“If you have courage and convictions, your new soulmate will be Steve Deace. He delivers.” —Mike Huckabee
Home > News > Iowa Politics > A Clear Choice? Ron Paul on Life

Radio shows

A Clear Choice? Ron Paul on Life

By Rebekah Maxwell

Never have I tried harder to like a candidate than I have tried to like Ron Paul. He has revived a great spirit in the grassroots, promoting some much-needed (but so seldom found) common sense in representative governance. His kooky, contrarian, Constitution-first, get-government-outta-my-hair persona has many a disenchanted voter from my generation ready to reboot the system and take the country from 1984 to 1776.

But then, he says things like this…

“So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.”

Ron Paul – “Liberty Defined”

Now, one of the most often-heard arguments in the case for Ron Paul is his personal pro-life testimony. I concur that the statement of a doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies is powerful. But how has Paul used that influence?  To advocate for regulation, not abolition.

 

His argument that the law will not change a corrupt society is very true. Only a spiritual awakening to a resurrected Savior can truly revive a culture of death. But Dr. Paul, you and I also agree that it is within the government’s place to weigh in, and influence the question.

Whether handled at the state level, or the federal level, it is still calling on government to enforce a moral standard. That standard must establish that it is wrong for a pregnant citizen to deprive her unborn child of life, or it is not. Most states have, since the Roe v. Wade opinion, shown remarkable incompetence and unwillingness to take responsibility for abortion within their borders, so I highly doubt they have the fortitude to do so now.

In your own state of Texas, almost 87,000 women had abortions in 2008. That’s in spite of regulating laws, like a third-trimester ban, parental notification, conscientious objector status for doctors, and a 24-hour waiting period.

 

But let us assume that you’re right, Dr. Paul, that states will rule best on this question.  Why then, do you advocate for states to sanction some killing? Isn’t this the perfect place to follow your pro-life principles and urge the states to stop the killing?

The hypothetical state law you provide as an example would “treat” these “very early pregnancies” with the “day after pill”. Now, Dr. Paul, I would normally defer to your medical expertise here. But I confess a bit of confusion over what pill we’re discussing.

The Mayo Clinic’s website lists the “morning-after pill” as a type of emergency birth control, so let’s settle on that for a moment. This is a variety of treatment that either blocks fertilization or keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. They take pains to distinguish this from RU-486, a blatant abortive, by saying “If you’re already pregnant when you take the morning-after pill, the treatment will be ineffective and won’t harm the developing baby. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy.”

 

Dr. Paul, you called it a pregnancy. Twice.

In the above passage from your book, you say these pills are ok for states to establish as treatment for “very early pregnancies.” If the Mayo Clinic is right, and the morning-after pill will not abort an existing baby, then do you suggest, Dr. Paul, that rape victims (or really any pregnant woman) should be allowed to use other means to “treat” these early pregnancies?

I know it may seem that I’m arguing over mere words…but this is exactly what happens in state legislatures time and time again, when the goal becomes to regulate evil instead of abolish it. Once you say it’s morally acceptable for a certain woman to abort/terminate/kill her child, but not another woman, you’ve already lost the battle. You’re then just arguing the terms of surrender.  It appears Dr. Paul’s goal is not the same as mine: we ought not strive to have “fewer abortions,” but to protect the lives of all Americans…born or unborn.

 

But my biggest disappointment, Dr. Paul, is that you called it a choice.

Is murder legal because it’s difficult to “police”? No.
Is the state released from their duty to punish murder because it keeps happening?  No.

More importantly, is murder illegal because the law says so? Or is it murder against our law because God’s law says so? I believe each person should be free to make our own “moral choice”…but not if that person infringes upon the rights of others. That’s where my choice ends and inherent rights begin.

 

Either every person has the God-given right to life and liberty, or they do not. Either the Constitution guarantees those rights or it does not.  If those rights come only from man, and not from God, then you Dr. Paul, can have no argument when men make laws that take away our liberties…since those “rights” are not inalienable, but just the arbitrary desires of men.

If we instead acknowledge that all mankind is created equal with rights that no government of men can justly take away, we must align our man-made laws to protect what God has given to us. That choice, Dr. Paul, seems crystal clear to me.

