Rand Paul: I’m pro-life, but exceptions should be handled case by case

posted at 2:01 pm on March 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

So confused am I by what he’s saying in the clip below that I’m not sure I’ve summed up his position correctly in the headline. The Blaze, wisely, didn’t even try. Their own post on this is simply titled, “CNN Asked Rand Paul About Abortion Exceptions: This Is How He Answered.” Here’s what we know: Not only is Paul pro-life, he just introduced the Life At Conception Act in the Senate, which would overturn Roe via a federal statute aimed at protecting due process for a fetus per Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So far, so good. Simple question from Wolf Blitzer, then: Would he make an exception for pregnancies caused by rape and those that threaten the health of the mother? That’s when things got … complicated.

I would say that, after birth, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one-day-olds or a six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being.

But it is more complicated, because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So I don’t think it’s as simple as checking a box and saying, “Exceptions” or “No exceptions.”

I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I’ve been there at the end of life. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to. But I think it is important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say, “Oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family.”

More:

“I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say people came more to my way of thinking,” he continued, “there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”

There’s more still, but I’ll leave you to the clip for the rest. It kind of sounds like he’s saying that it’s not always clear-cut early in a pregnancy whether “life” has begun yet, but he can’t possibly be saying that. He’s sponsoring the “Life at Conception Act,” for cripes sake. In which case, what’s he saying? Do note that when he ran for senator in 2010, he told Kentucky Right to Life that he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He never explicitly contradicts that here, but by backing an ad hoc approach that imagines “thousands of exceptions” based on “decisions made privately by families and their doctors,” he sure isn’t affirming it either.

I can only assume this is a particularly strained example of Paul trying once again to walk the line between libertarianism and traditional conservatism. (The second in as many days, in fact.) Trumpeting a “Life at Conception Act” earns him major points with the latter while alienating some of the former, so here he is trying to muddle through back into libertarians’ good graces with lots and lots of case-by-case loopholes. How would you even begin to codify what he’s suggesting here? Is he imagining an anti-abortion law that’s essentially hortatory? And isn’t that effectively pro-choice? (Sure is, says the Atlantic.) What am I missing?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

That is small potatoes compared to stopping or reducing the (far higher) number of abortions performed every day that have nothing to do with rape. It’s like saying this medicine is 95% effective but should not be allowed because it isn’t effective for everyone.

Rape/incest exceptions are popular and have some basis in reality, emotional or otherwise. Focus elsewhere to gain the kind of majority that changes laws.

alwaysfiredup on March 20, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I don’t even know why we need the rape exception. My understanding is that Plan B is OTC, correct? Plan B can be taken before a heartbeat and a brain waves, so that is a good compromise. There is no need to have a 8 week, 12 week, 20 week, 30 week abortion for the exception of rape..

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM

But the issue of abortion on demand…

the awful issue of rape is used by the pro-abortion opiners to rationalize abortion-on-demand, as if all women are impregnated against their will or without their compliance in the act that created their child.

Most are not without compliance, most are willing in the act, as are the men, and knowledgeable of the likelihood of pregnancy by what they’re doing.

Abortion-on-demand after their “choice” has been made is as hideous as rape itself, if not worse, given that it willfully ends the life of a third-party, the child, who is utterly blameless in their circumstances of life.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:08 PM

What a difference five days can make.

On the 15th, Rand Paul said “Life begins at conception…” and “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence…”

But, suddenly, five days later, Rand no longer seems to know when life begins, and, he no longer believes that all Americans have a right to life.

Amazing.

Pork-Chop on March 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM

It sure does seem that something or someone got to Rand Paul and has placed some sort of undue influence on him.

Here he’s a rising star making great sense and then, wham, suddenly he’s gone all mealy-mouthed and jumped to the other side of the Reasonable Road.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:12 PM

You can focus on fiscal issues, and perhaps we should for the present. I’m never voting for a pro-choice candidate, though, no matter what else they say. And I am hardly alone on that issue.

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Same here..If it’s a pro-choice republican then i flat out won’t vote..I will defend the life of the unborn until i have no life left in my body

sadsushi on March 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM

sadsushi on March 20, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Totally agree.!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM

anotherJoe on March 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

No, Joe it is like everything else. The platform is NOT the problem. See science is on OUR side. Technology advances and actually proves pro-lifers right. It is the Republicans inability to sell the platform and the internal Republicans who sell out the platform principle for votes instead of working on the message and selling the message. I imagine there were people who supported slavery who said no one support overturning it. Please stop fighting it.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 2:31 PM

melle, excellent comments, I agree with them/you.

Other thing: about the issue of innocent, unborn human life, it’s not one that should be “feared” due to political outcome or liabilities, or the importance of defending it be denied because it’s assumed one will be ‘unpopular’ at the polls if one does.

This is an important issue with a capital “I” and should never be denied as important simply due to political fears of unpopularity.

Otherwise, I mean, sell yourself out on that and everything else because you want votes.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I haven’t read the bill he introduced S. 583: A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to …

To believe that Life begins at Conception isn’t changed by how the woman became pregnant.

There are several subjects here.

