Rand Paul on abortion: “We’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise”

posted at 11:21 am on April 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via MFP, an eyebrow-raiser from yesterday’s chat with David Axelrod(!) at the University of Chicago. David Corn and Mother Jones are out with another gotcha piece on Paul this morning citing his (mild) criticism of Reagan in the past for not cutting spending more as president, but this clip is more interesting, I think. Knocking the Gipper for not doing enough to shrink government is Libertarianism 101; even mainstream conservatives who venerate him will grudgingly concede that they wish he’d done better before quickly adding that he did what he could with a liberal Congress. And needless to say, no one’s going to stand onstage next to Paul at the 2015 primary debates and rip him for criticizing deficit spending. It’s okay to criticize Reagan as long as you’re respectful and as long as you’re doing it from the right.

So forget the Mother Jones piece. What about this exchange with Axelrod, though? MFP headlines the clip, “Rand Paul: Relax, I’m not going to ban abortion” — which does seem a fair interpretation of what Paul’s saying. (Maybe it’d be fairer to say, “Rand Paul: Relax, I’m not going to ban abortion anytime soon.”) He notes that he believes that life begins at conception and points out, correctly, that the public takes a middle-ground approach to abortion in most polls. They support giving women a right to terminate in the first trimester, oppose giving them that right in the third trimester, and usually take a skeptical “if necessary” view of the second trimester. If anything, says Paul, current law is far too biased towards the pro-abortion view since it effectively allows for terminations in the third trimester too, which most Americans believe should be illegal. Axelrod, though, keeps pressing: What does that mean we should or could expect from President Paul once in office? Paul’s answer: Not much. Certainly not an all-out ban; there’s still much persuading to be done before most Americans come around to that view. Presumably, if public opinion changes while he’s in office, he’d consider a ban. If it doesn’t, presumably he wouldn’t. Maybe he’d try at least to bring the law in line with opinion by banning terminations in the third trimester, but judge for yourself at the end here whether you think he’d push on that.

You can see what he’s trying to do with this answer. He’s pitching himself as a “different kind of Republican,” someone who can appeal to young voters and minorities in a way that no one else in the party can. One splashy way to do that is to position himself as a pro-life but modest, incrementalist candidate on abortion; not only will it make the left’s “war on women” demagoguery a bit harder but it might also reassure libertarians, not all of whom are as pro-life as the Pauls are, that he hasn’t completely sold out to conservatives in running for the GOP nomination. Meanwhile, though, he’ll be lambasted for this by whoever ends up as the social-conservative champion in the primaries — maybe Huckabee, maybe Santorum, maybe (most dangerously of all for Paul) Ted Cruz. If abortion is morally equivalent to slavery, as many social cons believe, then Paul’s approach is intolerable. He’d have a moral duty to work with the legislature and the courts to ban it, whatever the political consequences. Paul can sustain an attack like that from Huck or Santorum, I think, because they’re niche candidates who aren’t competing with him for the wider grassroots conservative vote. I’m not so sure he can sustain it from Cruz, who is competing. The question for Cruz is, how forcefully does he want to push the “ban at all costs” position? It might give him an opening against Paul in the primaries but it’d also make things easier for Democrats in attacking him in the general. Paul is right about the polling on this. It’s purely a question of how the GOP wants to deal with the reality of it.

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru notes that it’s hard to call Paul wishy-washy on this topic when he’s the lead sponsor of the “Life at Conception Act.” Right, but it’s one thing for a legislator to float a bill and another for a president, with his bully-pulpit power to set agendas, to push for it. The question raised by the clip, I think, is what sort of priority abortion would be for Paul as president. He’s right that it’ll take lots of persuasion to build congressional support to act. Would a “different kind of Republican” be willing to do that? Many of the not-so-different kinds haven’t been in the past.

Update: Matt Lewis responds:

Yeah, but what if you’ve spent 40 years making the argument against abortion and the public still supports terminations in the first trimester? Should you ban it anyway, assuming you have the votes in Congress, or do you bow to public opinion? That’s what makes the Paul clip interesting. The public opposed ObamaCare in 2010 and that didn’t stop Democrats from passing it anyway. They’ve paid a price for that politically, but Nancy Pelosi herself said recently that it was all worth it. Would the next GOP president agree?