  • JoelKurtinitis

    Great article, Rebekah.  Wanted to point out a few things.  First of all, what Dr. Paul has said in the debates clarifies what you quoted from the book – there is no way to know if someone is pregnant in the first hours, so there is no way to enforce such things as the pill.  And in answer to your question, yes, enforceability is a key component of law and always has been. Otherwise we would have simply legislate things like “love everyone” or “always tell the truth”.   Verily I say unto you, governments that enact the unenforceable laws do so only with the intent of oppression.  The Nazis pushed through a staggering number of laws on every thinkable issue during their short reign, with the intent that they could arrest anyone, anywhere, for any reason, and be within the law. What would you suggest doing?  Arresting the terrified 16-year-old who was just raped and rushed to find the pill before even knowing if she’s pregnant? Second, when pressed on the issue, both Steve and others in the Family Leader circle have now backed down from “Ron Paul thinks states’ rights trump the right to life” to “well, he believes enforcement needs to be at the state level.”  Most other murder is enforced at the state level as well, surely you would not support favoritism in protecting the unborn over protecting a child or adult.  You folks are viewing state enforcement as the end-all, be-all of Dr. Paul’s position on life, and that’s clearly not all there is to it.  When criminals cross state lines, they don’t get away scott free, federal law steps in, but that’s the exception to the rule.  The RULE for abortion enforcement must be the states so we stop turning over more and more power to the federal government, the EXCEPTION can be enforced at the federal level.
    I must admit, it seems like social conservatives are straining at gnats on this issue, given the fact that Bachmann and Santorum have both come out in favor of the exact same things that Paul has – most recently on the Huckabee forum.  Bachmann’s first response to a question on abortion was “we need to repeal Roe V Wade and turn things back over to the states.”  So how is she not getting called out like Ron Paul is?  Nobody wants to end things with the states, but they realize that things must START with the states.

    • Anonymous

      What makes you think that enforcement comes after taking the pill? The enforcement is prohibiting the creation of the pill in the first place. If they want to go underground to get the pill or go to Mexico, not much you can do about that but you CAN stop it from being legally made. This pill isn’t like taking an aspirin where there are many different uses – the pill is to stop life from continuing.

      I might be wrong but Bachmann wants to repeal Roe V Wade AND put in a constitutional amendment for personhood, isn’t that different than Paul? He doesn’t want a amendment for marriage or for personhood or anything else for that matter – I guess he doesn’t understand the purpose our founders put in the ability to have amendments to the constitution.

      • JScottRains

        Regarding Dr. Paul’s stance on the Defense of Marriage…
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

        Regarding Dr. Pauls’s stance on Personhood…
        http://www.prolifealliance.com/sanctity%20of%20life%20act.html

        • Anonymous

          Yes I know he wants to get marriage away from government – he is ok with a sidewalk salesman marrying a man and a woman or two men and a woman or a dog and a man, just as long as it is up to the state. You see that is how he runs from the social issues, just leave it up to the states, they can do whatever they want.

          • Silence Dogood IX

            Any two people can walk around and claim that they are married.  As you suggested, they get married by a sidewalk salesman…. if the government had no role in the matter, then not only would they not be legally married under the law, but they are not married under God’s law!  What you must also realize is that Ron Paul knows the dangers of giving the federal government too much power!  Sure you might get a law passed that appeases you today, but once you give the federal government the power over such matters you open yourself up to having a law passed  that you may believe is morally detestable by an elected official who does not share the same beliefs or values you have!  What if enough people wanted gay marriage to be legalized nation wide so they pushed for a Constitutional Amendment or if there there was a Supreme Court case which effectively legalized it!  Sure you could make the contrary argument that well if we could just get an amendment passed banning everything then all would be well with the world.  This goes back to my original point… though it is hard to overturn an amendment (it would take a new amendment) you still open yourself up to an amendment that you would find detestable.  Which at least in the case of marriage, the federal government should have no role.  By the way, Ron Paul is a supporter of DOMA!  Anyways, we can go on and on about these issues here and I think the only logical conclusion we can reach on this is the following: We live in a vast country of 300 million people spanning an entire continent.  I believe that it is contrary to Biblical principals as well as not practical to have a one size fits all solutions because.  I believe that God is more concerned with the local communities than the governments that preside over those communities why…. because God’s kingdom is the only one that really matters!  Finally, because of the vastness of our country, top down solutions forced upon people will only create more division among the people of this great nation.  We have to change their hearts with the message of God’s love. 

            Anyways… I think i’m just rambling on at this point and i’m probably not making much sense anymore….

            Best Regards

          • Anonymous

            It’s called a Republic, that is the way we do it. We can put on amendments, that is why our founders did it so it can be used. If we aren’t supposed to use the amendment process then remove it from the constitution.

            Why is Paul a supporter of DOMA? Isn’t he against Federalizing anything?

