Will Rand vote for an abortion bill with exemptions?

[dinosaur]

And the morning after pill prevents implantation (not fertilization)?

I guess I'm in the boat where, yes, life begins at conception, but at the same time, laws against those sorts of things are not goingto be enforceable. Its just not possible.

Yes, but just regular use of the pill does the same thing in an unknown percentage. People are regularly flushing more lives than they will ever know about with those things. I don't see how laws against the pill could be enforceable either. Making it illegal to actively kill a baby by burning, stabbing, dismembering, etc. is about as far as you can go with law.

 

[Christian Liberty]

He cited the partial birth abortion ban in response to a question about if he ever made an unprincipled vote. He never said he "regretted" the vote. He simply noted, with that refreshing honestly that Ron Paul alone among major politicians seems to possess, that it was an unprincipled vote. I applaud Ron for his honesty, but he was still wrong to vote the way he did. Either the Constitution matters or it does not. Either you stick to your principles or you have no principles. If a pro-life person can ignore the Constitution whenever they want because they feel the issue of "life" is important, how can they complain when another politician craps all over the Constitution in the name of "poverty" or "sexual abuse" or "food safety" or "public health"? Everybody has their own pet issue they think is "important". Most have more than one. We are in the mess we are in because Congress over the years has come to the agreement that whenever anybody's "important" issue clashes with the express limits of the US Constitution, the important policy issue takes precedence.

I'm with you here, except for the fact that I have to say the argument that Traditional Conservative and some others make regarding the fifth and 14th amendments isn't entirely without merit. I still disagree but its an argument that does deserve addressing, and its still a far better argument than the whole commerce clause justifies everything monstrosity.

I think you can be pro life and support an exception for the life of the mother. Most pro lifers support this exception. It's a policy of also trying to protect the mother's life. In certain situations I believe it's justifiable homocide for a woman to get an abortion in order to save her own life.

I'd consider someone who also accepts the rape and incest exception to be "Pro-life with exceptions." They're wrong, but I wouldn't count them out of the pro-life camp entirely. It would also be correct to call them "Pro-choice under a few circumstances."

I take the same position you do, but I don't think supporting the rape exemption automatically makes one not pro-life at all (Although most people who take that position in public, such as McCain and Romney, are really pro-choice based on past history, but someone who genuinely believed that abortion should be banned except rape incest and the life of the mother would still be [a lesser degree of] pro-life IMO.)

I'm suprised that no one has brought up the 10th amendment issue involved here. I mean I've basically said that I care about protecting the unborn more than anything else, and I would look for a loophole in the Constitution to justify federal abortion laws, such as the 5th and 14th amendments. But, many pro life libertarians here are such strict Constitutionalist that they would probably oppose this bill due to federalism reasons.

I'm in that camp, although I'd probably vote "Present" rather than "no" in order to emphasize the point that my objection is constitutional (ie, the Federal government has no right to do this) rather than moral (ie. saying that people have a right to have these abortions, which they do not.)

Although, if my vote of "no" actually had a chance of killing the bill, I'd probably do it. I don't want this nonsense at the Federal Level. There's the constituitional issue, but there's also the fact that I just know police state type Republicans (Rand is not in this category, but he'd be implicitly helping them by voting for this) would love to use this new moral crusade of protecting the unborn as a method to eliminate more of our ACTUAL rights. I also don't want this sort of weak, pathetic bill being used in order to help Republicans pretend like they are actually pro-life, when most of them use this issue as a game.

All that said, Rand has already said he support Federal anti-abortion laws. I don't think that's the end of the world, although I do think he's acting unconstitutionally there. So to vote against this on 10th amendment grounds wouldn't make sense for him seeing as he's already conceded the point.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that a strict federalist position is not incompatible with being pro-life. Nonetheless, I think RonPaulMall has a point. Your stretching of the 5th and 14th amendments (And you've already acknowledged you're stretching it: I applaud your honesty here) isn't quite as ridiculous as the liberal stretching of the commerce clause, but it falls under the same paradigm as the liberal twisting. Ultimately, if we can have one "Pet issue" that's important enough to stretch and even twist the constitution, why can't they have theirs? Why can't everybody have theirs? And then we get the monstrosity that we have.

