Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[WizardofOz]

Where does the bill say individual states can continue to allow abortion? I see thisr. Paul has issued this Statement in Support of State ‘Right to Life’ AmendmentsDoes this sound like someone who is pro-abortion? I see nothing here that encourages states to reject their duty to protect life. The whole idea is to make it possible for the states to protect the unborn.

What's missing from Ron Paul's bill is a call for the government of Mexico to invade any state that fails to protect the unborn. Also missing is a call for the federal government to invade any state that fails to protect the unborn -- and for the same reason. On the day after the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, New York, Mexico, Virginia, and France were all on the same level of jurisdiction "as Free and Independent States," with the 13 American States "separate and equal ... among the Powers of the earth" (quotes from the Declaration of Independence). Those states did not give the federal government (which they created) any power over the ordinary criminal laws of the states. Nor did they give the government of Mexico any such power.

The 14th Amendment only gives power to Congress -- not the President -- to act when any state denies blacks the right to enter into contracts, testify in court, etc. That's all the 14th Amendment was originally intended to do. To go beyond the original intent of the framers is most dangerous:

http://KevinCraig.us/14thAmendment.htm

:thumb: All the Keyes supporters and Paul naysayers are displaying is their ignorance regarding the ways of the land and how our system works; especially how our nation was framed and intended to be run.

Great post and work in this and other threads Vine&FigTree! All I hear are crickets chirping in the other camp.:dead: A bit of a concession I would say.

 

[kmoney]

Where does the bill say individual states can continue to allow abortion?

I thought it gave the states the right to limit or regulate abortion, but maybe I read the bill wrong. I'll have to go back over it.....

 

[WizardofOz]

Has anyone said he is pro-abortion? I've seen people call him pro-choice state by state, but not pro-abortion.

It's all spin to say as much against him without lying outright (although Enyart crossed that line with other statements)

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Does this sound like someone who is pro-abortion? I see nothing here that encourages states to reject their duty to protect life. The whole idea is to make it possible for the states to protect the unborn.

Has anyone said he is pro-abortion? I've seen people call him pro-choice state by state, but not pro-abortion.

"Pro-choice" is the opposite of "pro-life." It means "pro-abortion." It means "bad guy, not good guy."

Bob Enyart says:

Ron Paul claims to believe in the God-given right to life, that human life begins at conception. And right here on the air, I'm calling Ron Paul a liar. Ron Paul is pro-choice.

as well as "hypocrite," "lawless" "moral relativist," "humanist," who "throws off all Biblical morality."

Enyart wants there to be no doubt: Ron Paul is not pro-life. Ron Paul is a very bad man. Voting for him is not just a questionable policy, it is something which needs to be "repented" of.

This is misleading divisive slander.

 

[Pettrix]

Here is an interesting blog:

California Constitutionalist

The January 3rd & 7th blogs discuss the radio show about Ron Paul.

 

[ddevonb]

Ron Paul is far more seriously pro-life than GW Bush.

Which isn't saying much.

His belief that it should be a state issue stems from his commitment to uphold the Constitution, and the ideals of the founding fathers.

His commitment to the constitution and the ideals of the founding fathers is a higher priority for him than his commitment to obey God!

Ron Paul is by far the most pro-life candidate running for the presidency, and his bold views on abortion are just one thing that sets him a tier about the other candidates who all come off as stooges to me that just want to push party agenda and maintain the status quo.

Alan Keyes is fully pro-life... much more committed to it than Paul.

You shouldn't slander this brave man.

You mean the brave man who is against laws that ban illicit drugs, prostitution and gay marriage?

 

[elected4ever]

Does permitting an abortion equal pro-life even when you have stated your personal opposition to it?

 

[kmoney]

I thought it gave the states the right to limit or regulate abortion, but maybe I read the bill wrong. I'll have to go back over it.....

It says states have the authority to protect the unborn, but that still leaves the door open for abortion to stay legalized. Although it may still get to outlawing abortion through the personhood part.

So now I have a question for those who are on Enyart's side......how is this different from Keyes amendment that defines personhood at conception?

 

[ddevonb]

On the day after the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, New York, Mexico, Virginia, and France were all on the same level of jurisdiction "as Free and Independent States," with the 13 American States "separate and equal ... among the Powers of the earth" (quotes from the Declaration of Independence). Those states did not give the federal government (which they created) any power over the ordinary criminal laws of the states. Nor did they give the government of Mexico any such power.

This is totally false. When the declaration of independence was issued they were acting as 13 independent entities, but once the constitution was ratified on nation of 13 states was formed. At that point no individual state had the same individual powers as stated in the declaration. No state could legally declare war, etc.