          • Anonymous

            DOMA is actually not federalizing anything. DOMA prevents the marriage laws of one state from being forced on residents of another state. If California chose to legalize gay marriage, the people who then moved from California to Ohio couldn’t then force Ohio to recognize their marriage.

          • Anonymous

            DOMA is a FEDERAL law. Paul likes to have it both ways.

          • Anonymous

            DOMA protects states’ rights on the matter of marriage. It’s a FEDERAL law that basically amounts to a law invoking the 10th amendment, allowing STATES to make their own decisions when it comes to marriage, without forcing laws onto them from other states.

          • Dan

            “You see that is how he runs from the social issues, just leave it up to the states, they can do whatever they want.”

            Cecil, don’t you see that your position could be said to be just leave up to the federal government, they can do whatever they want? The states can’t do whatever they want. They will do what the voters of that state allow them to do. The difference is that voters have more control over local issues than they do over national issues.

            “The enforcement is prohibiting the creation of the pill in the first
            place. If they want to go underground to get the pill or go to Mexico,
            not much you can do about that but you CAN stop it from being legally
            made.”

            Are you trying to end abortion or just move it underground? Why not allow individuals to show how successful a free and moral community can be? Allow others to copy that success. Allow the local communities to decide what kind of place they want to live in. Stop the federal government from forcing a one-size fits all, no competition, nonsense rule on everyone.

          • Anonymous

            Sure, lets just not have any laws. That way it will show other people how that not having any laws will show you how good people really are. Yes, no child pornography laws, no laws against going 100 MPH, no laws against prostitution, no laws against marrying your dog or having sex with it as now the military is allowing – isn’t it great?  Did we expect anything else when you have a anti-American anti-Christian pro-Muslim socialist in the White House?

            Am I trying to end abortion? Of course. Will it end? No.  A mother can use any number of ways to kill her baby, but lets don’t create pills to help her do it. 

          • All American Male

            Seriously, what state in the USA do you think would suddenly vote to abolish child pornography laws if it were up to them?

          • Anonymous

            What, I only have to name one? How about the state that now requires from kindergardner to 12th to openly admire/honor/read lies about/etc. and then NOT allow to condemn or in any other way desparage homosexuals? We’ll start there.

          • libertylover

            Oh Please!  A man and a dog?!!!  What his position is, is that there actually should be NO state involment in marriage AT ALL.  If it is a religious marriage it should be handled by the respective church  – or mosque or synagogue or what have you, and if it is not it shoudld simply be a contract between two consenting adults and should be subject to contract law only.  It’s none of the states’ business, and if we all have equal rights as individuals, it doesn’t matter if you can “claim” your spouse etc.  I could NEVER imagine a DOG entering into a contract.  Seriously?!!! Your hybperbole is not making your case.

          • Anonymous

            So what happens under Paul when people want a divorce, who decides where what money goes to whom? Who decides where the children go? The sidewalk salesman?  And what makes you think it should be between two consenting adults? Why not three? Why not five? Why not a consenting adult and a consenting child? That is what the homosexual community wants, why not allow it? I could NEVER imagine our military allowing bestiality but alas it has happened with Republican support.

      • JoelKurtinitis

        Ron Paul said openly and directly at the Thanksgiving Forum that he does support a Constitutional Personhood Amendment.  Check it out for yourself.

  • chmst1999

    Dr. Paul’s position would allow states to write into their Constitutions that life begins at conception, and then the state could police the problem as they see fit. Many pro-life people are simply tilting at windmills when fighting Roe v. Wade. I agree that it should be overturned, but why not take action at the state level instead? If a state passed a law acknowledging that life begins at conception, that would also set in motion the mechanism to overturn Roe v. Wade (that was one of the Supreme Court’s warnings). 

    His position is to return the power over these decisions to the states instead of the federal government. 

  • http://twitter.com/urielsword urielsword

    Ron Paul is doing the best he can for the good of our country. If you can’t see that then there is no hope. Go ahead and vote for whom you chose.
    I will continue to vote for Dr. Paul.

  • JScottRains

    Dr. Paul has written thoroughly on the subject… 

    http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf
    Pastor Chuck Baldwin speaking about the hypocrisy of the Republican Party in regards to Abortion as well as “The Sanctity Of Life Act” that Dr. Paul has numerously introduced, but never supported, even during the 6 years where the controlled the White House, Senate and Congress…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_6VvQAmVk 

    Unfortunately, I think we are about to be Fooled Again…

    • JScottRains

      Also I would encourage everyone to watch the last video on Tom Woods resource page for Steve Deace.

      http://youtu.be/vQNt276JyWo

      As an evangelical it pains me to see fellow Christians who recognize that life begins at conception, yet ends outside of our borders.