1. Life begins at Conception
2. Roe vs Wade
3. S. 583 bill that Paul introduced
4. Rape, incest & the life of the Mother is at risk

1. I believe that Life begins at Conception; How the woman treats
that life is up to the woman, i.e. keep it or use the Abortion laws under Roe vs Wade.

2. Roe vs Wade is the law

3. Haven’t read that yet

4. This doesn’t effect Roe vs Wade to my knowledge.

Question: Those of you that have read S. 583, is there an easy answer to how this effects/changes/voids Roe vs Wade?
Maybe only Attorney’s can figure this all out, LOL

I may go back and work on the Federal taxes which are not a piece of cake, but may be compared to this, LOL

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM

You can focus on fiscal issues, and perhaps we should for the present. I’m never voting for a pro-choice candidate, though, no matter what else they say. And I am hardly alone on that issue.

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:41 PM

DITTO.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:23 PM

I think Rand Paul is definitely running for president.

He has to be very careful here. He has his own opinion, however, there are many that have a difference of opinion on this topic.

There are people with extreme viewpoints on both sides: Women
who use abortion as birth control and anti abortion advocates who
chase down cars in abortion center parking lots (or the ones who murder doctors who perform abortions). Then there are
sick people like Obama who vote for partial birth abortion and
the moderates who advocate for abortion, but only up until 12 weeks, etc. All different viewpoints.

When a person becomes president they are president of all the people. Good luck on this one Rand Paul!

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:27 PM

I guess no one warned Rand Paul about starting his Presidential campaign three years early.

bw222 on March 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM

thank you for sharing that. god bless you.

dmacleo on March 20, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Thanks much.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM

If he is talking about establishing some sort of “due process” for the pre-born, then it sounds like there would need to be some sort of tribunal/administrative body/court that would weigh rights of the pre-born against right of the pregnant woman.

I have no idea what various weight would be assigned to any considerations of the pregnant women (physical health dangers, rape, and incest might be factors weighing toward approving an abortion).

Perhaps there would also be a sliding scale overlaid on the consideration having to do with how far into the pregnancy it is.

krome on March 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM

The Roe v Wade decision was another of many (Kelo, Ocommiecare, Dred Scott) indications that the vain Supremes often are out of touch with the Constitution and their duty to defend it to the letter. Our Founders never intended for the nation to be ruled by nine.

“…and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That’s quoted directly from The Preamble just in case traitors Benedict Roberts, Harry Blackmun, Buzzy Ginsburg, Breyer and freak stooges Kagan and Sotomayor somehow missed it.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Given that understanding and also an understanding that our union skools have poorly educated the populace there exist pregnancy complications which create rare, I repeat rare, exceptions where medical intervention must occur to preserve the life of the mother.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Yes, of course, but Rand Paul was speaking to the public as if he was in an examining room, which is not only embarrassingly sloppy for Paul as an elected official but it’s leaving him and now the GOP entirely up for added ridicule because of his sloppiness.

My point earlier was that with his educated mind and training, Paul SHOULD be aware of the distinctions of intimate topics and how they’re addressed from private to public.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Talk about walking a tightrope.

Which way is the wind blowing today?

D-fusit on March 20, 2013 at 3:37 PM

God bless you, Lourdes & melle1228.

22044 on March 20, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Thanks much, appreciate that.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:38 PM

God bless you, Lourdes & melle1228.

22044 on March 20, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Amen, God Bless you both.

D-fusit on March 20, 2013 at 3:41 PM

God bless you, Lourdes & melle1228.

22044 on March 20, 2013 at 3:03 PM
Amen, God Bless you both.

D-fusit on March 20, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Thank you, appreciate it.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM

What if we just moved slowly on life? Would we make more progress, changing the culture slowly, versus trying to get people from point A to point Z in one leap?

El_Terrible on March 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Yes…according to Gallup:

A solid majority of Americans (61%) believe abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, while 31% disagree. However support drops off sharply, to 27%, for second-trimester abortions, and further still, to 14%, for third-trimester abortions. Gallup has found this pattern each time it has asked this question since 1996, indicating that Americans attach much greater value to the fetus as it approaches viability, starting in the second trimester.

I believe the majority of people at this point in time would not take issue with some restrictions on abortion rights. We should focus on this alone. We have a very clear opportunity to pull the reigns on the unfettered abortion rights of today. It’s a sensible first step and shouldn’t be discarded in favor of the “all or nothing at all” approach.

lynncgb on March 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Question: Those of you that have read S. 583, is there an easy answer to how this effects/changes/voids Roe vs Wade?

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM

The BILL is short and sweet … 1 page …

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583/text

Under Roe v. Wade, the government grants a woman the “right” to kill her unborn child.

——————–

S. 583 protects an unborn child’s God-given right to life under the U.S. Constitution.

Pork-Chop on March 20, 2013 at 3:44 PM

What would happen if Rand Paul came out and stated:

“I have an opinion, however, the reality is that this is an issue to be decided by women”.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

There is no other time that life can begin other than conception. I don’t think that is even a matter of valid scientific debate.

