Rand Introduces the Life at Conception Act:

[cheapseats]

Romney never had a pro-life bill or ran on one

Exactly, and he still lost. So how exactly did taking a passive and inconsistent position on abortion help Romney?

Romney's position EVOLVED to expressly Anti Abortion . . . when Republicans were trying to OUT-RIGHT each other.

...Former Fact Checker columnist Michael Dobbs created a detailed list back in 2007 that details Mitt Romney’s flip-flops on the abortion issue. There is no doubt that the Republican’s stance has evolved.

In terms of Romney supporting a ban on all abortions, we covered this issue in a previous column, noting that the candidate currently supports exceptions for victims of rape and incest, and that “the former governor has shown near perfect consistency on this issue, with one notable exception [the 2007 debate comment].”

Romney’s campaign acknowledged for our previous column that the Republican candidate has unquestionably changed his position on abortion since running for U.S. Senate in 1994 — the year he said during a Planned Parenthood fundraiser that he supported abortion rights, and that he had felt that way since 1970.

Romney basically stuck to that position while running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, promising to uphold the status quo on abortion rights. He lived up to that promise but also declared an antiabortion stance midway through his term. Critics have suggested he was eyeing a presidential run at the time.

Romney has said time and again during his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns that he is “unapologetically pro-life” but does not oppose abortions in instances of rape and incest or when the procedure is necessary to protect the life of a mother. This is the same position he proclaims to this day and which his campaign reiterated in its ad last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...7bd00dc-1a3d-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html

 

[James Madison]

Yes, because I understand that life isn't the only criteria necessary to have the Right to Life. Of course, I do.

I don't believe that either.

But under our legal system it is a crime to murder another human; spiders, insects, flowers, and wombats do not share the same protection.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Stupid, stupid non sequitur. Obviously half the population is of the opinion that it isn't murder and will never be convinced otherwise, so framing it such does nothing to change the minds of anyone on the fringe.

Beyond that, abortion is so much more clandestine than murder that the two cannot and never should be compared. An abortion can occur without anyone other than the mother ever realizing the life existed. This is not true of murder. I'm very much morally opposed to abortion, but equating it to murder serves no purpose.

Who cares who knows the person that died, or who cares about them? Completely irrelevant. Its cold-blooded murder.

Not if they are already infringing on your rights, especially to life, and you are only responding with force, in kind.
Eviction theory is not uncommon among a large segment of libertarians and if you actually poll libertarians I think you would find that most are opposed to using the feds to prevent abortion.

Walter Block did a pretty good job intellectually creating and defending that theory but I still think its completely wrong. I reject his assumption that you don't make an implied contract with the fetus when you have sex. The assumption leads Block to accept a number of wacky conclusions, even to the point where abandoning a child after its birth would be acceptable if nobody was willing to take care of it. Granted, Block is probably correct that this wouldn't often happen but it doesn't matter, the very conclusion is absurd. Block, however, doesn't make this a "Litmus Test" issue like some radicals do. In fact, Block tried to say that the "libertarians" who didn't vote for Ron Paul when they could were not really libertarians at all. THAT he was correct about.

What if Rand is against Cuomo in a general? A radical-prochoicer.

Ugh. Do. Not. Make. Me. Think. About. Our. Idiot. Governor. In. The. Freaking. White. House.

I already hate this guy with a passion, and I haven't even seen him in charge of the US military yet... I live in NYS as well, most totalitarian state in the US....

Oh yeah, great point, Matt. Why do we want majority support on issues. All that matters is that we are a Republic so all rights will be protected regardless of majority opinion.

That's why drugs are legal, coerced taxation doesn't exist and... oh wait? Oh, you need the majority to pass laws you say? Whats that? Congress votes on laws based on the opinions of their constituency (when there isn't too much lobbyist push back) to get reelected? Fuck that nonsense. If you don't think we need to grow our numbers, you are an idiot.

The majority can impose its opinion by force. But that's all they have. Brute force. THey can sugarcoat it in euphamisms, but the strong liberty defender will not let them. Tell them they are supporting murder, theft, exc. and that therefore they are despicable, disgusting people.

I don't always go that route but when I get ticked off online I do...

No, it's not a messaging issue... even with a GOP supermajority in congress they will never ban abortions and will never touch it. Whoever spouts this nonsense is doing it so to please evangelicals. No pro-lifer has actually done anything in congress.

Because they don't care. Rand is better than that.

Abortion clinics are going to be a thing of the past soon. That's what adamant pro-lifers don't seem to understand. It's one thing to be against abortion morally, but to effectively stop it or even realize its happening is going to become increasingly difficult.

I don't know if it will be in the form of a Plan C pill or a little magic wand you hold over your stomach, but in the very near future abortion will be DIY, at home and there won't be a damn bit of recourse even if you had massive support for anti-abortion measures.

So abortion pills already exist apparently: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/111368/the-rise-diy-abortions#

We can just make those illegal too! Like meth and crack. Shut it down.