  • Me

    SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT… Three times Paul tried to get it passed. ENOUGH SAID

  • Saveamerica4u

    The writer chosen to be highlighted here has NO IDEA what she is talking about his position.  He is the AUTHOR of the Sanctity of Life Act among many other bills presented in Congress for over 20 years!  He has been the LEADER in trying every approach under the sun to try to get the in “lip service only” Republicans to back HIS bills to end abortion in America.  But the rest of them have been more interested in keeping abortion legal so they could grossly keep using it as an issue to get re-elected.  Dr. Paul has authored bills first with federal approach and later after repeatedly not getting support trying the state approach.  That is a fact.  It was a last ditch effort to try the state approach because the Republicans would not pass his first bills that were national,federal efforts.

    What other Doctor in America treated patients for FREE that were on Medicare or Medicaid instead of turning them away as a prospective patient and never accepted government subsidized healthcare???  In addition to that being an agreement to work for him, they also had to agree to NEVER perform an abortion. 

    Mr. Deace, you are showing your prejudice against this candidate by publishing one nonsense article after another distorting this Defender of the Unborn.  I am tired of all this.  I used to have a great deal of respect for you, but the display of these distortions and well-picked propaganda makes you not one bit better than all the rest. 

    I would encourage you to really pray on this decision.  Our nation’s unborn need you to be fair to this good Doctor that has been vilified for standing up to the corporate machine for decades.  God help us.

    • Silence Dogood IX

      You know what’s interesting about all of this, is that there is no other candidate that the can debate these issues on such an intellectual or moral level and that also stirs up so much intellectual discussion on his views and principals!

      Ron Paul 2012!!!  It’s all or nothing and America’s last chance!

  • Dan

    Rebekah, I am glad to here you are trying to like Ron Paul. I think you would like him a lot more if you studied further to understanding the clarity of his message. On abortion, Dr. Paul holds a very pro-life position. The differences you have with him are on how to rid the world of abortions. Can it even be done? On this I think Dr. Paul is right because he understands force and violence will not solve this problem. Only a free and moral society can end abortion. He also believes it is a mistake to allow the federal government to be involved in this area to begin with. This is the correct position constitutionally, morally, and tactically.

    Constitutionally, because there is no authority in the constitution that specifically grants the government this power. If they don’t have the power it is left up to the states and the people. Simple as that.

    Morally, because he would immediately remove the power from the federal government to take pro-life people’s money in taxes and then use that money to fund abortions. Yes, the state’s could decide to do the same but it could be fought against locally rather than nationally. This would also mean that state’s that are currently majority pro-life would be able to immediately end the immoral tax collection from pro-life supporters to fund abortions. If the state’s decided to ban them that would also be up to the people of those states. People would have their state governments do their will rather than a faraway, monolithic government. It is easier to influence your neighbor rather than having to influence the majority of the country.

    Tactically, because the biggest advantage we have is that a free and moral society is a better place. If we have decisions like abortion handled as locally as possible the areas of the country that lived morally and peacefully would begin to flourish. Communities that flourished would be able to lead the country by example. The more freedom we have to handle our own problems the better off we’ll be.

    Lastly, a warning of the rabbit hole you may fall into when you look to the federal government for the solution. If you argue that the federal government would better handling abortion than a more local solution then why not argue that a world government would better handle it than a moral local federal government? If you understand that it would be awful to have the UN lay the law down on abortion then you should understand why the federal government is awful as well.

    • Dan

      correction: In that last paragraph it should have read “more local federal government” instead of “moral”

  • Silence Dogood IX

    What Ron Paul does in Liberty Defined, is he addresses the very difficult issue of rape!
    I have a question to all of the dads out there reading this… If your 11 year old daughter is raped and and you knew about the rape the day it happened, are telling me that you wouldn’t go down to the drug store that instant and get the morning after pill.  Lets say she gets pregnant, you are telling me you would make your 11 year old daughter who has unicorns and rainbows painted on her walls in her bedroom… you would make her proceed with that pregnancy, the complications of which might kill her…. not to mention the mental horror?!?!  I’m sorry, but I for one could not face that!  If I am wrong on that account, I will face God and give an account for my actions when I stand before him in His holy presence!

    • Anonymous

      I wouldn’t go down to the drug store and buy the pill, but then again both of my daughters know that their dad (me) was adopted, and had my birth mom (thanks mom whoever and where ever you are) made that same decision, I (and they) would not be here today. 