Update: Good point by John McCormack. One reason Paul is respected on the right is because he’s a man of principle. Agree or disagree, but when it comes to libertarian priorities like shrinking government or surveillance, he fights hard for what he thinks is right whether or not the public agrees. Why the difference in abortion?

Update: Almost forgot — here’s what Paul said not long ago about another hot-button social issue.

[Q:] Right. But it seems what they’re saying is that the Republican Party should stay out of issues like gay marriage.

[A:] I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues. The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.

Not unlike Mitch Daniels’s “truce” comment on social issues. If Rand’s trying to build the party by pushing his core issues, namely, smaller government and protecting civil liberties, a strong push on abortion or gay marriage might alienate some of the voters he’s trying to reach. Again: How much of a priority would social issues be to his administration?


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 3 4

…he’s been busy…making statements!

KOOLAID2 on April 23, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Rand Paul on abortion: “We’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise”

Thanks Capt. Obvious.

Akzed on April 23, 2014 at 11:24 AM

“Rand Paul: Relax, I’m not going to ban abortion anytime soon.”

I’d be worried if any president had the power to ban abortion. It should be a legislative fix — which does require voters voting for pro-life candidates in sufficient numbers — which is respected by appointed judges.

rbj on April 23, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Rand Paul on abortion: “We’re not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise”

Texas says Hi.

Sometimes I wish Rand would keep his mouth shut.

nobar on April 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Paul is right about the polling on this. It’s purely a question of how the GOP wants to deal with the reality of it.

No doubt they’ll deal with this the same way they always do – by attacking each other.

rhombus on April 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM

I wish he had said the President has no power to do anything about abortion. Until Roe v Wade and PP vs Casey is overturned, 5 people in black robes have the final say. And then, I wish he had said that each state should be able to make any laws they want about abortion and the federal government should not have a say at all. And that the federal government should not be paying for it or providing for it in any way.

We need to continually move the needle a step at a time to fewer and fewer months/weeks gestation. We might not get it all the way back to conception, but we must try. A full frontal assault may not work, but incrementally we should be able to.

cptacek on April 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM

And the Rand Paul leftward slide continues.

At this rate, when the New Hampshire primary comes around he will just be a slimmer version of Chris Christie.

Norwegian on April 23, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Shrug. If this a preview of how he would handle the issue as a candidate, it sounds just about right.

ElectricPhase on April 23, 2014 at 11:31 AM

…he’s been busy…making statements!

KOOLAID2 on April 23, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Yep. Most of them conveying that he really doesn’t have any strong political positions to speak of other than “live and let live”.

Standard Libertarians stuff, isn’t it?

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Now that is a principled stand.

Murphy9 on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Everybody believes in state rights until they don’t. There will be no banning on abortions any time this century. I can get behind banning abortion after 20 weeks, but the people who think they can just ban abortion the moment a penis touch a vagina and an egg is fertilized are out of their damn mind.

I am glad Paul did not say I will work to have a federal ban on all abortions. I could not
Get behind that.

coolrepublica on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Abortion shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married woman’s family planning decisions.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

I’m beginning to think Rand is a bit of a doofus. Let’s get rid of Roe and each state will decide the matter for themselves.

NotCoach on April 23, 2014 at 11:35 AM

This is all crap. All a state has to do is take a stand with a right-to-life amendment to its state constitution.

There is nothing in Roe v Wade to prevent redefining what constitutes a human being under the law – a person. And there is no way to sue a state without consent of the state (Eleventh Amendment).

It’s just a question of will.

platypus on April 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM

No doubt they’ll deal with this the same way they always do – by attacking each other.

rhombus on April 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM

Good. Competition of ideas is better than groupthink.

Frankly, Rand needs to stop putting up a strawman to get his position across. There is zero people in Congress trying to change the abortion laws, but there are plenty of state legislatures doing so. Want to know why?

nobar on April 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

As a female, I have major problems with denying the right to life to the unborn. I also have problems with society’s excessive emphasis on sex that encourages females to lower themselves to the status of nothing more than objects to serve the purpose where sex is concerned. I also have problems with it when young women do adapt to that societal influence, and the abortion industry in America is allowed a pass on laws that would protect the safety of a female, if and when she does obtain an abortion.

