Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

[juleswin]

Mitt Romney ran on a platform of opposing abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and that stance didn't help him one bit.

I would say that is the reason the election was even that close. Had he taken the stance of Rand Paul, it would have been a bloodbath. You know every 4 years , the republican promise the world that they will focus of fiscal issues, no longer are they going to be sidetracked by social issues but just like an addict who cant help themselves they continue to go back and back to the same hopeless issue.

If these bozos are serious, I will like them to also propose that the women found guilty of abortion be sentenced to the same jail time as a murder. Then and only then will I believe they truly believe what they say

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I seem to be speaking in Rorschach blots.

I assure you it is unintentional.

The individual States currently have jurisdiction on how to treat the several different classifications of homicide, including how to treat a doctor that separates a conjoined twin which necessarily leads to the death of one of them. Nothing about any of this changes the fact that the States will have jurisdiction over how to treat the several different classifications of homicide. California could state that the homicide is justifiable for any reasons prior to week 12 (which would just lead to the further collapse of California but whatever), Montana could state that the homicide is justifiable only in certain circumstances prior to week 8, and Iowa could state that the homicide is never justified. All under the bill as it was proposed by Ron Paul. I do not know how similar the Life At Conception act is, but I imagine it's pretty close.

 

[Brett85]

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

Yes, and I'm sure that he would be in favor of a bill that would ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. It's called being pragmatic, realizing that you can't always go as far as you want to go in one bill.

He also stated on Bill O'Reilly's show that he didn't support exceptions to a ban on abortion.

 

[July]

I would say that is the reason the election was even that close. Had he taken the stance of Rand Paul, it would have been a bloodbath. You know every 4 years , the republican promise the world that they will focus of fiscal issues, no longer are they going to be sidetracked by social issues but just like an addict who cant help themselves they continue to go back and back to the same hopeless issue.

It doesn't really matter if they make it an issue, the Democrats will be proactive and make it an issue, and Republicans will take the bait every time. That's how the two parties play off of one another. The Republicans are always on the reactionary side, reacting to new initiatives proposed by the left. Although they will periodically switch roles, depending on which party is in power. But the left will usually be the first to agitate for some sort of change, that conservatives will then react to. I would like to see Rand turn the tables a bit on this.

 

[HigherVision]

That's fine and I have no argument with somebody who holds that position. We are close enough to agree.

I believe that human life begins at conception, but it is not viable human life until implantation. After the egg is ferilized, it has unique human DNA and the cells are living. So it is human life, but it is not viable human life until it implants and gains the support system of the mother. So I have no problems with birth control or using the morning after pill for rape. But once the egg is implanted I do not support exceptions for rape an incest. It's a viable human life, I think it is afforded the same legal protections as you and I and it is also morally wrong to kill it. The child is just as much a victim as mother, it did not choose to be a product of rape. The very small numbers of children that are a product of rape where the mother could not or did not use the morning after pill can easily be handled by private charity with no government funding.

It's such a distraction anyway, the whole 'what about pregnancies due to rape' question. How often does that even happen? It's gotta be like one per every million abortions that were just unwanted pregnancies that resulted from irresponsibility. But the feminists, i.e. the left, want us to think that women are constantly getting raped and that it's a significant percentage of abortions. And that like a third of men are rapists and the rest are complacent, that rape is the manifestation of an underlying 'patriarchal' culture. Another falsehood that's been propagated recently is that the notion that women ever lie about rape is completely untrue and could only be contemplated by a virulent sexist. When the reality is that false accusations are made frequently and that men get acquitted of rape charges all the time. So there's nothing unreasonable about investigating whether a claim of rape is legitimate or not.

 

[Eagles' Wings]

I am deeply grateful for this conversation because to be an advocate for the unborn is a vocation.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul and many of you here are incredibly articulate, knowledgable and forthright about protecting life in the womb, at life's earliest stage of development.

