Jane Roe (of Roe v Wade) to Endorse Ron Paul?

[jabrownie]

so.. how much could this help us???

honestly??!

EDIT: this is not rhetorical, it is a serious question.

Depends. Once Thompson drops out there will be a chunk of the Christian right that will be looking for a new candidate. If this spreads through the Christian news circles at that exact same time, we may pick up some support. Likewise, when Huck drops out after super tuesday, having it will boost RP's 'Christian credentials', and will help bring that portion of the party over to our side giving us a final push to help with the national convention.

On the other hand, it's just one more small piece of that puzzle; and knowledge of it needs to circulate through the Christian right....dunno if that'll ever happen.

 

[Deborah K]

you need to stop with such generalizations.

alot of Ron Paul supporters never voted before. Thats whats going on, were curing apathy here, and you cant leave out a huge group of people for fear of evangelical backlash

Please don't presume to tell me what I "need" to do, as if you've never generalized. If you read my post, I stated that perhaps if Stern listeners didn't vote before, they might now. I just don't think Ron Paul needs to go on his show in order for Stern to support him.

Like it or not, there are legions of Americans who don't think that wearing diapers while on the air and shitting in them is good humor! Ron Paul on the Howard Stern show may create more bad publicity, and the more conservative Ron Paul supporters will be turned off by it, I can assure you.

Flame away if you must, but these are the facts. If you want Ron Paul to win, you have to think strategically and look at the broader picture.

 

[Fields]

This is quite an interesting endorsement for sure. Hopefully its gets some press considering this is the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade. Plus there having that HUGE March for Life, I think thats what's called.

 

[Deborah K]

I, for one, know that I have fought staunchly against the knee-jerk reaction of many of my female friends when they allow his stance on abortion to override their interests in the defense of Liberty.

For Pete's sake! This man has delivered 4000 babies, what exactly do they expect from a baby doctor??

 

[hyoomen]

Basically, RP says abortion is a state issue, not a federal issue. According to the U.S. Constitution, he's right.

I believe this is essentially what I had alluded to. Nevertheless, as I tried to bring up in a past query to the boards (to no avail), his proposed legislation had requested a federally sanctioned definition of life as beginning at conception, which inarguably strays wildly off the course of suggesting that abortion is a state issue and plays dangerously close to the minefield that is the federal pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue.

The only potentially positive and vaguely unifying result I can see coming from this press conference is if she officially endorses Dr. Paul's stance on getting the government out of the issue altogether. If this is the case, then she had better be really strong-minded on the notion, because the press is likely to hammer her on the nuances of such a tenuous balance, alleged media blackout notwithstanding.

 

[literatim]

I believe this is essentially what I had alluded to. Nevertheless, as I tried to bring up in a past query to the boards (to no avail), his proposed legislation had requested a federally sanctioned definition of life as beginning at conception, which inarguably strays wildly off the course of suggesting that abortion is a state issue and plays dangerously close to the minefield that is the federal pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue.

The only potentially positive and vaguely unifying result I can see coming from this press conference is if she officially endorses Dr. Paul's stance on getting the government out of the issue altogether. If this is the case, then she had better be really strong-minded on the notion, because the press is likely to hammer her on the nuances of such a tenuous balance, alleged media blackout notwithstanding.

Murder is a State issue.

This should be moved to Hot Topics.

Go away troll.

 

[RCRanger03]

this should be interesting, Will it draw pro choice or pro life? McCorvey never aborted the baby the case was about and converted to christianity afterwards and is now pro life.

 

[hyoomen]

For Pete's sake! This man has delivered 4000 babies, what exactly do they expect from a baby doctor??

You may find it difficult to accept, but there are many obstetricians, midwives, pre/postnatal doctors, and others in the medical field who acknowledge, and/or condone, and/or support, and/or embrace the right of people to decide whether abortion is a justifiable option. I'd argue that Dr. Paul's stance on abortion is perhaps predicated more on his cultural/religious background than upon his professional experiences, though they have apparently been mutually reinforcing.

