Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[Brett85]

All Rand has to say in a primary is that he is 100% pro-life and point to his record. If he wins the nomination he then has to make it clear he supports exceptions or he will have the opposition and PACs hammering him with rape victims on tv in swing states.

If he came out in support of exceptions he would be labeled a flip flopper, because he's already on record as saying that there shouldn't be exceptions for rape and incest.

 

[itshappening]

You don't get it. Flip flopping itself causes an onslaught of ads. It always does. Romney's flip flop on healthcare cost him the election. I'm certain of that. You were right about one thing in this thread and one thing only. Ken Buck lost in part for waffling on abortion. And now you're suggesting Rand do the same thing! Stake out a defensible position the first time and you don't have to worry about it. Re-frame the debate as to "Why create two victims if you don't have to" and allow for "Plan B" and you can win enough independents without resorting to the kind of flip flopping that can cost you significant parts of your base whether you wish to admit it or not.

Like I said no one is going to win on an outlawing abortion platform. Every candidate, every Republican who is nominated, will have to make clear exceptions because that's what their polling tells them to do when they get to the General election.

 

[itshappening]

If he came out in support of exceptions he would be labeled a flip flopper, because he's already on record as saying that there shouldn't be exceptions for rape and incest.

He doesn't have to be explicit about it in the primary process and it's better to be called a flip flopper than run on an outlawing abortion platform and face certain loss. That's the reality of the situation. Abortion is untouched for 5 decades. Americans will not vote to overturn it and unless you make clear the exceptions the democrats will make it the central issue of the campaign. do we really want that? no, no one does.. and no GOP nominee has tried it because it's a losing issue.

 

[Brett85]

He doesn't have to be explicit about it in the primary process and it's better to be called a flip flopper than run on an outlawing abortion platform and face certain loss. That's the reality of the situation. Abortion is untouched for 5 decades. Americans will not vote to overturn it and unless you make clear the exceptions the democrats will make it the central issue of the campaign. do we really want that? no, no one does.. and no GOP nominee has tried it because it's a losing issue.

But he's already been explicit about it in the past. He's on record as saying that there shouldn't be exceptions for rape and incest.

 

[Brett85]

Let's keep in mind that Ronald Reagan was pro life without exceptions and won 49 states when he was up for re-election.

 

[itshappening]

And what his polling didn't account for is how many conservatives would (and did) stay home. Romney lost on turnout. Also I'd bet that a Romney like candidate wouldn't win the GOP nomination in 2016. The "We have to support candidate X because only moderates can win" argument is starting to wear thin.

No GOP nominee has ever run on outlawing abortion and it's not going to happen because it's a losing issue and becomes the central issue of the campaign when we would rather have things like the economy, jobs, deficit and debt as the central issue.

 

[itshappening]

Let's keep in mind that Ronald Reagan was pro life without exceptions and won 49 states when he was up for re-election.

And what law did he introduce outlawing abortion?

He didn't do anything. Like every other GOP nominee and president because it's settled and a losing issue.

 

[itshappening]

But he's already been explicit about it in the past. He's on record as saying that there shouldn't be exceptions for rape and incest.

I haven't seen him seriously questioned on it but a quick search reveals he signed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act which includes an exception for rape, incest and if the life of the woman is in danger

 

[Harald]

Here we go with the "unelectable" meme already. Just because that's how you feel, it doesn't mean the whole rest of the country feels that way.

I mostly care about my nightbours and friends that I have to go and convince them to caucus in 2016. That particular position will make my work much harder. Though I live in WA state and our votes in general don't matter anyways, since usually it is 60 to 40 in democrats favor

 

[Neil Desmond]

Life began a very long time ago - billions or thousands of years ago, depending on context (scientific or theological, respectively). Either way, long before any of us was born or around (at least as far as I'm aware). To say that life is beginning at conception (or some later point, which makes even less sense) seems to imply to me that there was stage before the beginning point, regardless of whether that point is conception or some other arbitrarily selected one, which is flawed. It's not "beginning" at conception, it's just merely the formation of a new human being.

Also, the problem is not abortion (as in the elective termination of a pregnancy) per se, but rather the automatic inclusion of killing a human being (the unborn child involved) with the procedure of terminating a pregnancy. I'm not trying to say that things can be done, I'm just trying to distinguish between 2 different things. I get into this on my blog post here: http://neiltalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/resolution-for-abortion-issue.html

A total ban on abortion is not necessary, just recognition that at the point of conception it is a new human being and therefore ought to be recognized as such and treated the same as any other human being.