One would have to Google this - there are numerous stories of women who have been raped, who have given birth, kept their baby, and have the joy of a son or daughter to live with. Pregnancy due to rape can be dealt with by any Pregnancy Help Center.

 

[Brett85]

I would say that is the reason the election was even that close. Had he taken the stance of Rand Paul, it would have been a bloodbath. You know every 4 years , the republican promise the world that they will focus of fiscal issues, no longer are they going to be sidetracked by social issues but just like an addict who cant help themselves they continue to go back and back to the same hopeless issue.

If these bozos are serious, I will like them to also propose that the women found guilty of abortion be sentenced to the same jail time as a murder. Then and only then will I believe they truly believe what they say

1) Republican politicians never bring up and talk about the abortion issue. It's simply an issue that's brought up by the Democrats and brought up by the media, and Republican politicians have to answer the question. Neither Akin or Mourdock actually brought up the abortion issue. Akin was asked about it in an interview, and Mourdock was asked about it in a debate. Neither one of them actually made it a point to campaign on the abortion issue.

2) Most people who are pro life simply support passing a law that closes down abortion clinics and prosecutes doctors who perform abortions. I've never heard any pro lifer say that women should actually receive a prison sentence for getting an abortion.

3) Many of the voters that the Republican Party are not currently getting aren't necessarily pro choice and socially liberal. The polls actually show that hispanics and blacks are more pro life and more socially conservative than whites. They vote Democrat because of economic issues. If the Republican Party wants to win over these voters in the future, it doesn't make sense for them to become more liberal on the abortion issue.

 

[thoughtomator]

The polls actually show that hispanics and blacks are more pro life and more socially conservative than whites. They vote Democrat because of economic issues.

On this point, I think the rabid "throw 'em all in jail forever" approach of the GOP, which in practice is always aimed disproportionately at blacks and hispanics, is the key reason those groups vote Democrat. Drug war, death penalty, mandatory minimums, etc. etc. are poison to GOP entreaties to these groups.

 

[KingNothing]

My first impulse was to ask 'what statistics,' but I think the bigger question is if the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over State policies, then what business exactly does FedGov even have examining these details in the first place?


ETA - keep in mind that Ron Paul's bill explicitly denied SCOTUS from jurisdiction over state policies when dealing with this specific type of homicide.

Statistics on Ectopic pregnancies, for instance:

"About 1% of pregnancies are in an ectopic location with implantation not occurring inside of the womb, and of these 98% occur in the Fallopian tubes."

"When treated, the prognosis in Western countries is very good; maternal death is rare. For instance, in the UK, between 2003 and 2005 there were 32,100 ectopic pregnancies resulting in 10 maternal deaths (meaning that 1 in 3,210 women with an ectopic pregnancy died).[25]
In the developing world, however, especially in Africa, the death rate is very high, and ectopic pregnancies are a major cause of death among women of childbearing age."

"Early treatment of an ectopic pregnancy with methotrexate is a viable alternative to surgical treatment[22] since at least 1993.[23] If administered early in the pregnancy, methotrexate terminates the growth of the developing embryo; this may cause an abortion, or the tissue may then be either resorbed by the woman's body or pass with a menstrual period. "

If Ron has delivered 4,000 babies, he's probably seen several dozen of these type of pregnancies and if the UK is indicative of the population he treats, it isn't unreasonable to believe he may have seen a woman die from this situation if it were left untreated. And it is just one type of difficulty a woman could suffer during pregnancy.

 

[itshappening]

Yes, and I'm sure that he would be in favor of a bill that would ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother. It's called being pragmatic, realizing that you can't always go as far as you want to go in one bill.

He also stated on Bill O'Reilly's show that he didn't support exceptions to a ban on abortion.

the problem is pro-lifers can't countenance exceptions because women can qualify for them so you're faced with the issue of doctors coming out saying they have saved the life a woman with an emergency termination and wouldn't be able to do so under Rand's bill.