Unlike Meth and crack, abortion pills actually victimize somebody. That said, I tend to agree that making it illegal won't do much. That's why its not a litmus test for me. I'll vote for a pro-choicer who wants to end murder BY Washington DC over a pro-lifer who wants to murder from DC in a heartbeat. Even still, it should be illegal, and those that we happen to catch (Maybe they are reported?) should be imprisoned for life, or with enough evidence, sentenced to death.

why even talk about this when the economy sucks and that's the winning issue? not abortion?

it's bad strategy.

Memo to Matt: Facebook generation do not want to ban abortion and this will turn them off and drive them away to Democrats. It's that simple.

It ain't gonna matter.

Good. I was having some concerns about Rand on some of these issues, but it's a relief that he supports this type of bill. I won't ever vote for any candidate who supports the murder of innocent human beings and doesn't want to stop it. I'm glad that Rand stands for both life and liberty.

I don't think single issue on abortion is a good idea.

It doesn't really seem like it's worth it to get elected if you have to support a mass slaughter that's five times worse than the Holocaust in order to get votes.

Its not quite like that. First of all, the Holocaust also featured mass torture. Secondly, abortion is done by a bunch of different people; one mass murderer did the Holocaust. Finally, its extremely hard to enforce anti-abortion laws. Even if it doesn't stop a single abortion, if it ensures that one percent of people who do it are brought to justice, its worth it. That said, ending murder by DC, if nothing else, is more immediately important. The non-Paulian wing of the GOP needs to take the plank out of its own eye since all of them want to murder far more people than anyone who has an abortion. Heck, even Rand does have a little plank to take out of his own eye considering he voted for sanctions which led to the death of thousands. Granted, it was a political maneuver, but still. Ron Paul would have never done that...

I think we're all blowing up a bit too much over this guys. lol. Nobody is talking about this anywhere. I trust Rand to defend his position effectively like George Bush did. He didn't wage a war on women.

George Bush didn't give a crap. Rand Paul is actually a decent human being (Last paragraph I wrote about sanctions aside... its so hard to be a good man in DC...)

There are more than 218 GOP House members who do not support abortion - or say they don't - but they will not a pass anything to ban it or even remove it from the purview of the Supreme Court and they've had the opportunity at various times to do so over the last 40 years, including complete control of the House, Senate and Presidency between 2001-2006.

Yep.. its manipulation.

I think you're going a little overboard on this. The same people who disagree with Rand on this bill are also going to disagree with him when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting state bans on abortion. The only way Rand could get the vote of some of these radically pro choice people is if he actually came out in favor of abortion rights, and if he did that I and millions of pro life voters would simply stay home on election day.

I'd vote for him, but I'd be upset...

I don't know that "Millions" vote based on abortion alone. I don't even... And I'm pretty radically pro-life at the state level.

Arguing against a bill because it doesn't have any chance of passing is a pretty ridiculous argument. There's no chance at all that a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve will ever be passed, but Ron Paul introduced that bill every single year he was in Congress, and he was always an advocate for ending the Federal Reserve. Was it a mistake for Ron to push for a bill ending the Federal Reserve when it had absolutely no chance of ever passing?

Because Ron Paul is a hero.

What about a Constitutional amendment banning abortion? Do you think Rand should be opposed to that as well?

No, but why talk about the impossibility? Its not a core point. If asked, support it.

Then he would just get the "pro choice for states" label from Santorum and others. That's what he had to face in the GOP primary back in 2010. I don't think Rand would even be a U.S Senator right now if he didn't make it completely clear that he's 100% pro life.

Santorum's an idiot.

Then that would even be a different position than Ron Paul took on the issue, as he also introduced a Human Life amendment when he was in Congress. Ron always used the rhetoric of saying abortion should be a state issue, but the bills that he introduced showed otherwise.

Can you prove this? I thought almost for certain Ron wanted it left to the states. That would be ironic considering Ron Paul was the one (Not personally, of course) that convinced me it wasn't smart to give the Federal government the power in the first place.

 

[T.hill]

Life doesn't necessarily have an unequivocal definition, but biologically a fetus at any stage can be said to be living. The harder question is whether or not the fetus is human, which is a subjective premise in itself. We get our rights from our humanity, so a fetus's right to life is dependent on whether it is human or not.

 

[juleswin]

Because it's what Rand actually believes in. And if people are going to base their vote for a political candidate solely on abortion and vote against any pro life candidate, I hope our entire country just goes down in flames.

I get it now, he can play politics with other issues which dont exactly conform with the freedom movement but on this one, he will risk everything by doing what he really believes. This is one of the most divisive issues in american politics, he knows he will get a lot of people very angry. Just look on this site and see what happens to abortion threads, nobody ever leaves with a different opinion and everybody has a strong opinion.

Sorry but whether or not he believes it, this is a really idiotic move on his part. He should stayed away from it

 

[Brett85]

Romney's position EVOLVED to expressly Anti Abortion . . . when Republicans were trying to OUT-RIGHT each other.