Lots of things to consider on both sides.

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM

I get pro-life emails from Rand Paul or organizations he supports. I think he gets it.

22044 on April 23, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Yeah, Rand’s not worth my vote. If you get power, and you get the chance to save the unborn, take it. Kids don’t exist to be placed on a sacrificial political altar.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Abortion. There, but for the Grace of God, go you.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Paul is right about the polling on this. It’s purely a question of how the GOP wants to deal with the reality of it.

Sen Paul should do as his father did on this:

1) Life begins at conception. Aborting the unborn is the taking of a life.

2) Congress doesn’t have the authority to make criminal statutes regarding the taking of life, save in narrow circumstances. States have that authority under the Tenth Amendment.

3) Congress does have, and should exercise, authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary on matters of abortion.

4) The only way Congress would have the authority to ban abortion nationwide would be, as we did with slavery, through an amendment to the US Constitution.

That is the formula for winning this argument, IMHO…

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

FYI Rand, you also missed the right to life guaranteed to the unborn by the 5th amendment.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Yeah, Rand’s not worth my vote. If you get power, and you get the chance to save the unborn, take it. Kids don’t exist to be placed on a sacrificial political altar.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

What part of the US Constitution, in your opinion, gives POTUS the authority to stop abortions…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM

It would be an act of love to tell Rand Paul to shut the hell up. But I’d rather he be out there spouting all the crazy stuff the Paul family thinks to be true.

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM

What part of the US Constitution, in your opinion, gives POTUS the authority to stop abortions…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Read above. The 5th amendment.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM

As a female, I have major problems with denying the right to life to the unborn. I also have problems with society’s excessive emphasis on sex that encourages females to lower themselves to the status of nothing more than objects to serve the purpose where sex is concerned. I also have problems with it when young women do adapt to that societal influence, and the abortion industry in America is allowed a pass on laws that would protect the safety of a female, if and when she does obtain an abortion.

Lots of things to consider on both sides.

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM

Agreed on all points.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Abortion shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married woman’s family planning decisions.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

You also have a problem supporting your false assertions.

Just look at this place’s reaction when I called out Rush Limbaugh’s repugnant, spergy examples of racism and sexism.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Link?

NotCoach on April 23, 2014 at 11:00 AM

NotCoach on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

What part of the US Constitution, in your opinion, gives POTUS the authority to stop abortions…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM

What part of the Constitution gives the SCOTUS the power to override abortion laws?

cptacek on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

FYI Rand, you also missed the right to life guaranteed to the unborn by the 5th amendment.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:40 AM

I believe there’s a part of that Amendment that refers to the deprivation of life “without due process of law”. Does POTUS now get to decide what constitutes “due process of law”…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

What part of the US Constitution, in your opinion, gives POTUS the authority to stop abortions…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:41 AM

No one’s talking about an executive order. By “ban” they mean having the president push Congress to pass a law which he’d sign. If you believe conception includes “life” in the meaning of the Due Process Clause, you could do it under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Allahpundit on April 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM

I believe there’s a part of that Amendment that refers to the deprivation of life “without due process of law”. Does POTUS now get to decide what constitutes “due process of law”…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Due process of law would mean that the unborn would have to be accused of a crime. Last I checked, having the audacity to exist is not a crime.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM

I believe there’s a part of that Amendment that refers to the deprivation of life “without due process of law”. Does POTUS now get to decide what constitutes “due process of law”…?

“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Allahpundit on April 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM

What part of the Constitution gives the SCOTUS the power to override abortion laws?

cptacek on April 23, 2014 at 11:43 AM

If you wish to argue against judicial review, I think you’ll find that ship has sailed, and you’re standing on a lonely shore.

Which is why Congress needs to exercise its authority to limit jurisdiction on these matters…

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Squishy, as usual.

Pork-Chop on April 23, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Abortion shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married woman’s family planning decisions.
Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Chemotherapy and knee surgery are completely between women and their doctors, at least until Obama got involved.

Most rational people can understand the moral difference between an optional wisdom tooth extraction and an optional abortion. Western countries, your basis for everything else you want to impose on us, have a hard 3 month elective limit. That should be the baseline for rational discussion.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM

1) Life begins at conception. Aborting the unborn is the taking of a life.