  • Silence Dogood IX

    Who here hates Planned Parenthood?  

    Who here hates tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood?  

    Who here opposes the individual mandate requiring all Americans buy health insurance?

    Who here thinks we should continue foreign aid to Israel?  

    WELL GET READY CUZ HERE IT COMESHealth care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory.  Health care coverage in administered by a small number of organizations, with funding from the government.  Abortion in Israel is legal under certain circumstances.  The termination committee (a government committee) approves abortions, in the following circumstances:           1. The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal marriage age in Israel) or older    than forty.2. The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rap, etc.), 3. an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
    4. The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defects.
    5. Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or   mentally.People are up in arms over Dr. Paul’s pragmatic approach to end abortions and how to deal with rape victims, when all the other candidates want unwavering support and monetary aid sent to Israel to support programs which everyone posting on this page I would suspect believe are wrong, immoral, and unjust!  YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE FUNDING AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AND ABORTIONS!  So I know i’m a little bit off subject here but this is another argument to end monetary aid to Israel!  One most Pro-Life, beltway Christians should not disagree with!I am in no way trying to take a shot at Israel, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy right in front of us!  Personally, I agree with Israel on their stance regarding abortion to some limited extent… Cases of Rape and when the mother’s life is at risk such as in cases of Ectopic Pregnancies for example. Ok.. i’m done venting for the night!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=662697315 Ray Scheel

    I take exception to the consistently judgmental attitude the Keyes supporters express towards the *only* congressman who has submitted legislation to entirely void Roe v. Wade and consistently voted against bills aimed at funding abortion (as well as all the times her tried to help get the Sanctity of Life Act passed).  

    I have never gotten a straight answer on how exactly it is less pro life to prefer to roll back /en toto/ the bad judicial decisions of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton instead of settling for legislation trying to sneak around those terrible SCOTUS decisions that mandated the states accept abortion on demand in a piecemeal fashion.  

    I have also not sen the justification for ignoring what the Church itself has said about the Palestinian issue in order to criticize Rep. Paul’s position on cutting aid to Israel.  Article 49 of the Geneva conventions lays it out quite clearly that each and every settlement that Israel has built on territory it has illegally cleared of non-Jews for “security) is an instance of a war crime by Israel. 

  • Matt

    I just wanted to give an alternate perspective.  I am not a particularly religious person.  I used to believe that abortion was a woman’s choice and the right of the mother to own her own body.  My mind was changed by Dr. Ron Paul.

    I understand this can get very complicated when it comes to rape and other issues and I don’t pretend to know all the right answers.  But due to Dr. Paul’s pro-life advocacy, I now agree R.v.W should be overturned, healthy pregnancies should always be brought to term, and that a fetus is a living human being with rights.  Further, I have a much deeper understanding of why respect for life is so important. 

    I believe that changing hearts and minds is really the only way to fundamentally address any issue we face.  What other politician has the moral character to inspire others to change?  What other politician can lead, not just politically, but by setting an example to be followed and admired in our own lives? I have never seen one, aside from Dr. Paul…

    • Cwav

      Two others, Dr Alan Keyes and Rick Santorum.

      • Matt

        @Cecil_S:disqus  Alan Keyes is not relevant.  Rick Santorum is an in-your-face, power-driven, D.C. Lawyer, despised by millions.  MAYBE he will try to write the laws you want, be he certainly won’t change anyone’s mind…

      • Raymond Scheel

        The campaign of Alan Keyes has a credibility issue in that my experience with his more vocal supporters has been endorsement of articles like the one above that misrepresent Ron Paul’s legislative record and/or his reasoning on pro-life issues while essentially giving a free pass to the rest of the GOP field – even those who have held office and never even tried to effect real change.  The most notable supporter of Alan Keyes in my town habitually posts comments openly questioning the faith of fellow Catholics who support Ron Paul, both for Paul’s approach to ending abortion and his position on cutting funding to Israel (and all the neighboring countries).  It does not help that Keyes has come out and said he wants to keep right on with the tactics than have no hope of taking down Roe v Wade so we can clean up the pieces,  nor that the position of the Catholic Church itself on the Palestinian issue is much better addressed by the non-interventionist position Ron Paul has taken than the unconditional support of everything Israel has or currently is doing that appears to be the position of Alan Keyes.

    • Chris

      is this Rand?

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.r.pomroy Michael Ross Pomroy

    Rebekah As I put it to Steve yesterday, Rights come to the individual, endowed by our creator. They belong to us not the governing body until we give them up. If we do as you say and allow the federal government to legislate the issue, if they can make it illegal they can mandate (ie, China). How do you respond to this?