I do not believe that a life conceived as a result of rape is any less valuable than one conceived in another way, BUT I do not think any person who actually hopes to win the presidency will be able to do so. That is an electoral reality.

As for life of the mother, I have no moral quandaries. If a woman’s life is endangered by pregnancy, she should not be forced to carry that pregnancy, and I think to feel otherwise is immoral.

athenanyc on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

What if we just moved slowly on life? Would we make more progress, changing the culture slowly, versus trying to get people from point A to point Z in one leap?

El_Terrible on March 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Yes…according to Gallup:

A solid majority of Americans (61%) believe abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, while 31% disagree. However support drops off sharply, to 27%, for second-trimester abortions, and further still, to 14%, for third-trimester abortions. Gallup has found this pattern each time it has asked this question since 1996, indicating that Americans attach much greater value to the fetus as it approaches viability, starting in the second trimester.

I believe the majority of people at this point in time would not take issue with some restrictions on abortion rights. We should focus on this alone. We have a very clear opportunity to pull the reigns on the unfettered abortion rights of today. It’s a sensible first step and shouldn’t be discarded in favor of the “all or nothing at all” approach.

lynncgb on March 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I agree with your comments 100%!

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I’m not trying to be a smartalex but;

Which women, the live one or the dead one?
And what about the males? There are the fathers of these babies that never get a say in the matter, are you okay with that?
And the male babies don’t get a say either I guess.

D-fusit on March 20, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Back in November of 2011, the State of Mississippi voted on Amendment 26, which would have enshrined conception as the trigger for legal personhood in that state. As noted in the following I posted here at Hotair at the time, there are plenty of legal reasons why Senator Paul has a hard time articulating what the legal ramifications of his proposed statute will do:

Since y’all are having, IMHO, the best back and forth with the best questions, I will attempt to provide a little historical context to the debate using Texas law since Roe v. Wade struck down most, but not all, of the Texas abortion statute.

First, Texas law incorporated what is known as the “born alive” rule to define personhood. Under Texas law from the days of the Republic, the crime of homicide required the intentional killing of a person born alive, with such birth being defined as complete separation from the mother and independent circulatory and respiratory function. For example, there is a reported decision in the late 1800s wherein the defendant mother was accused of murdering her newborn child by throwing the child into a nearby creek and drowning it. The mother argued the child never became a person to murder because she merely miscarried and threw the dead child in the creek. The trial and appellate court eventually upheld her conviction because the child had H2O in its lungs – there was extensive expert medical and pathological testimony – thereby indicating active respiratory function at the time of death.

Similarly, in a lower court decision adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1935, Magnolia Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Jordan, the Court held that a child mortally injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a Coke truck was not a person whose death was compensable to his parents under the Texas wrongful death act. In so holding, the Court found persuasive the incorporation of the born alive rule in the homicide statute.

Finally, in a 1990s case called Wheeler v. Yettie Kersting Hospital, a Texas court of appeals held that a child in the process of being delivered feet first, i.e., breach, who was healthy and pink until the prolapsed umbilical cord tightened around its neck preventing delivery of its head, and who was finally delivered, blue and without independent respiratory function and was not revived, was not a person for purposes of his parents recovery for medical malpractice under the Texas wrongful death statute.

These cases demonstrate that, traditionally, personhood has been defined by the born alive rule, and this applies to all states from the founding to their inclusion in the Union, including Mississippi. Thus, Amendment 26 is not fundamentally a response to Roe v. Wade, although it is definitely such a response. It is an amendment to the Mississippi constitution that fundamentally changes the traditional understanding of legal personhood, as opposed to biological existence.

Why the born alive rule? The ectopic pregnancy hypothetical demonstrates the first reason. Simply put, recognizing legal personhood, as opposed to biological existence, in a fertilized egg or an implanted embryo or a child fully-developed and ready for delivery, creates a potentially irreconcilable conflict between the child’s fundamental right of self-preservation and the mother’s similarly fundamental right. This is why it has always been an absolute defense to the crime of abortion that the procedure was necessary to save the mother’s life. The mother’s life, under traditional law, has always been paramount. This is why the intentional killing of a child in utero has been characterized as the crime of abortion, not the crime of homicide. And under Texas law, the crime of abortion was treated more like an assault on the woman, with the penalties for consensual abortion, i.e., one procured by the mother herself, ranging from 2 to 5 years in prision, subject to doubling if the jury found the abortion was not consensual. Only the crime of abortion committed during parturition, i.e., active labor and delivery, was punished in a manner consistent with homicide penalties, i.e., 10 years to life. This type of abortion also is the only part of the Texas abortion statute left standing by Roe v. Wade, and also is the only crime ever reported to have been charged against the mother (though there is no report of an actual conviction).

Ultimately, as the ectopic pregnancy demonstrates, there is no way to give precedence to the mother’s right of self-preservation over the child’s, since there is no fault involved on the child’s part and they are both fundamentally entitled to survive. Accordingly, our founders adopted the born alive rule to avoid such irreconcilable conflict, but enacted abortion statutes to protect the unborn child in all other cases. That was a reasonable, if fateful compromise, given the fact that the US Supreme Court used this distinction to create the abortion right out of whole cloth.