Would you really deny such a woman an abortion if her life is in danger? And if you think this is going to win votes then you're crazy.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not a principled person on this. I care about winning only and you just know that the Democrats will hammer him on this issue to scare independent women who do not want their choice restricted , that is an important voting block.

As for JM saying Reagan, Bush and W. ran on outlawing abortion and won I never saw them publish a personhood bill or try and push one through congress despite the fact that they also controlled the congress at some point in time. JM, I must have missed that? could it because they knew it was a losing issue and that abortion is settled and has been for nearly five decades? hmm??

Reagan was never a congressman or senator. Bush pushed the pro life position after becoming president. Neither tried your idiotic "Let's agree to a rape exception even weeks into the pregnancy" position. And both pandered to the right to life movement by making it all about "appointing conservative judges" while never actually doing anything. You'll have to forgive Ron and Rand for actually being principled. Obama talked an antiwar game to without ever lifting a finger to end any war. (He was forced into accepting a pullout from Iraq.) So using your "logic", Rand sure never attempt to actually end war, but just give cheap lip service to it, since that's supposedly the way to "win elections". Oh, and you'll whole point is moot because the legislation has already been proposed! All you are proposing is that Rand shoot himself in the foot after the fact like Ken Buck by saying something stupid like "I didn't really mean any of this because I support abortion on demand in the form of an indefinite rape and incest exception".

 

[itshappening]

I seem to be speaking in Rorschach blots.

I assure you it is unintentional.

The individual States currently have jurisdiction on how to treat the several different classifications of homicide, including how to treat a doctor that separates a conjoined twin which necessarily leads to the death of one of them. Nothing about any of this changes the fact that the States will have jurisdiction over how to treat the several different classifications of homicide. California could state that the homicide is justifiable for any reasons prior to week 12 (which would just lead to the further collapse of California but whatever), Montana could state that the homicide is justifiable only in certain circumstances prior to week 8, and Iowa could state that the homicide is never justified. All under the bill as it was proposed by Ron Paul. I do not know how similar the Life At Conception act is, but I imagine it's pretty close.

So women and doctors are at the mercy of state prosecutors who could prosecute them for murder. That is not going to be acceptable to the public it's simple as that.

Conjoined twins are extremely rare and a less sensitive issue than abortion where there are substantially more cases (and demand).

Outlawing all abortion means what it means if that's what he wants, it means murder prosecutions for women who have been raped and seek a backstreet abortion or a doctor not being able to save the life of a woman under threat of a murder charge.

The public will not accept it in any circumstance and a candidate advocating that will not become president and even if they do they wouldnt get their bill through congress. i.e JM alleges Bush and Reagan had these positions but did precisely nothing about it once in power because they couldn't as the public will not accept it and even if they did manage to get something through congress the courts would probably throw it out anyway as no one wants to see prosecutions of women and doctors.

 

[jmdrake]

the problem is pro-lifers can't countenance exceptions because women can qualify for them so you're faced with the issue of doctors coming out saying they have saved the life a woman with an emergency termination and wouldn't be able to do so under Rand's bill.

Would you really deny such a woman an abortion if her life is in danger? And if you think this is going to win votes then you're crazy.

Don't be stuck on stupid. There is always a self defense exception to any murder law. And Rand's bill wouldn't be an anti abortion bill per say anyway, but rather a bill that makes such bills possible. Any attack on Roe v. Wade, which Ron Paul has always supported, would include the possibility that some state might go overboard. Even Gary Johnson's view on abortion allows for that possibility since Johnson would also give abortion back to the states.

 

[Brett85]

Would you really deny such a woman an abortion if her life is in danger? And if you think this is going to win votes then you're crazy.

No, I support an exception for the life of the mother. I've also heard Rand say that he supports this exception. So I guess that he'll have to clarify that this particular bill contains an exception for the life of the mother.