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.r.pomroy Michael Ross Pomroy

    By the way.I want to thank you for your new show. I think that it is already providing a venue to have awesome discussions on very important topics in calm,rational and informative manner.

  • Anonymous

    So the position of this writer is that we keep things the way they are with 3.5 MILLION abortions a year, as we hope for a 1 in 100,000 chance of  electing a long string of pro-choice politicians, with the 1 in 100,000 chance that we elect a string of pro-choice presidents that covers such a length of time that enough new supreme court justices can be appointed that we can then force “Roe v Wade” again before the court, a 1 in 10,000 chance, to then hope for a favorable outcome, a 1 in 2 shot, that sometime in the next decade or 20 decades we can end abortion with a favorable supreme court ruling and THEN hope against hope that this ruling is not overturned in the future?  So this writer thinks we should hope for a 1 in a million shot of ending abortion for all states sometime decades in the future, rather than at least allowing some states to end it now?  Unbelievable!

  • James

    Rebekah, you do much shame to your given name. Abortion is legal in 50 states in America. By turning the issue over to the states, one state may outlaw the barbaric practice. Would that not be a victory? You will never outdue morality on Dr. Paul on this subject–why–because your just another warmongering, evangelical. Listen up, this maybe new to you, the government is not God. Now go, find out what that means, and the Lord will have mercy and sacrifice.

  • DocJohnston

    Ron Paul endorsed personhood in Colorado. When McCain was the nominee, he burned a lot of Republican bridges in endorsing Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, for President. There’s some obfuscation over the definition of the word “pregnancy” in the article and, thanks to ACOG, some confusion in the medical literature; unfortunately, we have to take the speaker’s own meaning into consideration when interpreting his words.

    Ron Paul is right, however, that to charge a mother with murder (killing a person) when she consumed the morning-after pill, you would need to prove that she knew she was pregnant. If she measures pregnant, then the MAP wouldn’t work. Lastly, the theory that it prevents implantation is an unproven theory. And American College of Pro-Life Ob/Gyns confirms this, that there is no scientific study that has ever proven that the MAP causes abortions by preventing implantation; it’s just been assumed.) It may not be true. Regardless, if Ron Paul’s personhood bills (at the state level)or Sanctify of Life Bill (at the federal level) passed, then states could ban MAP until its manufacturers could prove that they are safe after the beginning of the human being’s life (which is at fertilization, six days before implantation and measurable pregnancy.)

    Dr. Patrick Johnston
    http://www.PersonhoodOhio.com

  • Laura

    I want to build on what has been said.  One thing you’re overlooking is the fact that
    Dr. Paul encourages the masses to begin the process of voting in people that
    match their beliefs and have integrity.   This is crucial, but a President Paul would
    pave the way for massive changes in our society to turn back the power
    ultimately to the families.

     

    You brought up an interesting point regarding these 87,000
    women.  You would think we would have
    small numbers of abortions in this day and age with the “pill”, but these stats
    are just not reflective of the problem. 
    Look at Hollywood.  Look at
    TV.  Look at our morals in decline.   Now, those are the reasons our youth are in
    such disrepair.  We no longer have young
    girls like we did at the turn of the century. 
    They no longer even know the meaning of decorum and tact.

     

    But, Ron Paul will bring back FAMILY CONTROL, and that is
    perhaps the first step….family control over the EDUCATION SYSTEM…..and that is
    a big, big step!  As a grandmother I am
    very scared for my family & children. 
    Just today, there was an article on ABC news that “parents who do not
    have their children immunized will be stripped of family tax benefits under a
    scheme by the Federal government”.  This
    is extremely upsetting, because vaccine-injured children are very vulnerable
    and should not have any further vaccines. 
    I know, my grandson was vaccine-injured. 
    It used to be that 1:10,000 would get autism; now it’s 1:100.  We are approaching an epidemic, as the FEDS
    are trying to mandate flu shots which have over the limits of mercury in them
    which lower the immune system of the unborn baby which makes them vulnerable to
    neurological disorders.  I know.  I attended a huge convention in Chicago last
    year.  Many mothers (normal) are
    distraught.  More and more will be
    affected, as time goes on.  My daughter
    was threatened by a Palo Alto doctor and said if she didn’t vaccinate she would
    have to leave the practice, and she worked at Stanford!  So, she did it, and now our whole family is
    upside down and our grandson is struggling to be verbal at age 3.  It’s cost us thousands of dollars.

