Tell me why Ron Paul voted against

[Kluge]

What's the point of even having a federal government if they won't stop innocent people from being killed? I so no reason to even have a federal government if they won't even defend life.

What if they can't defend life?

 

[ProIndividual]

It was a useless Bill...all they have to do is SAY their motive is something other than sex of the child. Besides, if it is a State issue then the feds have ZERO business passing any legislation it...whether we like that legislation or not. Remember, murder itself is defined by the States individually, not the federal government. What constitutes murder in one State may be justifiable in another, and penalties will vary as well (if any, depending).

That's what neocons do...they say "I don't like using the federal to do things", but then use it to everything they favor. It's hypocrisy. Are we suprised Ron Paul and Amash are not hypocrites?

 

[EBounding]

It's just that I'm so adamently pro life that I don't think I could ever vote against any pro life legislation if I were a member of Congress. If I felt a certain pro life bill were unconstitutional, I would simply abstain from voting and explain why.

This isn't a pro-life bill though. It's a hate-crime bill in disguise to give RINO's political cover on abortion. It implies some abortions are ok as long as they aren't for sex-selection.

The goal of the pro-life movement should be to overturn Roe v. Wade and to define life at conception. Bills like this just weaken the cause by accepting that Roe v. Wade is appropriate, but it just needs to be tweaked so "badly motivated abortions" aren't performed. That's not something I accept.

 

[specsaregood]

I never said that state governments shouldn't have the power to ban abortion, and I certainly didn't say that I want the federal government to run everything. I want the federal government out of most issues. But I believe the federal government exists to defend life, liberty, and private property. This particular bill falls under the category of defending life.

Good, because I didn't say that you said any of that. But how you phrased your statement, is one big slippery slope to where we are today: a big out of control government that thinks its business is being in your busness. Afterall, Obamacare is just their way of "defending life", just like you asked.

 

[Brett85]

This isn't a pro-life bill though. It's a hate-crime bill in disguise to give RINO's political cover on abortion. It implies some abortions are ok as long as they aren't for sex-selection.

The goal of the pro-life movement should be to overturn Roe v. Wade and to define life at conception. Bills like this just weaken the cause by accepting that Roe v. Wade is appropriate, but it just needs to be tweaked so "badly motivated abortions" aren't performed. That's not something I accept.

That my be true, but like I said, I think I would've simply abstained from voting if I felt this particular bill was a bad bill. I just couldn't ever bring myself to vote on the same side of an issue as Naral Pro Choice America and Planned Parenthood. Both of those are murderous organizations.

 

[EBounding]

That my be true, but like I said, I think I would've simply abstained from voting if I felt this particular bill was a bad bill. I just couldn't ever bring myself to vote on the same side of an issue as Naral Pro Choice America and Planned Parenthood. Both of those are murderous organizations.

That's understandable. I just wouldn't rake Paul or Amash over the coals for their votes. Paul already compromised constitutional principles in order to defend human life with his partial birth abortion vote, so it's clearly his highest priority.

 

[Kluge]

That my be true, but like I said, I think I would've simply abstained from voting if I felt this particular bill was a bad bill. I just couldn't ever bring myself to vote on the same side of an issue as Naral Pro Choice America and Planned Parenthood. Both of those are murderous organizations.

Would you have been able to see what a bad bill it was if it weren't for Amash and Paul?

 

[July]

I was tricked by this bill at first...and I have mixed feelings about it. But after reading the bill, I think Amash is probably right. I think this is a good example of what is meant when Ron talks about bills that are given good sounding titles, and that sound good on the surface, and have a noble message....but the devil is in the details, so to speak.

 

[Brett85]

Would you have been able to see what a bad bill it was if it weren't for Amash and Paul?

Amash and Paul both raised good points in regards to the hate crimes comparison and the Constitutional problems with the bill. So perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on them. But, I just don't see the problem with simply abstaining from a bill like this to protest it.

It's very hard to explain to people that Ron is pro life when he consistently votes against pro life bills as a member of Congress. People usually like to see that a politician has a pro life voting record to back up their pro life rhetoric.

 

[specsaregood]

It's very hard to explain to people that Ron is pro life when he consistently votes against pro life bills as a member of Congress. People usually like to see that a politician has a pro life voting record to back up their pro life rhetoric.

It would be just as hard to explain if they had abstained. Fact is, that is exactly why they design these worthless bills in the first place. just to give red meat to their existing base and not actually change anything.

 

[slamhead]

He voted for it because he is pro life. You have to realize that Ron Paul supports a constitutional amendment that would have the federal government state once and for all when life begins. As for Ron Paul's belief that it should be a state matter is because he knows that the fastest way to overturn Roe vs. Wade is to give the powers back to the states to decide. The issue would end up back in the court and the USSC would have to rule on the issue honestly this time and not make it a matter of "privacy". If a state writes it's law outlawing abortion based on the protecting life and liberty of all individuals the USSC cannot chicken out this time.

 

[Acala]

The Constitution is the law. Period. It isn't superseded. Rule of law, not rule of men.

+rep. You either make rules and EVERYONE follows them ALL the time, or you essentially have no rules. If you want the rule of law, demand that the law be followed. If you don't like the law, change the law! Don't ignore it. If you ignore the laws you don't like, then it does not lie in your mouth to complain when others ignore the laws you do like.

 

[jmdrake]

Amash and Paul both raised good points in regards to the hate crimes comparison and the Constitutional problems with the bill. So perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on them. But, I just don't see the problem with simply abstaining from a bill like this to protest it.

It's very hard to explain to people that Ron is pro life when he consistently votes against pro life bills as a member of Congress. People usually like to see that a politician has a pro life voting record to back up their pro life rhetoric.

Except Ron Paul does not "consistently vote against pro life bills". He consistently votes for constitutional pro life bills and against unconstitutional pro life bills.

See: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Abortion/

As with anything else, explaining Ron Paul to people means explaining the constitution. "Ron Paul, why did you vote against a medal for Rosa Parks? Answer: The same reason I voted against a medal for Ronald Reagan and Mother Teresa. It wasn't constitutional."

At this point it doesn't matter. Ron Paul is retiring from political life anyway. He might as well remain consistent. As you are talking to pro lifers about his legacy, make sure they read all of his speeches on abortion including this speech. Pro lifers have been mislead by slime like Rick Santorum who vote for funding for Planned Parenthood, but then push the right buttons to con people into believing he is pro life.

 

[SkarnkaiLW]

Another thing that most people don't think of is that Ron swore a solemn Oath to God to Defend and Support the Constitution, and is probably the only person to take it seriously since at least the 80s (with Larry McDonald possibly). That he voted for a partial-birth ban probably came after a great deal of soul searching, whereas this bill does violence to the Constitution for no benefit at all.

 

[EBounding]

Another thing that most people don't think of is that Ron swore a solemn Oath to God to Defend and Support the Constitution, and is probably the only person to take it seriously since at least the 80s (with Larry McDonald possibly). That he voted for a partial-birth ban probably came after a great deal of soul searching, whereas this bill does violence to the Constitution for no benefit at all.

Exactly right. If this bill actually banned ABORTIONS instead of motives, he probably would have voted yes, even though it's not really Constitutional. Paul puts human life above all else.

Unfortunately most people will just have a knee-jerk reaction when they hear Republicans like Amash and Paul voted against bills like this. They won't stop and try to understand why they voted that way. They'll just think they're godless libertarians.

 

[jj-]

What's the point of even having a federal government if they won't stop innocent people from being killed? I so no reason to even have a federal government if they won't even defend life.

National Defense.