The second reason for adherence to the born alive rule is demonstrated by a recent amendment to the Texas wrongful death statute to define personhood to include children killed in utero. As noted above, the Supreme Court of Texas strictly adhered to the born alive rule in applying the wrongful death statute because it is the function of the Legislature to define personhood. But, seeking to avoid a conflict with Roe v. Wade, the amendment specifically excluded the application of this definition under any circumstances that might implicate a pregnant woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

So, under current Texas law, recovery under the wrongful death statute depends solely upon the whim of the pregnant woman. If she is in a motor vehicle accident on her way to a clinic to obtain an abortion, she apparently can decide unilaterally whether the impact of the accident terminated her pregnancy or killed her child, with only the latter permitting her to recover for wrongful death against the other driver. No Texas court has dealt with this clearly arbitrary basis for damages liability, but it will eventually come up.

Similarly, what about a woman who does not know she is pregnant, but seeks treatment from a doctor for an illness and such treatment causes her to miscarry? Has the doctor committed malpractice? If there is, indeed, a wrongful death subject to compensation for damages, how do you evaluate such damages? Ordinarily, a grieving mother and father get their mental anguish and loss of companionship? How do you place a monetary award on the loss of companionship with an embryo? More significantly, how to you evaluate lost earning capacity or physical pain and mental anguish for the embryo’s estate?

In other words, the evidentiary problems created by recognizing legal personhood in a child in utero, from conception to live birth, are pretty significant.

I will not comment on whether I think Amendment 26 is a good idea or not. Suffice it to say, it presents some great difficulties if passed, but it clearly is a direct result of the refusal of Roe v. Wade to accept the fatal compromise I mentioned above, and the frustration experienced by many people with the arbitrariness of the choice enshrined thereby.

Mongo Mere Pawn on November 5, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Mongo Mere Pawn on March 20, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I’m pro-choice but remain with the Republican party because other issues rank higher on my list of important priorities. I’m happy to see pro-choice Republican politicians, but it’s clear that a majority of Republicans are also social conservatives for whom abortion is an anathema. We can’t ignore that or we risk fracturing the coalition.

We should most certainly find more pleasant and measured tones to express our different viewpoints and agree on the issues that we can. We almost certainly should focus on other issues in more of the public discourse, but we cannot forget that a sizable chunk of the party & the electorate overall will feel betrayed if the pro-life position is downgraded.

It’s a tightrope: handle the issue delicately to avoid offending the pro-choice voters and don’t abandon it such that pro-life voters are enraged. Democrats have moved so far to the left on this issue that there should be lots of room on the right and the middle for Republicans of differing opinions to operate if they’re sensitive in how they discuss their point of view.

Jill1066 on March 20, 2013 at 3:59 PM

If only Rand had the power Obama has with the media to say “Bow Down B@@@@@@”!!

Sigh

PappyD61 on March 20, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Jill1066 on March 20, 2013 at 3:59 PM

‘Pro-choice’ is a euphemism for murder. Abortion murders an unborn child. Either you support life(of the unborn)-or you support infanticide. There is NO ‘middle ground’ on this.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 20, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Keep in mind I appreciate your points, real life experiences and criticism of Rand Paul. As his experience increases in the political realm he likely will more careful, parse hostile media questions, and will clarify should he misspeak.

It is good for us to have high expectations of our present and potential leaders. Rand Paul shook up the Beltway Establishment with his recent filibuster just as Palin tweaked them with “Drill, Baby, Drill” and “Death Panels”. No doubt our press and the DC elitists will be attacking whom they fear most. Meanwhile, as a former broadcaster, I’ll be awaiting Rand Paul’s clarification of what he meant in light of how easy it is for a setup question like Wolfie Blitzer’s to confuse matters.

Notice how Leftist shill Wolfie combines two separate topics of rape and “threaten the health of the mother” into a not so simple question. Those two situations indeed may intersect yet not always. Thus answering Blitzer’s loaded question is bound to confuse an answer. No doubt in my mind that was shill Blitzer’s intent.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Notice how Leftist shill Wolfie combines two separate topics of rape and “threaten the health of the mother” into a not so simple question. Those two situations indeed may intersect yet not always. Thus answering Blitzer’s loaded question is bound to confuse an answer. No doubt in my mind that was shill Blitzer’s intent.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 4:09 PM

This is gotcha journalism by Wolf. The goal is to either divide conservatives or get an Akin-like soundbite to play non-stop.

midgeorgian on March 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/sep/20/barack-obama-beyonce-role-model

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/1552529/keyshia-cole-calls-out-beyonce-for-bow-down

Obama thinks Beyonce is a great role model……old news but new again.

THIS is news!!!

PappyD61 on March 20, 2013 at 3:55 PM

If Obama had a 3rd daughter, she’d look like Beyonce. /

22044 on March 20, 2013 at 4:28 PM

The word salad here from Rand Paul is kind of disturbing. I also question his vote to confirm Chuck Hagel.