2) Congress doesn’t have the authority to make criminal statutes regarding the taking of life, save in narrow circumstances. States have that authority under the Tenth Amendment.

3) Congress does have, and should exercise, authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary on matters of abortion.

4) The only way Congress would have the authority to ban abortion nationwide would be, as we did with slavery, through an amendment to the US Constitution.

That is the formula for winning this argument, IMHO…

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Where is the “Like” button when you need one?

Rix on April 23, 2014 at 11:51 AM

I wonder if Paul is willing to do the same with all the other issues on which libertarians are a small minority. I’m guessing nah.

Darth Executor on April 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM

Chemotherapy and knee surgery are completely between women and their doctors, at least until Obama got involved.

Most rational people can understand the moral difference between an optional wisdom tooth extraction and an optional abortion. Western countries, your basis for everything else you want to impose on us, have a hard 3 month elective limit. That should be the baseline for rational discussion.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM

>rational discussion
>hotair.com comments section

pick one

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:53 AM

It’s okay to criticize Reagan as long as you’re respectful and as long as you’re doing it from the right.

Funny, not what people were saying about Newt Gingrich.

astonerii on April 23, 2014 at 11:54 AM

I’ve got Rand fatigue. I’m sick of this guy already.

Is he the senator from Kentucky or running for POTUS.

Jayrae on April 23, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Murder shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her assassin, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married assassin’s financial planning decisions.
Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

High user name to post content ratio detected.

Darth Executor on April 23, 2014 at 11:54 AM

“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Allahpundit on April 23, 2014 at 11:45 AM

I believe that is the XIV Amendment you are quoting, not the V. An amendment, I’ll remind you, that SCOTUS has already once eviscerated part of, when it struck the P&I clause.

That said, SCOTUS has ruled, however poorly, that such legislation is, in and of itself, inappropriate, due to some penumbra beyond the understanding of mortal man.

Fine. They have ruled.

Now, you can wait until we get 5 justices willing to strike Roe and a whole lot of other rulings as “bad law”… something we both know even the most receptive of justices are reticent to do.

Or we can pass an amendment. Which is never going to happen, and we know it.

Or, Congress can exercise its authority under Article III. To wit:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

But to get Congress to do so, they need to be led, and led by someone who actually believes in Congressional authority over the jurisdiction of the courts. The old man certainly believed in that.

I want to see his son do the same…

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM

I wish he had said the President has no power to do anything about abortion.
cptacek on April 23, 2014 at 11:28 AM

Post-Obama, that’s no longer a tenable position. The president now has the power change any law. Precedent has been established.

rrpjr on April 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Abortion. There, but for the Grace of God, go you.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

There’s an opinion piece in the New Orleans newspaper today that makes the claim that we need to re-define our views on abortion since most women who kill off a child already have children. That motherhood doesn’t make one pro-life as much as it makes a woman pro-choice since she knows all the physical and financial costs that come along with letting the child live.

As a practical political matter, what Paul said is correct and pragmatic. As a moral or ethical matter, Paul is as adrift as usual.

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM

If Paul was actually doing some of the persuading, I might take him mildly seriously on this topic.

astonerii on April 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:53 AM

- 14 year old
or
- 27 year old Cheetos-eating slacker living in Mom’s Basement

Take your pick.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:57 AM

The closer Rand gets to declaring for president, the less impressed with him I get.

29Victor on April 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Abortion shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married woman’s family planning decisions.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

The only people making baby killing aka abortion a political football are the democrats… They have a whole political strategy titled the “war on women”… Also almost half of the country is against abortion so it is not only “old out of touch white men” unless in your stupid mind you think that half of the country is made of “old out of touch white men”… Most abortions in the country are done out of convenience, a woman, mostly single women, get f***ed by her boyfriend or someone she met at a bar, then she decides that it is too inconvenient to have the baby so she kills him/her via abortion…
Now get the f*** out of your parents basement and get a job. I know your insignificant liberal arts degree is not worth a thing but still you can shine shoes or flip burgers at McDonald and earn some money…

mnjg on April 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Due process of law would mean that the unborn would have to be accused of a crime. Last I checked, having the audacity to exist is not a crime.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM

What part of the US Constitution do you think prevents states from passing such a law? I’m going through my Article I, Sec 10 list of powers prohibited the States. Not seeing anything on point…

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM

I believe that is the XIV Amendment you are quoting, not the V.