The 14th Amendment only gives power to Congress -- not the President -- to act when any state denies blacks the right to enter into contracts, testify in court, etc. That's all the 14th Amendment was originally intended to do. To go beyond the original intent of the framers is most dangerous:

You've totally mis-read the 14th amendment. The Congress has the power to enforce by legislation... but congress doesn't execute the enforcement of federal laws. Federal laws are executed by the executive branch. The department of justice and FBI etc answer to the president.

 

[WizardofOz]

Alan Keyes is fully pro-life... much more committed to it than Paul.

Whoa! I didn't know he was fully pro-life; that changes everything :hammer:

What is he committed to actually doing ddevonb? I want to hear some strategy, a plan, you know; something that might actually change the status quo.

How is Keyes going to change the status quo? Anybody?

 

[Turbo]

So now I have a question for those who are on Enyart's side......how is this different from Keyes amendment that defines personhood at conception?

1) A constitutional amendment cannot be ruled "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.

2) The personhood amendment would not authorize states or any other level of government to legalize abortion.

3) The personhood amendment would define life as beginning at "fertilization" rather than "conception." (Those terms used to be synonymous, but recently "conception" has been redefined by some as occurring at implantation, which happens about 6 days after an ovum is fertilized has begun to develop. Why? Because when hormonal birth control (the pill, the patch, etc.) fails to prevent ovulation, it has a "back up method" of preventing the days-old child from implanting in the womb. By quietly redefining conception as occurring at implantation, birth control marketers can claim that their products only prevent conception/pregnancy and never act as abortifacients. More info)

 

[Clete]

1) A constitutional amendment cannot be ruled "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.

2) The personhood amendment would not authorize states or any other level of government to legalize abortion.

3) The personhood amendment would define life as beginning at "fertilization" rather than "conception." (Those terms used to be synonymous, but recently "conception" has been redefined by some as occurring at implantation, which happens about 6 days after an ovum is fertilized has begun to develop. Why? Because when hormonal birth control (the pill, the patch, etc.) fails to prevent ovulation, it has a "back up method" of preventing the days-old child from implanting in the womb. By quietly redefining conception as occurring at implantation, birth control marketers can claim that their products only prevent conception/pregnancy and never act as abortifacients. More info)

:up:

 

[WizardofOz]

1) A constitutional amendment cannot be ruled "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.

2) The personhood amendment would not authorize states or any other level of government to legalize abortion.

3) The personhood amendment would define life as beginning at "fertilization" rather than "conception." (Those terms used to be synonymous, but recently "conception" has been redefined by some as occurring at implantation, which happens about 6 days after an ovum is fertilized has begun to develop. Why? Because when hormonal birth control (the pill, the patch, etc.) fails to prevent ovulation, it has a "back up method" of preventing the days-old child from implanting in the womb. By quietly redefining conception as occurring at implantation, birth control marketers can claim that their products only prevent conception/pregnancy and never act as abortifacients. More info)

Alan Keyes: Abortion Amendment Not Needed, Constitution Protects Unborn

"There has been significant debate in the Republican presidential primary about a Human Life Amendment -- as some candidates have said they support it but others note the votes are not present in Congress to move the idea forward."

"Keyes says he backs a human life amendment but explained to WorldNetDaily that it's unnecessary."

Why would Keyes say it is unnecessary? The answer might make Keyes' supporters who constantly knock Ron Paul's strategy feel a bit hypocritical.

Both Keyes and Paul state that the solution to the abortion problem lies in the misuse/misinterpretation of the US Constitution.

 

[elected4ever]

Alan Keyes: Abortion Amendment Not Needed, Constitution Protects Unborn

"There has been significant debate in the Republican presidential primary about a Human Life Amendment -- as some candidates have said they support it but others note the votes are not present in Congress to move the idea forward."

"Keyes says he backs a human life amendment but explained to WorldNetDaily that it's unnecessary."

Why would Keyes say it is unnecessary? The answer might make Keyes' supporters who constantly knock Ron Paul's strategy feel a bit hypocritical.

Both Keyes and Paul state that the solution to the abortion problem lies in the misuse/misinterpretation of the US Constitution.

And both are wrong. The constitution protects the rights of the born and naturalized. Legislation cannot be pasted that can protect the unborn unless the right to life of the unborn is protected by the constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment. That is why I cannot Support Ron Paul or any candidate that does not support a right to life constitutional amendment for the unborn. It is not that Ron Paul is pro Abortion. That is why I cannot support Thompson or anyone else in general who says that Row v Wade should be overturned and was improperly decided. To do so requires an activist court and we have had enough of that, both liberal and conservative. Turbo is correct. It requires a constitutional amendment if the life of the unborn is to be protected by law.