Not hardly. He was running commercials late in the campaign about how he was pro choice in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Not hardly a hardcore pro life position. The exit polls showed that there was a steep drop off in evangelical turn out in states like Virginia, probably partly due to Romney's weak stand on abortion and his Mormon faith. (The latter being unfair.) I don't see how Rand taking socially liberal positions is going to help evangelical turnout and help him get elected. Keep in mind that George W. Bush won in 2004 because he turned out evangelical voters. Elections are all about turning out your base to vote for you. There's millions of evangelical Christians who just stay home on election day, perhaps because they don't believe that either major candidate is serious about ending abortion, or perhaps because today's "pro lifers" take an inconsistent position when they support defending life in the womb but support a foreign policy that leads to the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't believe that either.

But under our legal system it is a crime to murder another human; spiders, insects, flowers, and wombats do not share the same protection.

Our legal system has nothing to do with why murder is wrong.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't see how Rand taking socially liberal positions is going to help evengelical turnout and help him get elected. Keep in mind that George W. Bush won in 2004 because he turned out evengelical voters. Elections are all about turning out your base to vote for you. There's millions of evengelical Christians who just stay home on election day, perhaps because they don't believe that either major candidate is serious about ending abortion, or perhaps because today's "pro lifers" take an inconsistent position when they support defending life in the womb but support a foreign policy that leads to the deaths of millions of innocent people around the world.

That was 2004. This will be 2016. Do you know how rapidly in decline evangelicals are in America? Apparently you don't.

 

[itshappening]

The founders were never bothered about abortion, in fact they admired the practice in the native indian population and no one was prosecuted in the colonies for having abortions or carrying them out. There was one early case in CT where it was botched leading to the mothers death and the doctor was charged but he was never convicted.

 

[anaconda]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

Rand knows it will fail. He's trying to brand himself as the new conservative and capture the base. He will spend the next three years coming to the center on this. He will say, "Well, I tried." Then get behind the issue as a states' rights issue. Or something like that.

Having said that, does Rand intend to introduce a bill to establish the "Federal Department of Abortion Police?"

 

[Brett85]

That was 2004. This will be 2016. Do you know how rapidly in decline evangelicals are in America? Apparently you don't.

There's not a decline in evangelicals, just a decline in people who attend church on a weekly basis.

 

[RockEnds]

The correct position is to "leave it to the states" and try and remove it from the perview of the Supreme Court.

If IA want to ban abortions that's up to them but don't force Maine too... He will lose the general election in a landslide running on this. Change in strategy needed.

Iowa doesn't want to ban abortions. Iowa religious conservatives want to ban abortions. Don't forget Obama first won here. It's a purple state. The religious conservatives are actually a small faction with a big voice.

 

[cheapseats]

Not hardly. He was running commercials late in the campaign about how he was pro choice in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Not hardly a hardcore pro life position...

Not hardly a libertarian-leaning position, either.

Your impassioned belief makes you WANT "life begins at conception" to be a PLUS in electoral politics, but it isn't.

 

[Brett85]

Having said that, does Rand intend to introduce a bill to establish the "Federal Department of Abortion Police?"

No. I don't think people undertand that you can have a federal law that bans abortion that doesn't actually create a federal abortion police. Ron and Rand both support personhood laws that ban abortion nationwide, but still allow the states to determine what the exact penalties are for abortion and allow them to enforce these laws.

 

[Brett85]

Not hardly a libertarian-leaning position, either.

Your impassioned belief makes you WANT "life begins at conception" to be a PLUS in electoral politics, but it isn't.

It's a plus to take a consistent position and be seen as honest. When George W. Bush was President, you would hear Americans from all over the country say, "you may not agree with him, but at least you know where he stands."

And the libertarian position is to ban abortion, as it isn't possible to defend liberty without defending life. Ron Paul has stated that numerous times. It's a wonder why the liberals here ever supported him.

 

[supermario21]

Also, something to consider. No matter how much Rand does here, Santorum will always be the evangelical golden boy. Rand could get this passed and they'd still like frothy more.

 

[anaconda]

Is this a federal ban on abortion? If so this will lose him a massive amount of votes from independents, including possibly mine.

There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

 

[Brett85]

The founders were never bothered about abortion, in fact they admired the practice in the native indian population and no one was prosecuted in the colonies for having abortions or carrying them out. There was one early case in CT where it was botched leading to the mothers death and the doctor was charged but he was never convicted.

Do you have a link that proves that?

 

[Brett85]

There is no federal ban on murder. Why should there be one for abortion? This is a states' issue. Shame on Rand.

If a state government ever tried to legalize murder, the federal government would prevent them from doing so. There are federal protections for those who are already born.

 

[anaconda]

No. I don't think people undertand that you can have a federal law that bans abortion that doesn't actually create a federal abortion police. Ron and Rand both support personhood laws that ban abortion nationwide, but still allow the states to determine what the exact penalties are for abortion and allow them to enforce these laws.

Interesting point you make.