TarheelBen on March 20, 2013 at 4:29 PM

“I have an opinion, however, the reality is that this is an issue to be decided by women”.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

+1

anotherJoe on March 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM

This is gotcha journalism by Wolf. The goal is to either divide conservatives or get an Akin-like soundbite to play non-stop.

midgeorgian on March 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Wolfie is like most Leftist media shills where the questions are written and loaded to equate often dissimilar or contradictory things to harm honest people honestly trying to answer them.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 4:35 PM

“I have an opinion, however, the reality is that this is an issue to be decided by women”.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Not if a man is expected to blindly collaborate, shoulder or finance the consequences… lest one fall into the same trap as Germans who figured that if they weren’t Jewish then Auschwitz wasn’t their problem.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 4:38 PM

“I have an opinion, however, the reality is that this is an issue to be decided by women”.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

+1

anotherJoe on March 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM

About post birth abortion. I have an opinion, but this is an issue to be decided within the home by the parents.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Notice how Leftist shill Wolfie combines two separate topics of rape and “threaten the health of the mother” into a not so simple question. Those two situations indeed may intersect yet not always. Thus answering Blitzer’s loaded question is bound to confuse an answer. No doubt in my mind that was shill Blitzer’s intent.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Notice how Leftist shill Wolfie combines two separate topics of rape and “threaten the health of the mother” into a not so simple question. Those two situations indeed may intersect yet not always. Thus answering Blitzer’s loaded question is bound to confuse an answer. No doubt in my mind that was shill Blitzer’s intent.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 4:09 PM

This is gotcha journalism by Wolf. The goal is to either divide conservatives or get an Akin-like soundbite to play non-stop.

midgeorgian on March 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Yes, I agree with you both. Let me put it this way: I would EXPECT a person of Rand Paul’s training to recognize that and to handle it a tad better though he did handle this gotcha-journalism alright (could anyone have done better in the same situation).

I was earlier commenting on that “gotcha” methodology used by the Left to rationalize their pro-abortion views and demands if not continue to exploit abortion by that method and that is to continually if not predictably, routinely focus on the “rape” issue of “unwanted pregnancies” and then to go off on a tangent that steers anyone, everyone into a mindfield of conflict, crime, contradictions, empathies, sympathies, revulsion and insensitivities such that the real issue of abortion-as-convenience is never discussed or can’t be.

So for the politicos among the Right, they must start contending with this, at least as to those on the Right who are pro-life and care about the issue, as most voters on the Right hope if not expect them to be.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 4:38 PM

“I have an opinion, however, the reality is that this is an issue to be decided by women”.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

+1

anotherJoe on March 20, 2013 at 4:34 PM

The women’s liberation movement has twisted men to such a degree that they are even excluded from the children they have co-created with another human being.

I realize the liabilities, some of them at least, as to requiring the father’s permission before abortion, but, really, it’s hideous that it isn’t required. Though women carry and bear children, the fathers of those children are not without rights or without an emotional, spiritual and mental life or worth.

And men have to be more aware of what their actions mean, as they used to be when there was no abortion and weren’t any antibiotics available. When you consent to intimate acts with a women, you have, indeed, already consented to fathering children as the woman has to mothering a child. We have stopped raising children who are aware of that and s*x today seems to be considered an athletic activity that isn’t related to reproduction — abortion has provided the termination effect to that possibility such that people have become irresponsible about possible pregnancy.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM

C’mon Rand, don’t get suckered into the abortion nonsense. Stick to your small government ideology and say no comment on everything else. The left and the social cons would love to come together on this issue to sink you.

keep the change on March 20, 2013 at 5:06 PM

The left and the social cons would love to come together on this issue to sink you.

keep the change on March 20, 2013 at 5:06 PM

/rolling my eyes..

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 5:08 PM

S. 583 protects an unborn child’s God-given right to life under the U.S. Constitution.

Pork-Chop on March 20, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Thanks Pork-Chop. I’ll read that. I’m not understanding Rand Paul’s purpose in submitting this Amendment tho. It sounds like it’s a run-around to void Roe vs Wade? Why get into this when the Supreme Court is more liberal now than it was when it ruled on abortion rights.

First and foremost, his amendment won’t even make it out of Committee in my opinion. But entangling himself into something so controversial doesn’t make any sense.

There must be something in the food or drink in D.C. (shaking my head here)

Going to read it now:-)

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I’m not trying to be a smartalex but;

Which women, the live one or the dead one?
And what about the males? There are the fathers of these babies that never get a say in the matter, are you okay with that?
And the male babies don’t get a say either I guess.

D-fusit on March 20, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I am not trying to be a “smartalex” either, however, if men would
keep their little (Ok – med. large) wands in their pants, this wouldn’t be an issue for them./LOL

Personally, I think it is none of
men’s business what women do or don’t do about it. I, like many,
have mixed emotions about this topic; I certainly under no circumstances, except risk of the life of the mother, do I advocate
any abortion after 2-3 months (letting the medical community decide what that time frame should be).

The idea scenario would be NO abortions; however, that is not going to happen. And I don’t want to ever hear about back alley
abortions again. That is what happens when abortions are outlawed.
Abortions still happen; just under horrific circumstances.