 

[WizardofOz]

And both are wrong. The constitution protects the rights of the born and naturalized. Legislation cannot be pasted that can protect the unborn unless the right to life of the unborn is protected by the constitution. That requires a constitutional amendment. That is why I cannot Support Ron Paul or any candidate that does not support a right to life constitutional amendment for the unborn. It is not that Ron Paul is pro Abortion. That is why I cannot support Thompson or anyone else in general who says that Row v Wade should be overturned and was improperly decided. To do so requires an activist court and we have had enough of that, both liberal and conservative. Turbo is correct. It requires a constitutional amendment if the life of the unborn is to be protected by law.

So you disagree with Keyes? What about Turbo - do you agree or disagree that a constitutional amendment is not necessary; as asserted by Keyes himself?

Who do you support then Elected4ever?

That is why I cannot support Thompson or anyone else in general who says that Row v Wade should be overturned and was improperly decided.

So you support Roe v Wade? This is an odd statement. You have, perhaps unwittingly, taken on the democratic stance on the issue. Diane Feinstein, for one, would agree with you.

""Feinstein also said that anyone who thought Roe v. Wade was improperly decided is outside the “mainstream” because ” Roe could have been overturned 38 times. Precedent has been established. Women all over America have come to depend on it. An overwhelming majority of people support it. Therefore, because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, [there are] precedential values attached to it.”"

"Graham (Republican Senator Lindsey Graham) continued: “The question for a judge is will you follow the law, will you base your decision based on the briefs, the argument and the facts, and not a personal agenda.""

"“This idea that you’ve got to show an allegiance to Roe v. Wade to get on the court, and if you won’t show an allegiance to it — if you have to come to the committee and say under no circumstances will I entertain an argument to look at Roe v. Wade anew, I think that’s very unfair.""

more
"HUME: "Of course, that right to an abortion has been law of the land now for what, 32 years. What is your view of Judge Alito on this matter?""

"GRAHAM: "Well, he was applying for a job with the Reagan administration as a lawyer, and the position of the Reagan administration is that Roe v. Wade took away from elected officials the ability to have a say about the unborn. I believe that was a power grab by the courts.""

"Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation." - Which is all Ron Paul is trying to say - this is where the regulation power should have been to begin with. Rather, it was there to begin with, but is not now by contradicting the US Constitution itself!

Even Keyes can acknowledge an amendment like you are suggesting does not have the support needed to pass.

Ron Paul has the only plausible method of attack. Keyes does not have a plausible method of attack whatsoever.

 

[elected4ever]

So you disagree with Keyes? What about Turbo - do you agree or disagree that a constitutional amendment is not necessary; as asserted by Keyes himself?

It is absolutely necessary if the life of the unborn is to be protected. I disagree with the entire right to life movement who persist in the agenda to elect an activist court to overturn Roe v Wade.

Who do you support then Elected4ever?

Sense there is nothing more than political reveric and no real issue being presented to actually do anything about the murder of the unborn then I vote on other issues. There is not a dimes wort of difference between the pro choice people and the pro life people at the moment. The result of each movement has been and will continue to be death to the unborn to achieve there organizational goles. It is a shame that good people have been caught up in their phony political agendas. I have been myself for many years. There is a reason for over 40 years of failure.

So you support Roe v Wade? This is an odd statement. You have, perhaps unwittingly, taken on the democratic stance on the issue. Diane Feinstein, for one, would agree with you.

""Feinstein also said that anyone who thought Roe v. Wade was improperly decided is outside the “mainstream” because ” Roe could have been overturned 38 times. Precedent has been established. Women all over America have come to depend on it. An overwhelming majority of people support it. Therefore, because of the lapse of time, more than 30 years, [there are] precedential values attached to it.”"

"Graham (Republican Senator Lindsey Graham) continued: “The question for a judge is will you follow the law, will you base your decision based on the briefs, the argument and the facts, and not a personal agenda.""

"“This idea that you’ve got to show an allegiance to Roe v. Wade to get on the court, and if you won’t show an allegiance to it — if you have to come to the committee and say under no circumstances will I entertain an argument to look at Roe v. Wade anew, I think that’s very unfair.""

more
"HUME: "Of course, that right to an abortion has been law of the land now for what, 32 years. What is your view of Judge Alito on this matter?""

"GRAHAM: "Well, he was applying for a job with the Reagan administration as a lawyer, and the position of the Reagan administration is that Roe v. Wade took away from elected officials the ability to have a say about the unborn. I believe that was a power grab by the courts.""

"Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation." - Which is all Ron Paul is trying to say - this is where the regulation power should have been to begin with. Rather, it was there to begin with, but is not now by contradicting the US Constitution itself!

Even Keyes can acknowledge an amendment like you are suggesting does not have the support needed to pass.

Ron Paul has the only plausible method of attack. Keyes does not have a plausible method of attack whatsoever.