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM

AP and I are offering different rationales. I think protection under the 5th is actually stronger than protection under the 14th (the 14th states that nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), because the 14th is specifically imposed upon state governments, while the 5th is a broader guarantee to life, without specifying which actor, private or public, that the right to life is guaranteed against.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Abortion shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married woman’s family planning decisions.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

So the father of that child shouldn’t have any say in the decision whether it lives or not? And, when in the hell did abortion become a family planning tool?

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Yep. We do not need another morally adrift president.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Due process of law would mean that the unborn would have to be accused of a crime. Last I checked, having the audacity to exist is not a crime.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:44 AM

What part of the US Constitution do you think prevents states from passing such a law? I’m going through my Article I, Sec 10 list of powers prohibited the States. Not seeing anything on point…

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM

I believe the clause you’re looking for is “cruel and unusual” under the 8th amendment.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Darth Executor on April 23, 2014 at 11:54 AM

Nonsensical analogy is nonsensical.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Post-Obama, that’s no longer a tenable position. The president now has the power change any law. Precedent has been established.

rrpjr on April 23, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Particularly in regards to healthcare, for as long as Obamacare stands in its current form.

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Someone that identifies as “Basement Dweller” calling someone else out of touch ? Especially a physician given the issue at hand ? Hmmm, I think you forgot to take your irony pill this morning.

And what does that fact that Dr. Paul is white have anything to do with it ? Did they teach you that all white men are evil in your “Perpetual Victimhood 101″ class in college ? No wonder you still live in your parents basement.

So we will put you down as a “yes” for killing the 8 lb baby utero 14 days before it’s due date for any reason as long as the woman and her doctor are willing.

But that view surely doesn’t make you the extremist, it’s everyone else here that recognizes, at some point in the 40 week gestation period, that an actual human being who happens to still reside in a woman’s womb is due basic societal and constitutional protections such as the right not to get murdered.

Got it.

bigjack on April 23, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Abortion shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married woman’s family planning decisions.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Murder should be between a person and their weapon of choice. I have a problem with old out-of-touch anybodies who dictate who I should allow to live in my immediate vicinity.
Same thing. Abortion takes an innocent life. Murder takes an innocent life. I cannot imagine that you accept my statement as anything that is rational, yet your argument is exactly the same argument.

astonerii on April 23, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I wonder who else on the repub side will be interviewed
by Obama’s former henchman, Axelrod. Kudos to Rand Paul
for always being interviewed by the enemy! Apparently he
is not afraid of those idiots!

Rand Paul is right; nothing will happen until the people
change their attitudes on abortion. Some people on Hot Air
and elsewhere, however, will use “abortion” as their litmus
test of their support for a presidential candidate. That is,
when they are not too busy using “amnesty” (which has so many
definitions by posters that I can’t count them all) as their
litmus test.

Amjean on April 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM

The only people making baby killing aka abortion a political football are the democrats…

mnjg on April 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM

That reminds me. Why do you guys have such a problem killing unborn Democrats? By Gaia’s left nipple, I would have no moral hesitation whatsoever chopping up live ones if the law weren’t so decidedly against it.

Rix on April 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM

So the father of that child shouldn’t have any say in the decision whether it lives or not? And, when in the hell did abortion become a family planning tool?

Happy Nomad on April 23, 2014 at 11:59 AM

1) Because by old out of touch white men I was obviously referring to the woman’s partner. /s

2) 1973.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Nonsensical analogy is nonsensical.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:01 PM

It’s not nonsensical. Or even an analogy, really. At the end of the day it’s soulless liberal monsters who want the option to kill off their offspring so they can have consequence free sex. You want an exception to the generally accepted rule that one should not kill innocent people. When the Second Hitler comes and you are all marched into gas chambers I will not lift a finger to help.

Darth Executor on April 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Rix on April 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Because the value of life has to be protected and preserved, even for those of our fellow countrymen that we may not like or agree with.

Just write it of to moral absolutes and what is right rather than who is right.

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Someone that identifies as “Basement Dweller” calling someone else out of touch ? Especially a physician given the issue at hand ? Hmmm, I think you forgot to take your irony pill this morning.