     

    So, we MUST get control of our government, or it will get
    control over us, as it’s doing right now. 
    If we don’t support Ron Paul, we will be facing a very, very grim
    future, both culturally/morally & financially.   Dr. Paul will breathe into this country new
    life.  Why?  He will educate the masses by taking
    advantage of the press conferences and radio shows.  He will be a President of integrity, and
    that’s something we haven’t had in a very, very long time.  And, if people want to stop the politicians
    who voted for the Banking Bailouts against us, then, we have to start voting
    for politicians that have “character”, and when you look at the real character
    of Gingrich, Romney and Paul, who would win that contest?  Paul.

  • King Cavenaugh

    Ron Paul is the candidate that truly has our nations best interest at heart.  He is not running to  make himself famous or get rich.  He wants the USA to SURVIVE and THRIVE!  Please wake up and realize that if The Republican Party wishes to survive it better nominate a President who is will make the right changes.   If the nominee in 2012 defeats President Obama and does nothing to make a difference we will have an even worse Democrat in White House come 2016.  Ron Paul is not the lesser of two evils.  He is a man of integrity and honor! Ron Paul will make the right choices to save our nation!  Ron Paul 2012!!!

  • save the unborn

    He was the first member of Congress after the Roe v Wade decision 30 years ago to introduce a constitutional amendment to our US Constitution.  You people are beating up on the Champion of the Unborn.  He has tried EVERY approach to end abortion in America.  Get a clue.  http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/ron-paul-champion-of-the-pro-life-movement-not-pro-life-enough

  • All American Male

    Dr. Paul VS every other candidate is a no-brainer. The semantics of your argument are weak. If this is the best you can do to explain to us how Dr. Paul is a bad candidate, then you’ve lost the argument.

  • Anonymous

    Rebekah, I appreciate your concerns. That quote from Liberty Defined is one of my few struggles with Dr. Paul. IF the morning after pill causes abortion, then I strongly disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. At the same time, he is still the pro-life candidate most likely to bring an end to abortion — and he will do it in three steps:

    1) By taking the abortion issue out of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction (through Congress), he will effectively overturn Roe vs. Wade (step one)
    2) By then returning the issue to the states, abortion can be quickly outlawed in certain states (step two).
    3) By passing a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, we can move from limited abortions to NO legal abortions (step three).

    One more important clarification: Dr. Paul DOES NOT support abortion/murder at the state level; he simply believes that Constitutionally ALL murder — including abortion — falls under the jurisdiction of the states. That is why a  Constitutional Amendment needs to be passed nationally.

    I have been a consistent — almost one-issue — voter when it comes to abortion. But what has changed since Roe v. Wade, despite having various “pro-life” presidents? Very little. Action trumps rhetoric any day.

    That is why I genuinely believe that Dr. Paul is the pro-life community’s greatest opportunity to end the abortion slaughter. He has my vote. I hope he will have yours also.

  • Libertylover

    I think that it is clear that Ron Paul is personally pro-life.  It is also clear that the constitution gives no authority on the matter.  Yes, this could be changed with an ammendment.  However, this is an issue that will not make or break our country at this time, when there are many that will.  These priority issues are the ones that Dr. Paul is pursuing.  Isn’t it possible that if we have a true hero in the White House, people might be inspired to rise to his standards?  When was the last time we had a truly inspiring president?  I am personally pro-life, but I don’t want there to be laws abortion so much as I want to inspire people to live lifes that wouldn’t put them in the situation in the first place.  Maybe if we had a leader who inspired respect, and removed our national shame, we all might be inspired to live more respectable lives.  Also, as “ME” commented, Ron Paul did sponsor (and possibly even introduced, though I’m not 100% certain on that,) The Sanctitiy of Life Act that would officially decalre life to begin at conception. 

  • Carl

    Dr. Paul is really saying that regardless of how it would pan out from state to state, his point is that since we have a LACK OF CONSENSUS on this issue, instead of the electorate being carried away by flowery speeches about all-or-nothing solutions — speeches we have gotten for 40 years now, I might add, with precisely zero, zip to show for them — we should instead begin with practical steps to reduce the number of abortions.  How?

    Reversing Roe would indeed reduce the number of abortions, if it would ever be overturned (which is extremely doubtful). Ron Paul’s proposal is MUCH MORE EXPEDITIOUS—

    It is to strip the courts of jurisdiction over abortion and it’s the only serious proposal to do that. The chances of a pro-life amendment being ratified today are zero, but it makes a good talking point for politicians who intend to give some speeches, take your money, and then do nothing.