I believe Roe v Wade was properly decided and until the right to life people recognize that, they will continue to spin their wheels instead of addressing the issue with a workable solution. I am not in favor of the murder of the unborn. It is the denial of the truth that has cost me most of my life and a failed agenda. I hope more right to life people recognize that they have been used and vote for the person instead of a political party. The question I ask now is, "Is this person for or against a right to life amendment to the constitution? There can be no 'yes but' answer like Allen Keyes made.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

On the day after the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, New York, Mexico, Virginia, and France were all on the same level of jurisdiction "as Free and Independent States," with the 13 American States "separate and equal ... among the Powers of the earth" (quotes from the Declaration of Independence). Those states did not give the federal government (which they created) any power over the ordinary criminal laws of the states. Nor did they give the government of Mexico any such power.

This is totally false.

I love the way anti-RonPaulites begin every post with slanderous exaggeration. Not "This is not stated as clearly as it should be, and could be misinterpreted," but "This is TOTALLY false" - nothing true about it whatsoever.

When the declaration of independence was issued they were acting as 13 independent entities, but once the constitution was ratified on nation of 13 states was formed. At that point no individual state had the same individual powers as stated in the declaration. No state could legally declare war, etc.

It's true that the states gave up some powers to the federal government. But they did not "TOTALLY" give up all powers, especially the power to write abortion laws -- and even the war power. Article 1 section 10 clause 3 says

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The exception proves the rule. The rule is, the states retained all powers except those that were expressly delegated to the new federal government. This is the meaning of the doctrine of "enumerated powers" and the Tenth Amendment. In Federalist 45, Madison described the relationship between the federal government and the states in these famous words:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

If the federal government has TOTAL power over war, the states clearly retained TOTAL power over "life liberty and property" in general, and abortion in particular.

The 14th Amendment only gives power to Congress -- not the President -- to act when any state denies blacks the right to enter into contracts, testify in court, etc. That's all the 14th Amendment was originally intended to do. To go beyond the original intent of the framers is most dangerous:

You've totally mis-read the 14th amendment.

More slanderous exaggeration. "Totally" mis-read it, huh? Then so did Harvard scholar Raoul Berger, who proved my point at length in his book Government by Judiciary.

The Congress has the power to enforce by legislation... but congress doesn't execute the enforcement of federal laws. Federal laws are executed by the executive branch. The department of justice and FBI etc answer to the president.

But the federal Congress doesn't have the power to write abortion laws for the states. The states did not delegate authority to the federal government in that area. So how is President Alan Keyes single-handedly going to end abortion in the states, other than by doing what Congressman Ron Paul is trying to do in Congress (but what Keyes can't do as President because he won't be a Congressman)?

More proof, I suppose, that Ron Paul is TOTALLY the Antichrist.

 

[Granite]

Whoa! I didn't know he was fully pro-life; that changes everything :hammer:

What is he committed to actually doing ddevonb? I want to hear some strategy, a plan, you know; something that might actually change the status quo.

How is Keyes going to change the status quo? Anybody?

Nothing. Keyes is a fine bloviator but for many years he hasn't been much good at anything else.

 

[drbrumley]

This is totally false. When the declaration of independence was issued they were acting as 13 independent entities, but once the constitution was ratified on nation of 13 states was formed. At that point no individual state had the same individual powers as stated in the declaration. No state could legally declare war, etc.

That is bunk.

But it must not be forgotten, that the State of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederacy of States; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic. The Governor of this State is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent State," as he is "to support the Constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed.

Go back to school young man, and make sure you tell them that you want real American History and not this revisionist propaganda you have been spewing. Have a nice day.

P.S. Rhode Island and Vermont issued almost identical statements and, like Connecticut, refused to participate in the war of 1812 (The Sovereign States, Kilpatrick, pp. 133–34)

 

[WizardofOz]

It is absolutely necessary if the life of the unborn is to be protected. I disagree with the entire right to life movement who persist in the agenda to elect an activist court to overturn Roe v Wade.

Sense there is nothing more than political reveric and no real issue being presented to actually do anything about the murder of the unborn then I vote on other issues. There is not a dimes wort of difference between the pro choice people and the pro life people at the moment. The result of each movement has been and will continue to be death to the unborn to achieve there organizational goles. It is a shame that good people have been caught up in their phony political agendas. I have been myself for many years. There is a reason for over 40 years of failure.

I believe Roe v Wade was properly decided and until the right to life people recognize that, they will continue to spin their wheels instead of addressing the issue with a workable solution. I am not in favor of the murder of the unborn. It is the denial of the truth that has cost me most of my life and a failed agenda. I hope more right to life people recognize that they have been used and vote for the person instead of a political party. The question I ask now is, "Is this person for or against a right to life amendment to the constitution? There can be no 'yes but' answer like Allen Keyes made.

Elected4ever - I applaud your honesty in this post. Your integrity speaks volumes for your character. :up:

It is obvious you understand how politicians manipulate hot-button issues like abortion for their own political gain. I share your skepticism.