And what does that fact that Dr. Paul is white have anything to do with it ? Did they teach you that all white men are evil in your “Perpetual Victimhood 101″ class in college ? No wonder you still live in your parents basement.

So we will put you down as a “yes” for killing the 8 lb baby utero 14 days before it’s due date for any reason as long as the woman and her doctor are willing.

But that view surely doesn’t make you the extremist, it’s everyone else here that recognizes, at some point in the 40 week gestation period, that an actual human being who happens to still reside in a woman’s womb is due basic societal and constitutional protections such as the right not to get murdered.

Got it.

bigjack on April 23, 2014 at 12:03 PM

The Big Bad Wolf would like a word with your straw house.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:08 PM

I believe the clause you’re looking for is “cruel and unusual” under the 8th amendment.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Unusual? That hundreds of thousands of women employ such a procedure every year mitigates against the argument that such a procedure is “unusual”.

Cruel? Well, I’ll grant you, some of the abortion methods strike me as barbaric. Of course, I think the entire thing is barbaric, so my opinion on such matters may well be tainted. But if methods of abortion were used that exhibited no more cruelty than what we subject prisoners to under execution, certainly that would pass the cruel test, would it not…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Kudos to Rand Paul for always being interviewed by the enemy! Apparently he is not afraid of those idiots!

Amjean on April 23, 2014 at 12:04 PM

I agree with this. Reagan was equally unafraid. It’s a shame Palin didn’t do the same. It shows courage, is massively impressive to large numbers and is the most effective and politically asture means of neutralizing Alinskyism.

rrpjr on April 23, 2014 at 12:10 PM

>rational discussion
>hotair.com comments section

pick one

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:53 AM

All we do is have rational discussions around here. Even if you’re a troll, as you clearly are, you will be tolerated as long as you don’t break the TOS.

My account at the Huffington Post was killed for being polite but thinking differently. This is how you guys operate – you don’t want discussions. You want to shut down opposing viewpoints. Just look at the Mozilla CEO.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:11 PM

2) 1973.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM

1857 and 1896.

And while you’re busy looking that up provide a link to the following:

Just look at this place’s reaction when I called out Rush Limbaugh’s repugnant, spergy examples of racism and sexism.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 10:30 AM

NotCoach on April 23, 2014 at 12:12 PM

It’s not nonsensical. Or even an analogy, really. At the end of the day it’s soulless liberal monsters who want the option to kill off their offspring so they can have consequence free sex. You want an exception to the generally accepted rule that one should not kill innocent people. When the Second Hitler comes and you are all marched into gas chambers I will not lift a finger to help.

Darth Executor on April 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Well, but, actually, it was nonsensical. In your analogy, you replaced the woman’s doctor with “assassin.” But then by the end of your rewrite, you also replaced the woman with “assassin.” It didn’t really make sense, unless you mean they are both assassins and the baby she birthed is a victim. Surely you can see the illogic in your scenario, no?

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Rand Paul’s potus strategy seems to appease the establishment and discard parts of his platform they might be upset about.
Except of course the crazy parts he’s retained from his dad. He’ll keep those.
Right now according to Cpac, Rand is the frontrunner. If he were to discard some, but not all, of his father’s following, and retain all of the stuff that has so far made him the frontrunner ( the perception that he’s going to slash the Feds down to a 10th of their current size for example)

Then he’d likely be the frontrunner from now all the way up to the National Convention, which would seem more like a coronation. Instead he seems determined to fight a two-front war. Kind of like Rubio in that regard, though imo, it appears far more self-serving.

MWC_RS on April 23, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Unusual? That hundreds of thousands of women employ such a procedure every year mitigates against the argument that such a procedure is “unusual”.

Cruel? Well, I’ll grant you, some of the abortion methods strike me as barbaric. Of course, I think the entire thing is barbaric, so my opinion on such matters may well be tainted. But if methods of abortion were used that exhibited no more cruelty than what we subject prisoners to under execution, certainly that would pass the cruel test, would it not…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 12:09 PM

I think cruel is the term to focus on. I agree that the entire thing is barbaric, but cruelty has multiple facets. You point to the method of execution, but cruelty also deals with the notion of proportionality. Beheading a serial killer is going to be considered far less cruel (or even not cruel at all) than beheading an 8-year old for sucking a lollipop even though the punishment is the same, because cruelty also implies that the punishment being administered is an overreaction to the deed for which a person is being punished.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM

All we do is have rational discussions around here. Even if you’re a troll, as you clearly are, you will be tolerated as long as you don’t break the TOS.