 

[itshappening]

Reagan was never a congressman or senator. Bush pushed the pro life position after becoming president. Neither tried your idiotic "Let's agree to a rape exception even weeks into the pregnancy" position. And both pandered to the right to life movement by making it all about "appointing conservative judges" while never actually doing anything. You'll have to forgive Ron and Rand for actually being principled. Obama talked an antiwar game to without ever lifting a finger to end any war. (He was forced into accepting a pullout from Iraq.) So using your "logic", Rand sure never attempt to actually end war, but just give cheap lip service to it, since that's supposedly the way to "win elections". Oh, and you'll whole point is moot because the legislation has already been proposed! All you are proposing is that Rand shoot himself in the foot after the fact like Ken Buck by saying something stupid like "I didn't really mean any of this because I support abortion on demand in the form of an indefinite rape and incest exception".

Bush and Reagan didn't do anything because they know the public would not accept it

Rand is principled yes but this is a losing issue. Imagine being president and demanding congress pass the personhood bill, is he willing to spend years on this issue and expend political capital on it when it might not even pass the House or Senate and even if it does, the judge's will likely throw it out the minute it goes into effect?

It's complete nonsense and a losing issue when there are other issues far more important like stopping out of control spending .

 

[itshappening]

Getting the gov under control, eliminating departments, protecting civil liberties and all of that is far more important than spending years fighting a losing war on abortion that the public will not accept. It would never pass and even if it did, would be thrown out by the courts because abortion has been settled for nearly 50 years.

That is the reality of the situation.

 

[itshappening]

Don't be stuck on stupid. There is always a self defense exception to any murder law. And Rand's bill wouldn't be an anti abortion bill per say anyway, but rather a bill that makes such bills possible. Any attack on Roe v. Wade, which Ron Paul has always supported, would include the possibility that some state might go overboard. Even Gary Johnson's view on abortion allows for that possibility since Johnson would also give abortion back to the states.

so you're going to enable state prosecutors to bring these cases and possibly juries not accept why the women aborted her baby in some back street clinic and therefore send her to prison for life (or sentenced to death). This is not what America wants and deep down I dont think the pro-lifers would want that either.

 

[supermario21]

I only read to about page 12, and I saw a comment about the youth not supporting it because they are overwhelmingly pro-choice. I would disagree with this, just on the basis that there is no proof that this is true. The Republicans have 1 problem, a MINORITY PROBLEM. Romney won whites of EVERY demographic, including youth, 51-44. McCain lost that group by double digits so there is clearly room for improvement. Rand would likely do much better than Romney did. So, even with this abortion issue, it's a minority problem. Plus I'd like to think that the economy will be so bad in 4 years that nobody is going to like listening to the Dems waste time talking about this.

 

[itshappening]

Also doctors will not perform abortions on women if they're under threat of a murder charge even if they're in emergency care and their life is at risk. it's that simple.

So you face the prospect of women dying because a doctor doesn't want their lives ruined by the state prosecutor. The minute this happens there will be a huge outcry like what's just happened in Ireland.

 

[July]

Also doctors will not perform abortions on women if they're under threat of a murder charge even if they're in emergency care and their life is at risk. it's that simple.

So you face the prospect of women dying because a doctor doesn't want their lives ruined by the state prosecutor. The minute this happens there will be a huge outcry like what's just happened in Ireland.

Probably true. Doctors right now are so afraid of lawsuits, most hospitals have a policy on enforcing medical interventions, and they are more likely to push for unnecessary procedures and drugs, on pregnant women, which can then lead to more unintended risks. We have a very high rate for emergency C-sections, etc. I'd say there's probably far too much control on the medical industry as a whole, that this probably would turn into a nightmare with many unintended consequences...prolife stances are suitable for a free society...not in a totalitarian one, with big aggressive regulatory agencies. But that opens up a whole different argument and side to the debate.