Maybe I'm selfish, but honestly, I don't view giving birth to 10 million children (I know 50 million is the number of those aborted, I'd be shocked if these laws actually saved more than 20%) and letting everyone live in slavery is really all that much of an improvement over letting them die so that everyone else can be free. I know Steve Deace, a social conservative, recently came to the conclusion, and I believe correctly, that a big government is never going to consistently support life, so its better to focus on shrinking government than to vote only based on social issues.

I want to be free. I want everybody to be free.

Now, would I vote for someone who was a strict constructionist, except that they supported Federal banning of abortion? Yes. Because they'd still easily pass the 80% test. That doesn't change the fact that they're still acting inconsistently with their own principles, which gives liberals a license to do the same thing, which leads to us all not being free.

You know how pro-life I am. I'm so pro-life that I believe Scott Roeder should have been acquitted, and now that he's been convicted, I believe he should be pardoned, I'm so pro-life that I believe George Tiller deserved to die.

But I'm not pro-life enough to give the Federal Government even more power over our lives which I know they will abuse.

The morning after pill is just a megadose of regular birth control pills. There really is no way to prevent women from using them to prevent pregnancy unless we want to outlaw birth control pills, which is silly.

I don't want to outlaw them, but seeing as they sometimes prevent implantation, I believe that it is heavily immoral to use them.

The thing is, its impossible to know if the birth control pill actually killed the child, or if nature did so, or if the pill prevented fertilization.

I don't know what the mathematics is on it, but I do know that it sometimes happens.

Since the intent is not to kill, and since its impossible to prove, and since a fertilized egg only actually gains rights after it is fertilized (The pills are generally taken before this happens) I don't believe this should be illegal.

However, I do believe it is a grave moral error, and pro-lifers should ethically take a stand against using them, and use peaceful persuasion to try to prevent people, particularly people who would say they agree with us that human life begins at conception, not to use them.

hxxp://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion

These idiots think that just because Ron Paul believes in states rights that he's not pro-life. They don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. They want to go beyond it. They are too stupid to realize that a complete federal abortion ban will never happen in our lifetime and they'd rather see millions of babies be aborted than see a compromise that might save most of them. Oh, and they think that we should invade Canada and Israel because those countries allow abortion.

States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings. As the largest Ron Paul fansite describes his view, "the ninth and tenth amendments... do not grant the federal government any authority to... ban abortion."4 Neither God nor the U.S. Constitution, however, gives to any state, county, city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion. Further, the Bible itself explicitly opposes the idea that subdivisions of a nation can refuse to prosecute murder (see AmericanRTL.org/states-rights-and-abortion).

Pay attention to the part in bold. They compare abortion to murder. They think if a country legalizes murder inside it's own borders, that's somehow an act of war justifying invasion. So....these people want to invade Canada. Israel also allows and even pays for abortion. It's not a "neighboring country", but justification for invasion is justification.

One other thing wrong with their "logic". States have different standards on what is "murder". Just like at the Travon Martin trial and "stand your ground" laws. (Yes I know. It's possible that SYG doesn't even apply in that case. But it is the law. What may be 2nd or 3rd degree murder in one state may be justifiable self defence in another.)

Edit: And the correction I sent to "prolifeprofiles"

I want to correct the profile of Ron Paul because of the poor logic that you use to make the case that he is not pro life.

Ron Paul, like the original pro-life movement, wants to overturn Roe v Wade. That would send abortion back to the states. You complain about that, claiming that states can't decriminalize murder, only prosecute it. That shows ignorance of the law. States define murder for themselves. Take the Trayvon Martin / Mark Zimmerman case. A state could say that any killing is unlawful. Or it could say that killing in self defense is lawful. A state can determine what is or is not self defense. Similarly, states could chose what exceptions, if any, would be allowed for abortion. Also I find it odd that you assert that if some other country, say Canada, were to legalize the killing of a group of people, that would be justification of the U.S. invading. Well...abortion is legal in Canada. Do you think we should invade Canada? If yes....well then you guys are just nuts. If no...then you owe Ron Paul an apology. By your own analogy his position on the issue is correct.

That said, I don't expect to collect my $100.00. I don't think you will be that honest.

I generally view the constitutional compact (And yes, I believe it to be a compact) as more of that whole "Firm league of friendship" thing that the AoC talks about. So I don't really take the same view of "National Unity" that most Americans do.

Even still, I think (And this is my ideal talking, not the actual constitution, which means an amendment would be needed and I wouldn't support doing it without such) that in order to be a part of the "league of friendship" you should have to protect innocent life within your borders.