 

[robert68]

And what law did he introduce outlawing abortion?

He didn't do anything. Like every other GOP nominee and president because it's settled and a losing issue.

You mean the objective of the "pro-life" cause is to actually get results?

 

[tsetsefly]

ughh, if he becomes the republican nominee, expect this to be used... I disagree with him on this issue btw, liek i disagreed with Ron Paul on this issue...

 

[anaconda]

Leave it up to the states =S.

This would be the right approach. Also, I thought he wanted the GOP to be competitive on the west coast and New England. So much for that I guess.

 

[anaconda]

Will be a good market for back room abortions and coat hanger sales. Possibly a TSA style abortion police.

 

[XTreat]

I wish abortion had never been invented. Easily my least favorite topic of policy discussion. And honestly I really don't care either way.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Will be a good market for back room abortions and coat hanger sales. Possibly a TSA style abortion police.

That's just stupid, I'm sorry. There are so many more effective forms of contraception out there now, than before Roe vs. Wade. Perhaps what will happen is A, people will stop using abortion as their preferred method of birth control and B, will figure out amazingly enough that having sex may result in a pregnancy and if they don't want to be responsible for their actions, then don't do the thing that causes it.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

and "ultimately outlaw abortion once and for all". That is pretty scary quote. Earlier in the script he was using "abortion-on-demand" which can be interpreted as abortion still possible when life of a woman is in danger. The ending is horrible and makes Rand Paul unelectable in general election.

Yep! - Rand just went tap dancing on his dick while wearing golf shoes. He has a future as a senator, but he will now NEVER be POTUS!

The thing is this is absolutely a losing position in a general election and a fight not worth fighting, however it would win us a lot of pro-life votes in a primary. it's a tricky balancing act because Rand Paul could be hurt after a bruising primary when the Democrats scare independent women voters who don't want their choices restricted and dont want to hear anything about these issues and unfortunately that is a large voting block in many of the swing states.

It is not just the Independents. A lot of RP supporters are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is an absolutely NO GO issue!

There is something that is not generally known. back in '07/08 when I was pushing Meetup creation and communication, I called a lot of Meetup Organizers and chatted about what was happening with the campaign and what support they were seeing. Im many places, like California, the majority of our supporters were Independents and Democrats. Don't forget that in some states these people can vote for any candidate in the primaries, and many that were an board were willing to switch to Repub for this cycle only, because RP was the best candidate out there that reflected their issues. Then Paul started to go on talk shows and stated his personal beliefs on abortion, adding as an afterthought that it's none of the federal governments business, but should be left to the states. ALL our Dem support bailed in a mass exodus, along with the majority of our Independent support when he did that. It probably cost us that election as well as the most recent one.

It also sunk Akin and Murdoch in even red states especially when Rand is asked about exceptions for rape and incest or when the life of the woman is in danger and is repeatedly asked about it.. he would have to have a convincing answer or he will be sunk.

Does his bill really restrict abortions for rape, incest and when the woman's life is in danger? if so then im afraid he is going to find it hard to defend and would be painted as an extremist and attacked repeatedly on a national scale.

Rape, incest or the woman's life being in danger is not going to cut it. Our best demographic is the youth vote, and they are generally pro-choice.

In the General Election the best approach would probably be to shift the rhetoric towards removing jurisdiction from the courts and letting states decide for themselves how to handle the difficult and controversial scenarios, thus still focusing on States' Rights and repealing Roe V Wade while not making it sound like his personal opinions will be made law of the land regarding the stickier subjects of rape and all that. In fact this allows him to deflect the stickier subjects altogether by saying that his personal feelings regarding the specifics are not pertinent to how the issue will realistically be resolved, and potentially can further satisfy both sides by injecting the the President is not a King or Dictator to either broadly legalize all abortion or broadly criminalize it for any and every situation, and that the difficult questions ought to be debated and resolved at the local level.

No, no, no... whoulda, shoulda, coulda don't count. Rand is coming out as a religious statist and plainly saying he wants to shove his beliefs down the throats of the American people on a federal level. Take off your blinders!

True. And you have to win the GOP nomination before you can even think about the general election.