As an aside -- not specifically in relation to Deborah K's comment, it seems many supporters of Dr. Paul are willfully and dangerously naive that fellow supporters share identical sociocultural and religious beliefs. What unifies us, again, seems to me a belief that only a decentralized and representative government can truly account for the varied beliefs and circumstances inherent in the United States of America. Please continue to embrace everybody else by demonstrating that our love for each other's freedom can override our tendency to moralize through legislation.

 

[jblosser]

I believe this is essentially what I had alluded to. Nevertheless, as I tried to bring up in a past query to the boards (to no avail), his proposed legislation had requested a federally sanctioned definition of life as beginning at conception, which inarguably strays wildly off the course of suggesting that abortion is a state issue and plays dangerously close to the minefield that is the federal pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue.

If the National Government defines "pizza", does that do anything to the notion of what the National Government has to do with pizza, or is it only relevant to those areas where the National Government would need a definition of pizza?

The National Government's definition of life is only relevant to those areas where the National Government deals with the question of life. It doesn't create new areas.

PS: In case you didn't notice, the crossover voters are *not* coming to Ron Paul. They are staying with Obama, McCain, and Hillary. Ron Paul hasn't changed a thing he's said for years about the abortion question, but the suggestion is basically that he should hide it or only emphasize parts of it for the sake of unity in a voter base that isn't there in sufficient numbers to affect the election he's in right now. Meanwhile the parts it's suggested he de-emphasize are the parts that could easily get him a lot of the GOP vote that is out there and an option for him.

Yes, true statement: making abortion a state issue would mean some states would make abortion illegal. He has campaigned on both parts of that proposition both as a Congressman and as a Presidential candidate.

Some will vote for him because of this. Some won't. Some will vote for him just for wanting to make it a state issue, regardless of what that does to individual state laws. Based on the actual primary turnout, the former is a bigger real block than either of the latter. And again, this isn't compromising what he's been saying in order to get votes. This is saying what he's been saying.

 

[AlbemarleNC0003]

it seems many supporters of Dr. Paul are willfully and dangerously naive that fellow supporters share identical sociocultural and religious beliefs. What unifies us, again, seems to me a belief that only a decentralized and representative government can truly account for the varied beliefs and circumstances inherent in the United States of America. Please continue to embrace everybody else by demonstrating that our love for each other's freedom can override our tendency to moralize through legislation.

Thank you.

 

[hyoomen]

If the National Government defines "pizza", does that do anything to the notion of what the National Government has to do with pizza, or is it only relevant to those areas where the National Government would need a definition of pizza?

The National Government's definition of life is only relevant to those areas where the National Government deals with the question of life. It doesn't create new areas.

I comprehend what you are saying and agree. That having been said, if the national government were to sanction a particular definition of pizza, such an action would predispose most states and municipalities to hold a similar stance, don't you think? Such definitions seem to influence without coercing -- I suppose it isn't strictly unconstitutional, but then just what is the point?

PS: In case you didn't notice, the crossover voters are *not* coming to Ron Paul. They are staying with Obama, McCain, and Hillary. Ron Paul hasn't changed a thing he's said for years about the abortion question, but the suggestion is basically that he should hide it or only emphasize parts of it for the sake of unity in a voter base that isn't there in sufficient numbers to affect the election he's in right now. Meanwhile the parts it's suggested he de-emphasize are the parts that could easily get him a lot of the GOP vote that is out there and an option for him.

Your analysis of the crossover vote is interesting, but I don't know if we have sufficient results to warrant a broad statement like that. As other primary candidates drop out, Dr. Paul will see far more opportunity to attract 'crossover voters' -- once we roll successfully out of the convention, we'll have to start pandering strongly to crossovers. Especially if Clinton gets the Democratic nod.

Time will tell, of course. I just look forward to us getting on with our revolution without taking on too much excess baggage from the more distracting social issues of the past couple of decades.