So ideally, if New York and Massachusettes and all the other liberal places don't want to do anything to protect the unborn, they shouldn't be forced at gunpoint, but they should be kicked out of the Union. The rest of the states should refuse to associate with them. Now, I don't know what the minimum standard for this sort of thing would be, I guess it would depend on how pro-life the country as a whole is, but ideally a state that allows abortion on demand would be kicked out.

All that said, most people do NOT take the whole "Firm league of friendship" position but, because of Lincoln, they falsely believe that we are "One nation" and all of that other stuff.

Therefore, I don't think its per say inconsistent to support Federal abortion laws without supporting invasion of every single country that legalizes abortion.

That said, while I think that argument could be made, American Right to Life doesn't really try, and therefore, they remain wrong. And even if they did make that argument, it wouldn't logically follow that anyone who supports banning abortion at the state level is not really pro-life.

American Right to Life gives a lot of good information as to why most pro-lifers are not really pro-life, but: predictably for a far-right conservative organization, they're completely wrong on Ron Paul.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, but just regular use of the pill does the same thing in an unknown percentage. People are regularly flushing more lives than they will ever know about with those things. I don't see how laws against the pill could be enforceable either. Making it illegal to actively kill a baby by burning, stabbing, dismembering, etc. is about as far as you can go with law.

Yep, that's where I stand as well, and as I said later in the post.

The pill should be morally opposed by pro-lifers, and nobody should use it, but it shouldn't be outright illegal because its unenforcable, its impossible to know if it actually killed any fertilized egg, and its used before fertilization even occurs (The unborn get their rights AT THE MOMENT OF conception. There unborn don't have any rights until they exist in a fertilized egg. This is the same reason why incest which is more likely than normal sex to lead to a deformed child is nonetheless not aggression...)

 

[Brett85]

I'd consider someone who also accepts the rape and incest exception to be "Pro-life with exceptions." They're wrong, but I wouldn't count them out of the pro-life camp entirely. It would also be correct to call them "Pro-choice under a few circumstances."

I agree. I don't agree with the rape and incest exceptions, but I think that anyone who wants to end 95% of abortions is pro life. Ending legal abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother would put an end to 95% of abortions. I think it's a mistake for the pro life movement to say that people aren't truly pro life if they support a few exceptions to an abortion ban. I don't have a problem with using incrementalism to roll back legal abortion, so I would support a bill that would ban abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That kind of policy would be much better than what we have now.

 

[JCDenton0451]

I think he will vote against it while being purposefully ambiguous about his true motivations. That seems to be his style. lol

 

[Brett85]

This is what Amash says about the Constitutional aspect of it on Facebook.

"I voted yes on H R 1797, Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state from "deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and empowers Congress "to enforce, by appropriate legislation" the equal protection of all such persons. This bill prohibits abortion of an unborn child who is 20 weeks old or older. There is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child of that age feels pain when he or she is aborted. The government's primary role is to secure the life and liberty of all persons within its jurisdiction, and unborn children especially need protection because they are unable to defend themselves. It passed 228-196."

 

[klamath]

I agree. I don't agree with the rape and incest exceptions, but I think that anyone who wants to end 95% of abortions is pro life. Ending legal abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother would put an end to 95% of abortions. I think it's a mistake for the pro life movement to say that people aren't truly pro life if they support a few exceptions to an abortion ban. I don't have a problem with using incrementalism to roll back legal abortion, so I would support a bill that would ban abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That kind of policy would be much better than what we have now.

This.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree. I don't agree with the rape and incest exceptions, but I think that anyone who wants to end 95% of abortions is pro life. Ending legal abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother would put an end to 95% of abortions. I think it's a mistake for the pro life movement to say that people aren't truly pro life if they support a few exceptions to an abortion ban. I don't have a problem with using incrementalism to roll back legal abortion, so I would support a bill that would ban abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That kind of policy would be much better than what we have now.

Agreed.

This is what Amash says about the Constitutional aspect of it on Facebook.

"I voted yes on H R 1797, Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state from "deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and empowers Congress "to enforce, by appropriate legislation" the equal protection of all such persons. This bill prohibits abortion of an unborn child who is 20 weeks old or older. There is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child of that age feels pain when he or she is aborted. The government's primary role is to secure the life and liberty of all persons within its jurisdiction, and unborn children especially need protection because they are unable to defend themselves. It passed 228-196."