Ummmm....I hope Rand doesn't say anything stupid like "That's nothing to worry about because life of the mother abortions are extremely rare." That would rate right up there there with Todd Akins level political stupidity. The fact that such abortions happen ever is enough to create an insurmountable emotional backlash. Besides, Rand isn't that hardcore anyway. He's on record as saying he supported Plan B emergency contraception for rape cases. (See: http://www.kentuckypoliticalreview.com/?p=1825) The counter is that Plan B prevents fertilization as opposed to causing abortion. But, according to the FDA, it sometimes prevents fertilization and sometimes prevents implantation. (See: http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety...ormationforpatientsandproviders/ucm109795.htm) I suspect Rand is trying a "preemptive strike" to solidify himself as a solid pro-life candidate before the "But he supports the abortion pill" attacks start rolling in.

He supports Plan B for rape cases... How about "the rubber broke" cases? How about young teens, who something like 40% of which practice unprotected sex?

"rape cases" is a pretty hard line in the sand, especially when you consider that Plan B is just birth control pills in a slightly higher dose. Effectively, reading between the lines, Rand is saying he wants to ban birth control pills. That is a total non-starter in this country.

If he cares so much about life, how about all the women that will die due to back room abortions? Or like the rural teens that use veterinary drugs to induce abortions and often die because of it.

No, Rand just ENDED any chance he ever had of becoming POTUS.

-t

 

[carclinic]

Maybe Rand is looking to build a coalition with independent-minded Latinos that work hard, but are pro-life and pro-immigration.

 

[jmdrake]

Rape, incest or the woman's life being in danger is not going to cut it. Our best demographic is the youth vote, and they are generally pro-choice.

I can't believe someone who's been around since 2007 actually believes that Rand could win off the "youth vote". The "youth vote" didn't win Ron Paul jack squat in 2007/2008. And Ron only came close to winning Iowa in 2011 by going hard after the evangelical vote. Rand will get a majority of the youth GOP vote (the only youth vote that matters) if he can build up enough antiwar / anti-police state cred without alienating the teocons. But if Rand at all looks like he's pandering to a "pro choice" voter, he won't win.....period. I can't believe we're even having this stupid conversation. Ron in no way appealed to "pro choice" voters. His "We The People Act" and his "Sanctity of Life Act" would have accomplished the same thing as Rand's "Life at Conception Act". People worry about Rand not being like his father? Well in this instance Rand is being 100% like his father!

No, no, no... whoulda, shoulda, coulda don't count. Rand is coming out as a religious statist and plainly saying he wants to shove his beliefs down the throats of the American people on a federal level. Take off your blinders!

I take it you never actually read Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act have you? It's time you take off your own blinders. This is the bill Ron Paul repeatedly tried to pass.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

He supports Plan B for rape cases... How about "the rubber broke" cases? How about young teens, who something like 40% of which practice unprotected sex?

People are freaking about whether Rand supports a rape exception, that's his rape exception. But it seems like you and others won't be satisfied unless Rand becomes the equivalent of Hitlery Clinton on abortion. Itshappening is concerned about the "rape victim" who doesn't report the rape until weeks later. You think that there shouldn't really be a difference between the rape victim and the person who just wasn't careful enough. Put those two views together....and you have Rand needing to support abortion on demand. Maybe you would prefer Dennis Kucinich run in 2016. The simple fact is that if Plan B is allowed (and it should be) it will obviously be used by more than just rape victims. Even if the law said "You have to be a rape victim", every woman who was in the "the condom broke" scenario could go to a doctor and say "Help me! I was raped!" But that's missing the point (and I think you're missing it on purpose). Because of how Plan B works, most of the time it's actually preventing pregnancy instead of causing abortions. Birth control pills can also sometimes cause an abortion, but that's not the typical case. And, technically speaking, the medical community is split on whether "conception" means "fertilization" or "implantation. So a pro life candidate can honestly say he supports Plan B in general but that he does not support abortion, because Plan B, in the "worst case" scenario, still happens before implantation.

"rape cases" is a pretty hard line in the sand, especially when you consider that Plan B is just birth control pills in a slightly higher dose. Effectively, reading between the lines, Rand is saying he wants to ban birth control pills. That is a total non-starter in this country.

Only if the person doing the reading is retarded.

If he cares so much about life, how about all the women that will die due to back room abortions? Or like the rural teens that use veterinary drugs to induce abortions and often die because of it.

If you believe ^that crap, then you why did you support Ron Paul?

No, Rand just ENDED any chance he ever had of becoming POTUS.

-t

Then you've been wasting your time since 2007 supporting a candidate that had less of a chance of being POTUS than Rand.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ron Paul's bill explicitly states that the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction over the individual State's policies on how they choose to regulate this particular homicide.

The last time I mentioned this, itshappening thought it meant the rape victim would be prosecuted for murder. Am I the only one that understands the impact of 'every state can do what they want without SCOTUS intervention' here?