  • James

    The problem is the Federal Government does not follow the Constitution therefore why should we continually defer life to a corrupt city (DC). States have authority to grab this issue and over-ride the Federal Government. Will it be perfect absolutly not but step by step and saving thousands of babies at the same time is better then licking the feet of our seven kings and two queens (Supreme Court)…while millions of babies are butchered.

  • Pro-Life-Forever

    I have sidewalk counseled at abortion clinics, protested, worked for various pro-life movements and have even been arrested with Operation Rescue. I have been a single-issue voter my entire adult life (pro-life is the issue) and I still am. Only now I better understand why we HAVEN’T SUCCEEDED AT ALL in Washington with regard to pro-life issues, despite having a pro-life president and congress for 6 plus years. Ron Paul’s strategy to overturn the nationwide legalization of abortion IS THE BEST ONE and makes the most sense — and yet is suspiciously ignored or misconstrued as in this article. Who is this woman who is claiming to be pro-life and yet is twisting Ron Paul’s views on the issue? You have to understand that Ron Paul is not running for your pastor or priest. He is running for a government position and therefore expresses himself as it applies to LAW. He is making the point of what can be prosecuted under the law and what cannot. Because that is what local state governments should be concerned with. Once the sanctity of life is established, the states have the job to prosecute the crimes against life.

  • JLof

    Sad to say, Ron Paul, though a Christian, does not have a Biblical view of many things. In this interview I did of him in 2008 it is obvious he does not favor executing abortionists (after a trial, evidence, due process of law) even though they are murderers. And he really does not think homosexuality is a sin. Comments to me welcome re: interview….

    118: Exclusive Interview: Ron Paul On God/Government; Abortion; Homosexuality; And Much More

    http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898

    John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
    Recovering Republican
    JohnLofton.com
    JLof@aol.com

  • Pingback: Paltry fundraising adds to Maes’ woes

  • Rel

    In 1776,  the Declaration of Independence which says “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”  was signed many of the men there, including Jefferson the author and George Washington, were slave owners.  When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, slavery was then still legally sanctioned it would take almost 100 more years and a blood civil war to end slavery in America.  Why do I bring this up?  Because today as then we face an issue that causes great problems and misery, suffering, and pain.  Is our nation perfect? No. Are all the candidates perfect?  No  But if you believe in our Constitution, there is a chance for things to finally right themselves just as slavery was finally settled.  (Well, maybe all the politicians who “HIRE” illegal immigrants could be on the edge, but that’s a nother matter.) 

    Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes what our Constitution says is worthy to be followed no matter which way the Spirit of this Age is blowing.  Gingrich has multiple serial wives and loves the so-called Patriot Act, Romney has flipped flopped on Aborttion several times and probably will again. Sanatorim voted for the new NDAA which now allows the President to incarcerate American Citizens indefinitely without trial, and NEWT-MITT are also on board with that travesty!  

    Do you remember  Mr. Randall Terry who led the charge against Late Term and Partial Birth Abortions?  Under this UN-Constitutional provision in the NDAA, he could have been deemed  aterrorist and be in some prison indefinitly.    If the Constitution is destroyed  piece by piece, then so our rights to descent.  The Prol-life movement will be deemed a terroist act by our society and some liberal progressive bureaucrat at sometime in the future.  At one time the Bible was regarded as truth by our society…and once that was changed…do you think a piece of writing just 200+ years old by some white wig wearing old white guys is going to stand the Zietgiest? (Spirit of the Age)  Without the Constitution you will have no safeguards for anything. Do not elect these imposters.
    I believe that a woman’s right to choose starts at conception.  My daughter had an out of wedlock birth and our grandson is here because she could not bring herself to cause her baby’s death.  I thank God for her heart choice was for life and not trying to hide from guilt that others might place on her. She made the right choice after making a wrong one to  have sexual realations out side of marriage.  She and our grandson live with us, because two wrongs don’t make it right and we love them.  That is our choice to show them love and do what we can to redeem the situation.

Deace on TV
“We Won’t Get Fooled Again”
Steve’s New Book
Order your copy today!
Healthy for Life University video
Healthy for Life University logo

You’ve heard on his show how Steve Deace has lived the Healthy for Life University lifestyle — and how it changed his life forever.
Are you ready for true healing to live that abundant life that you were created for? THIS IS NOT JUST ANOTHER FITNESS OR DIET PROGRAM. It truly will help you change your health.
Watch the video to learn how Healthy for Life University can help you achieve lifelong great health.