Everyone has their own opinion. And we must respect all with the exception of the extreme.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

I feel like that guy in the AT&T commercial listening to the little girl talk about werewolves. “Uh, What?”

mbs on March 20, 2013 at 5:28 PM

“I have an opinion, however, the reality is that this is an issue to be decided by women”.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Not if a man is expected to blindly collaborate, shoulder or finance the consequences… lest one fall into the same trap as Germans who figured that if they weren’t Jewish then Auschwitz wasn’t their problem.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Were you blind when you had unprotected sex?

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Everyone has their own opinion. And we must respect all with the exception of the extreme.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Must?

Respect is earned not compelled.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Were you blind when you had unprotected sex?

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM

No, just responsible…. something you probably couldn’t understand.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Were you blind when you had unprotected sex?

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:32 PM

No, just responsible…. something you probably couldn’t understand.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Having unprotected sex IS NOT responsible.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Having unprotected sex IS NOT responsible.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Why not? How do we ever get the next generation. Is it like in the middle ages where people thought that pests just popped out of nowhere?

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Rand Paul: I’m pro-life

Except when you’re not.

Personally, I think it is none of
men’s business what women do or don’t do about it.
Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Except when you want the child support.

/

That argument is so simplistic and selfish to boot. First of all there is the unborn human’s life and then there is the interest of the father.

Say tell me , you made a point about a 2 or 3 month cutoff. Which one is it ? Why?

CW on March 20, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Having unprotected sex IS NOT responsible.

Amjean on March 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Be sure to tell my wife…. moron.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Until they protect the most innocent , I will vote for no man or woman that supports genocide…..if you can not value human life over some policy, what is wrong with you…..

crosshugger on March 20, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Be sure to tell my wife…. moron.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Heh. Thumbs up.

what is wrong with you…..

crosshugger on March 20, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Selfishness.

CW on March 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM

CW on March 20, 2013 at 5:53 PM

The problem with amjean’s dingbattery is he/she/it presumes “protected” sex must mean some device or gummint free ride (pun optional) rather than those sneaky inconveniences called personal responsibility, monogamy and fidelity.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I wish Rand Paul and other Freedom Loving members of Congress would be more interested in these bills that are pending in the Senate & House:

http://www.govtrack.us/events/bill-summaries

If these pass, then if you are an American, you won’t even be able to protect your or your family’s lives.

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Only going to say something if his political advisers tell him that it is a boon for 2016. Nothing but power really drives them.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Who needs messiahs in the White House when everyone seems to think they have personally been gifted with the authority (authors) over life itself?

And they still claim we are evolving?

Don L on March 20, 2013 at 6:40 PM

This is exactly the way we should be handling it. Look past all the hype and hysteria; 95% of abortions are pure convenience. If we were to permanently strike down that category and never to make any more progress, I would hang up my hat and call it a victory. The exceptions are just that; exceptions to the rule that unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility, usually by teenagers and the 20-something crowd.

MelonCollie on March 20, 2013 at 7:22 PM

Here is what this all boils down to. Paul scared a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. Especially the national defense conservatives. He will be attacked on both flanks by the socialist liberals and big government Republicans. In the middle are the fiscal conservatives who lean towards Paul and the social conservatives who are up for grabs. That is why we are seeing all these stories now about his stance on abortion and immigration. Just wait same sex marriage will be the next issue. We are being played people by the Big government Republicans.

OliverB on March 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Only going to say something if his political advisers tell him that it is a boon for 2016. Nothing but power really drives them.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Well, if his advisors suggested this, then he needs new ones:-)

I think we have some in the House & Senate that haven’t been corrupted. However, it is the Leader in the House and their helpers and the Leader in the Senate and their helpers that call the shots. That doesn’t excuse them from being sheep and following these Leaders however. They alone are responsible for their vote. If their vote is against the American People, then they need voted out asap.

The ones that vote consistently FOR the American People would be the good guys, not those that are switch hitters for their own benefit.

I apply this to those latter kind: A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Just wait same sex marriage will be the next issue. We are being played people by the Big government Republicans.

OliverB on March 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM

And a lot of people are falling for it. It’s the same gotcha journalism that the press did with Herman Cain a couple of years ago. The goal is to get a soundbite or divide conservatives.

midgeorgian on March 20, 2013 at 7:36 PM

We are being played people by the Big government Republicans.

OliverB on March 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Well, that is certainly true. If Rand Paul is among them, I don’t know. I’m still standing with Rand.

The Establishment Republicans/RNC-Priebus/the Bushies/Big R Donors/Rove et al are about Control & Power the same way the Dems are. I understand that.

Anyone that they don’t approve of will be attacked because they oppose any that won’t go along to get along. That is the only way they can consolidate their Power.

Did they care about what Akin or Mourdock said? LOL, not one whit.
They were Conservatives.

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Sounds like Rand is OK with Droning some Fetuses in Some situations without Due Process to me.

jp on March 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM

a federal statute aimed at protecting due process for a fetus per Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So far, so good.

If you say so, but given the liberals-thinly-disguised nature of the young Libertines (face it — they aren’t libertarians) this is an absolutely shocking position. Radically left on drugs, abortion, and special treatment for gays, they have lost any claim to even economic freedom as a philosophy.