Here's what I don't get about this line of logic from a self-professing constitutionalist:

You opened up the can of worms... violated the constitution, and allowed the Federal government to regulate this... for what? To save all of the unborn? Most?

No, this kind of bill saves only a few.

That doesn't make it inherently bad, but is our entire constitutional foundation really "Worth it" for a pathetic lukewarm bill like this?

How about just pardoning Scott Roeder? Would put far more fear into the hearts of abortionists than any law...

 

[Brett85]

Here's what I don't get about this line of logic from a self-professing constitutionalist:

You opened up the can of worms... violated the constitution, and allowed the Federal government to regulate this... for what? To save all of the unborn? Most?

No, this kind of bill saves only a few.

That doesn't make it inherently bad, but is our entire constitutional foundation really "Worth it" for a pathetic lukewarm bill like this?

How about just pardoning Scott Roeder? Would put far more fear into the hearts of abortionists than any law...

Yeah, but obviously the President has the power of the pardon but not a member of Congress. Also, there are some people who make the argument that the Roe v. Wade decision federalized the abortion issue, which means that federal abortion laws are a way to put limits on the Roe v. Wade decision. That was Ron's rationale for voting in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion, that it was a way to put limits on the Roe v. Wade decision. Although that isn't really what Amash is saying here.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, but obviously the President has the power of the pardon but not a member of Congress. Also, there are some people who make the argument that the Roe v. Wade decision federalized the abortion issue,

They should read something about Marbury v Madison and how insane it was.

Although, of course, sentence 1 is correct.

which means that federal abortion laws are a way to put limits on the Roe v. Wade decision. That was Ron's rationale for voting in favor of the ban on partial birth abortion,

I'm curious if Ron ever did admit that was an unprincipled vote. Because honestly, it was.

BTW: Ignoring the states rights argument, have you ever heard the argument (I'm not saying I agree with it, I don't know a thing about it) that the PBA ban was really just a means of making abortion look better rather than actually trying to curtail it?

Although that isn't really what Amash is saying here.

Its kind of bizarre that he says he's voting for this because all innocent life deserves protection, yet the bill only protects a tiny fraction of innocent lives destroyed by abortion.

 

[Warlord]

Knowing Rand this could go either way. He's not very predictable on this but I think he'll fall in line with the GOP. We'll see if it ever comes up. Indications are it will.

 

[Brett85]

BTW: Ignoring the states rights argument, have you ever heard the argument (I'm not saying I agree with it, I don't know a thing about it) that the PBA ban was really just a means of making abortion look better rather than actually trying to curtail it?

I think that bill basically just banned a form of late term abortion that was incredibly barbaric, that was basically infanticide. But, in reality it probably didn't save any lives since it didn't ban other forms of late term abortions. It basically just caused babies to die in a less excruciating way. But, if you've ever researched what actually happens during a partial birth abortion, you'll probably understand why Ron violated his federalism principles on that vote. You can't even put into words how hideous that procedure is.

 

[RonPaulMall]

I'm curious if Ron ever did admit that was an unprincipled vote. Because honestly, it was.

He definitely did. I don't have a citation, but I remember the interview clearly. I think it was a female interviewer and the context was him retiring from Congress.

Knowing Rand this could go either way. He's not very predictable on this but I think he'll fall in line with the GOP. We'll see if it ever comes up. Indications are it will.

I wish I was wrong, but I don't see Rand thinking twice about this vote. He's too much of a politician and would never hand his GOP Primary opponents such a killer weapon to use against him. If his father wasn't even willing to stand up to the Pro-Life lobby on this, you can forget about Rand (who is 10X more politically savvy) taking the principled stand.

 

[Warlord]

He definitely did. I don't have a citation, but I remember the interview clearly. I think it was a female interviewer and the context was him retiring from Congress.



I wish I was wrong, but I don't see Rand thinking twice about this vote. He's too much of a politician and would never hand his GOP Primary opponents such a killer weapon to use against him. If his father wasn't even willing to stand up to the Pro-Life lobby on this, you can forget about Rand (who is 10X more politically savvy) taking the principled stand.

This is why I have respect for what Broun did. He's running for Senate and flat out voted against it LOL.. WTF. He released a statement saying he's 100% prolife with no exemptions.

Broun on abortion:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlHkM0bXdUg

I hope you'll consider supporting him on July 12th.