 

[Sey.Naci]

In the most recent Google Alert, there was this:

21. Januar 2008 | 23:10 UhrKommentieren | Artikel drucken | Artikel versenden
Ron Paul to Hold News Conference with Norma McCorvey on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision
Ron Paul to Hold News Conference with Norma McCorvey ('Jane Roe') on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision
WASHINGTONPAUL/MCCORVEY-CONFERENCE
Aktuelle Nachrichten - veröffentlicht durch ad-hoc-news.de:

On Tuesday, January 22 ? the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision ? Texas Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul will hold a press conference with pro-life activist Norma Leah McCorvey. McCorvey, who runs Crossing over Ministry, is ?Jane Roe? of the Roe v.
Wade Supreme Court decision.

What/Who:

Announcement by Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") and Congressman Ron Paul

When:

10:30 AM ET, Tuesday, January 22, 2008
(The 35th anniversary of the ROE v. Wade Supreme Court decision)

Where:

Phoenix Park Hotel (Capitol Hill North), Georgian Room (2nd Floor)
520 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
Hotel phone: (202) 638-6900
(Note: The Phoenix Park Hotel is two blocks from Hyatt-Regency Hotel where the March for Life Convention is being held)

Note:

Open to the press. Light Breakfast will be served.

It appears to be from a site in Germany called Ad Hoc News. Is it legit? Have no way of knowing, but given the way it's written, it's possible it comes from a media release sent by the campaign (but there's nothing about it on the campaign website).

No mention of an endorsement.

 

[ddoggphx]

Booo... the abortion issue is not good for this movement. Young people are overwhelmingly pro choice.

stats?

 

[PaleoConservative]

Distracting social issue? Abortion is hardly such a thing. The number one job of the government is to protect the life of its people. Abortion is murder. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it.

Human life starts at conception. Again, no ifs, no ands, no buts about it. The right to life is our most important right and therefore must be strictly protected.

If one state legalized murder would we just sit our our asses and say "Oh, it's a state issue! The Federal government shouldn't be involved in it." I didn't think so.

 

[gerryb]

Distracting social issue? Abortion is hardly such a thing. The number one job of the government is to protect the life of its people.

Agree.

Abortion is murder. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it.

Says who?

Human life starts at conception. Again, no ifs, no ands, no buts about it. The right to life is our most important right and therefore must be strictly protected.

Says who?

If one state legalized murder would we just sit our our asses and say "Oh, it's a state issue! The Federal government shouldn't be involved in it." I didn't think so.

I think this is a ridiculous statement to base your argument on.

States do handle the prosecution of murder. Some have a death penalty for some offenses, others do not. The federal government does not(to mean should not) control the prosecution of, or definition of, crime.

 

[mongoose]

This is the only issue I don't agree w/ Dr. Paul on, but it's not a deal breaker for me. I am pro-choice because I think the world is already overpopulated. More importantly, it is filled with children cannot be cared for properly by their (probably single) mother. This also will probably mean someone else who grows up in poverty and will need government assistance.

I came to this conclusion a long time ago, but then heard Stern say the same thing a few years back, not that it matters.

 

[break4me]

That is why Dr. Paul is so great..again.

Although, his personal belief is against abortion. He understands that it should be a states' right and not up to the federal government.

 

[Rhys]

She's been anti abortion for years and she's not the most famous of people, so it's hard to tell what kind of coverage there will be, but possibly at least Dr. P will make it back in the news a little.

 

[hyoomen]

Distracting social issue? Abortion is hardly such a thing. The number one job of the government is to protect the life of its people. Abortion is murder. No ifs, no ands, no buts about it.

Human life starts at conception. Again, no ifs, no ands, no buts about it. The right to life is our most important right and therefore must be strictly protected.

If one state legalized murder would we just sit our our asses and say "Oh, it's a state issue! The Federal government shouldn't be involved in it." I didn't think so.

Chanting the mantra "no ifs, no ands, no buts about it," doesn't actually qualify in the arena of scientific inquiry, which is, last I checked, the basis of medicine. I applaud the somewhat unique and refreshing take on the abortion issue as related to the libertarian ideal of protection of human life, but I don't think this is as clear cut as you, Dr. Paul, or others seemingly indicate.

BTW, a number of states have legalized murder (of self-aware, self-sustaining human adults) in the form of the death penalty and many people seem to be fine with the idea that the federal government doesn't mandate otherwise.

Here's to living our lives as we see fit because the government can't.

 

[colecrowe]

...