Surely they must want Rand ex-communicated from the Coven?

Jaibones on March 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Well, that is certainly true. If Rand Paul is among them, I don’t know. I’m still standing with Rand.

The Establishment Republicans/RNC-Priebus/the Bushies/Big R Donors/Rove et al are about Control & Power the same way the Dems are. I understand that.

Anyone that they don’t approve of will be attacked because they oppose any that won’t go along to get along. That is the only way they can consolidate their Power.

Did they care about what Akin or Mourdock said? LOL, not one whit.
They were Conservatives.

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 7:49 PM

If you look back the same small group of Republicans have been controlling the party since the days of Gerry Ford. Even Reagan was forced to have these people in his cabinet. The only change is now is their children are in charge. The TEA Party scared the socks off these people because for the first time their power has been tested. Fiscal conservatives now know after the tax increases and out of control spending that these folks will never be address their concerns. Hopefully the social conservatives will realize as well that not one plank that they have worked so hard for has been addressed by these big government republicans.

OliverB on March 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Everyone has a choice but the murdered baby. And can’t you just see all the exceptions?? Everyone wuld have a reason and would be the exception. This is just plain stupid

Bullhead on March 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM

The TEA Party scared the socks off these people because for the first time their power has been tested. Fiscal conservatives now know after the tax increases and out of control spending that these folks will never be addreI ss their concerns. Hopefully the social conservatives will realize as well that not one plank that they have worked so hard for has been addressed by these big government republicans.

OliverB on March 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

So true. All Conservatives have been affected by the betrayal of those they elected to have Control of the House. They could have not voted for Boehner, but they didn’t. A very costly lost opportunity.

And it hasn’t been only Conservatives affected, all Americans actually. I really don’t know how they live with themselves.

There is a name for those that vote and enact laws that are against America. I just never knew there were so many.

However, we still need to fight against this. If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again. And we won’t win anything if we don’t fight:-)

I play cards and sometimes you have a losing streak, but you play long enough and the tide turns and you start winning. Hopefully this applies to us also as we continue to do what is right:-)

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Everyone has a choice but the murdered baby. And can’t you just see all the exceptions?? Everyone wuld have a reason and would be the exception. This is just plain stupid

Bullhead on March 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM

As far as I know, there are NO exceptions now. This is the law of the land, but it is the Woman that makes the choice whether to avail herself of it or not.
No one is forcing any woman to abort their baby.

Did you read the bill yet? It’s only one page. Here is the link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583/text

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

This is why you don’t stick your mug out there constantly 3 years before the primaries even begin. Rand Paul’s already flaming out.

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 9:31 PM

As if this were not bad enough, Rand Paul is also an illegal alien amnesty-supporting Lindsay Graham ally.

We all know that…
A Vote for Pro-Amnesty, Chuck Hagel-voting, Anti-E Verify Rand Paul is a Vote for Lindsay Graham.

bluegill on March 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM

This is why you don’t stick your mug out there constantly 3 years before the primaries even begin. Rand Paul’s already flaming out.

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 9:31 PM

There is some truth in that and would apply for anyone. However, with Immigration, Reid is pushing it as well as gun control. I hope Paul calms down, because he is one of the very few that is willing to speak out on issues. It would have been better not to get involved in the Abortion issue, since it’s not a winner. Unless he thinks he can overturn the Supreme Court:-)

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 9:37 PM

As if this were not bad enough, Rand Paul is also an illegal alien amnesty-supporting Lindsay Graham ally.

We all know that…
A Vote for Pro-Amnesty, Chuck Hagel-voting, Anti-E Verify Rand Paul is a Vote for Lindsay Graham.

bluegill on March 20, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Hmmmm…I’m trying to figure out just who this squish is going to be shilling for next. Christie?

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I think Rand Paul can speak for himself and he’s proved that. He doesn’t need his enemies or friends speaking for him. He’s just like Palin, she also speaks for herself, LOL

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM

I think Rand Paul can speak for himself and he’s proved that. He doesn’t need his enemies or friends speaking for him. He’s just like Palin, she also speaks for herself, LOL

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM

The problem with both is that they have so many people playing minutiae-driven gotcha games with them. Rand Paul would be better advised to keep a low profile and stick to broad themes until 2015.

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Hmmmm…I’m trying to figure out just who this squish is going to be shilling for next. Christie?

Come to think of it, he/she/it might be holding out for Mitt 2016.

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 9:44 PM

I can only assume this is a particularly strained example of Paul trying once again to walk the line between libertarianism and traditional conservatism.

No, libertarianism is agnostic on abortion because some people frame it as a question of women’s rights and others as one of the rights of the unborn.

Paul’s objection isn’t about rape and incest (that’s just something the left harps on, rape and incest, rape and incest, rape and incest, you’d think they were half of conceptions instead of a tiny proportion) but rather about health issues, like trisomy-18 and Downs. These issues are horribly difficult for parents to deal with, especially in American where life is valued in a way it is not elsewhere.

