Ron signed the Susan B Anthony List pledge and is 100% on their flyer they handed out at the Values Voter Summit.

 

[Agorism]

I think people are confused about his immigration position as well. They don't realize he opposed the Reagan amnesty and the opposed the McCain-Bush amnesty as well,and instead they get lost in talking points.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul is pro life. The problem is that there is a crazy fringe of the pro life movement that thinks that anybody not willing to invade Canada to stop abortion is somehow pro choice. These nutcases think Sarah Palin is pro choice. Here is their website. (Link broken on purpose)

hxxp://prolifeprofiles.com/

Look at the crap these numbskulls call "logic".

States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings.42 Neither God nor the U.S. Constitution gives to any state, county, city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion.

Using their logic we should be invading Canada since Canada has committed an "act of war" by having abortion legal. Oh, and their flat about their assertion that states cannot legalize the killing of a person who was not convicted of a capital crime. Everytime someone kills someone is self defense, unless the person they killed was an escape convict from death row, they are killing someone who was not convicted of a capital crime.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul is pro life. The problem is that there is a crazy fringe of the pro life movement that thinks that anybody not willing to invade Canada to stop abortion is somehow pro choice. These nutcases think Sarah Palin is pro choice. Here is their website. (Link broken on purpose)

hxxp://prolifeprofiles.com/

Look at the crap these numbskulls call "logic".

States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings.42 Neither God nor the U.S. Constitution gives to any state, county, city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion.

Using their logic we should be invading Canada since Canada has committed an "act of war" by having abortion legal. Oh, and their flat about their assertion that states cannot legalize the killing of a person who was not convicted of a capital crime. Everytime someone kills someone is self defense, unless the person they killed was an escape convict from death row, they are killing someone who was not convicted of a capital crime.

Wonder how they feel about Israel having legal abortion, since the ones I see who push this position are also the ones who think it is heinous to include Israel in a ban of foreign aid to EVERYONE. Funds being fungible, our foreign aid, to whatever tiny extent, makes their government funded abortions more affordable.

 

[Brett85]

They used that tactic against Rand too.

I think it's Ron's "states' rights" position on abortion that makes some pro lifers think that he's pro choice. I've even seen many people here who are pro choice say something like, "Ron is personally opposed to abortion, but he doesn't want the federal government to take away a woman's choice." Unfortunately, when said in that way it comes across like a pro choice position.

 

[sailingaway]

I think it's Ron's "states' rights" position on abortion that makes some pro lifers think that he's pro choice. I've even seen many people here who are pro choice say something like, "Ron is personally opposed to abortion, but he doesn't want the federal government to take away a woman's choice." Unfortunately, when said in that way it comes across like a pro choice position.

Yeah, but it is a false statement of his position. He doesn't want the Federal government taking unconstitutional power from the states, you can't just do it now and then, if you give up the state rights principle you end up with No Child Left Behind, Obamacare and mandated green salad, and EPA. The states define MURDER, and have different definitions on what diminished capacity or insanity is to DEFEND against murder and say it is not murder.... states determine if they have the death penalty, states make life and death decisions all the time. It is as legitimate to say that people who hold out for a Constitutional amendment are fine with having babies murdered in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky etc... TODAY. None of those states would have free abortion in the first trimester but for federal meddling.

 

[Xelaetaks]

They used that tactic against Rand too.

Owned!!

 

[Brett85]

Yeah, but it is a false statement of his position. He doesn't want the Federal government taking unconstitutional power from the states, you can't just do it now and then, if you give up the state rights principle you end up with No Child Left Behind, Obamacare and mandated green salad, and EPA. The states define MURDER, and have different definitions on what diminished capacity or insanity is to DEFEND against murder and say it is not murder.... states determine if they have the death penalty, states make life and death decisions all the time. It is as legitimate to say that people who hold out for a Constitutional amendment are fine with having babies murdered in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky etc... TODAY. None of those states would have free abortion in the first trimester but for federal meddling.

But if the issue is simply a Constitutional one for him, he should at least support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. I believe that he signed onto the Human Life Amendment earlier in his career, but I never hear him talk about it anymore. Perhaps if he advocated that and talked about that as being the ultimate solution to the problem, it would clear up any doubt that pro life voters have.

 

[low preference guy]

But if the issue is simply a Constitutional one for him, he should at least support a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. I believe that he signed onto the Human Life Amendment earlier in his career, but I never hear him talk about it anymore. Perhaps if he advocated that and talked about that as being the ultimate solution to the problem, it would clear up any doubt that pro life voters have.

He has written that it's a bad strategy and that he votes for it only reluctantly.

 

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul doesn't want the Federal government to interfere with murder laws.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.