TallDave on March 20, 2013 at 10:08 PM

but rather about health issues, like trisomy-18 and Downs. These issues are horribly difficult for parents to deal with, especially in American where life is valued in a way it is not elsewhere.

TallDave on March 20, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Yeah, but gender-selection is not far down that slippery slope, and before you know it you have a female deficit as you’re starting to see in India and China.

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM

The problem with both is that they have so many people playing minutiae-driven gotcha games with them. Rand Paul would be better advised to keep a low profile and stick to broad themes until 2015.

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 9:43 PM

True. No one was talking about Abortion as far as I know. It’s gun control, Illegal Immigration and same sex “marriage”. Those three is enough for now. I don’t know what the reason he took this route.
He does have 15 co-sponsors on that bill he submitted, so we’ll see. Maybe one of them will have some idea.

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 10:20 PM

No, libertarianism is agnostic on abortion because some people frame it as a question of women’s rights and others as one of the rights of the unborn.TallDave on March 20, 2013 at 10:08 PM

That’s interesting. The father currently has no rights if the woman chooses an abortion. There needs to be a review of this and I’m surprised there hasn’t been before.

How does one reconcile the right of the woman and the right of the unborn? It will be interesting too to see where this bill Paul has submitted will fare.

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 10:36 PM

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 10:20 PM

s/b those three “are”…. LOL

bluefox on March 20, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Disclaimer: I really like Rand and would actually be enthusiastic about voting for him if he were to run. I still would prefer, however, that be gain some executive office experience by running for governor of KY.

All of that said, if Rand truly does believe that life begins at conception, then this question shouldn’t be difficult to answer at all, even as a libertarian. If a fetus is a life from the jump, then where the mother wants to terminate the pregnancy, you have two competing liberty interests. Since no one person’s interests trump another’s (except perhaps where a crime is being committed), then it ought to be clear that abortion should be illegal. The mother’s right to whatever it is she wants does not trump the baby’s right to be born. Pretty simple if you ask me. The question really turns on “When does life begin?” Rand seems to have answered that question for himself, so everything ought to follow logically from that. It’s a little disappointing that he’s having trouble articulating that.

NoLeftTurn on March 20, 2013 at 11:49 PM

my position is simple.
abortion should never be used for birth control.
its a medical procedure that should only rarely be used in case of a medical emergency.

dmacleo on March 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Exactly. It should be as serious and grave as getting a limb amputated or organ removed.

Nutstuyu on March 21, 2013 at 2:08 AM

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM

This is essentially just war doctrine. Anybody that understand that doctrine understands that losing is actually winning at times. It’s about playing fair and staying true to sound principles. I believe that is what will save the country. Sadly Paul isn’t showing that here.

Gatekeeper on March 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM

No, libertarianism is agnostic on abortion because some people frame it as a question of women’s rights and others as one of the rights of the unborn.

TallDave on March 20, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Of course a philosophy which consists of attempting to extend one’s own personal rights at the expense of everyone else would indeed be agnostic (mute) on abortion….

unclesmrgol on March 21, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Keep digging, Rand, that hole is getting deeper and deeper!

tomshup on March 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Keep digging, Rand, that hole is getting deeper and deeper!

tomshup on March 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Hey dumba$$ SoCon, which would you rather have: a chance at eliminating 95% of abortions or no chance at all of eliminating 100% of abortions?

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Rand Paul.
Pro life except for his ambiguously wide open pro abortion exemptions.
Against amnesty except he is shilling for amnesty.
Filibuster for effect with no accomplished effect.
Supposedly against same sex marriage except he wants to streamline it as the norm through removal of the only federal defense states have from being judicially forced to recognize it.
For Israel except when he is calling for the rug to be pulled out from under them.

I am totally getting a Romney feeling from the guy. I think we aught to let the guy run a state before we let him near the presidency.

astonerii on March 21, 2013 at 12:21 PM

No, libertarianism is agnostic on abortion because some people frame it as a question of women’s rights and others as one of the rights of the unborn.

Not quite. Libertarianism assumes a moral society.

monalisa on March 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Not quite. Libertarianism assumes a moral society.

monalisa on March 21, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Unfortunately, it basically assumes a moral society creates itself much like how human life supposedly came from amoebas.

I know; I used to BE a libertarian. The amount of things that get handwaved away is appalling, most notably the fact that we do not only not have a moral society, but one that is to the point of insanity in every manner imaginable.

MelonCollie on March 21, 2013 at 6:10 PM

He needs to be acquainted with the official Catholic position: direct killing of an unborn child is always murder. In cases where the life of the mother is at stake, e.g., preeclampsia, then early delivery as treatment is acceptable, but the infant must be treated humanely (saved if possible). Ectopic pregnancy is yet another common example, in which the pregnancy must be delivered, not in order end the child’s life (a regrettable side effect of the necessary treatment), but to save the mother’s.

To state that there is ever an exception to murder of the unborn is a falsehood borne either of ignorance or malice. Sen. Paul needs to revisit his argument.

TXJenny on March 22, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Rand Paul-the “anything “goes” candidate.Pro-life?Pro do whatever makes you happy!What a fraud!

redware on March 24, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2