My account at the Huffington Post was killed for being polite but thinking differently. This is how you guys operate – you don’t want discussions. You want to shut down opposing viewpoints. Just look at the Mozilla CEO.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:11 PM

I’m a conservative, so I don’t know what you mean by “you guys.”

Though I have a sinking feeling conservatives who are anti-amnesty and pro-choice and pro-freedom to marry are increasingly unwelcome in the conservative movement.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM

I’m a conservative, so I don’t know what you mean by “you guys.”

Though I have a sinking feeling conservatives who are anti-amnesty and pro-choice and pro-freedom to marry are increasingly unwelcome in the conservative movement.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM

I certainly wouldn’t want to associate with you on the last two.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Abortion shouldn’t be a political football. It is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, or at least it should be. I have a problem with old out-of-touch white men dictating a single or married woman’s family planning decisions.
Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 11:33 AM

What exactly is the basis in reason why men should not have opinion’s on abortion? Is it any way related to an argument on why abortions should be had? Can someone walk me through the connection from one set of people cannot opine to the other group having the better policy?

anuts on April 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM

1) Because by old out of touch white men I was obviously referring to the woman’s partner. /s

2) 1973.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:06 PM

Should old white women like Dianne Feinstein have any say in the personal matter of how many rounds a man can have in his AR? Abortion takes as many babies as 100 Adam Lanza’s every day.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM

If you wish to kill babies in the womb, you are not a Conservative.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Should old white women like Dianne Feinstein have any say in the personal matter of how many rounds a man can have in his AR? Abortion takes as many babies as 100 Adam Lanza’s every day.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Bravo.

rrpjr on April 23, 2014 at 12:18 PM

I’m a conservative, so I don’t know what you mean by “you guys.”

Though I have a sinking feeling conservatives who are anti-amnesty and pro-choice and pro-freedom to marry are increasingly unwelcome in the conservative movement.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM

You are, you say? I don’t know any conservative who would trash the people on this site with a blanket statement of being incapable of having a rational discussion. It’s also unlikely that any conservative would call himself a “basement dweller”.

Occam’s razor: you’re a troll, pretending to be otherwise because you got caught saying something dumb. I realize you’re new around here, but it happens all the time.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:21 PM

*opinions

anuts on April 23, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Well, but, actually, it was nonsensical. In your analogy, you replaced the woman’s doctor with “assassin.” But then by the end of your rewrite, you also replaced the woman with “assassin.”

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM

The assassin and her assassin and the assassin and her doctor would have looked weird. It was a stylistic choice that doesn’t really detract from the rewrite, whose purpose was to mock the trivialization of murder in the original. Plus, last I checked libruls don’t want doctors prosecuted either (or rather, especially, considering how hard you worked to protect Gosnell before his misdeeds became public) so the analogy works just as well.

It didn’t really make sense, unless you mean they are both assassins and the baby she birthed is a victim.

Boy you’re a fast one.

Darth Executor on April 23, 2014 at 12:21 PM

I certainly wouldn’t want to associate with you on the last two.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:16 PM

Then how do you hope to expand the base beyond old white men?

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Yeah, Rand’s not worth my vote. If you get power, and you get the chance to save the unborn, take it. Kids don’t exist to be placed on a sacrificial political altar.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Right.

He should drop all Presidential capital on a jammed through EO that SCOTUS will overturn and wreck all other possible legislative changes.

The Anti-Rand crowd better start thinking harder.

And no Cruz won’t go at him unless he’s a shill for applause lines, ala Palin, cause it’s too easy to show the political dominoes that fall once you push hard on that one issue.

budfox on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Only criminals should have opinions about crime.

anuts on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Then how do you hope to expand the base beyond old white men?

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

MaryJaneBrutus, is that you?

NotCoach on April 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

You need to get out of Mom’s Basement more often, Troll.

There are plenty of young American Conservatives in America’s Heartland.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Then how do you hope to expand the base beyond old white men?

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Well, since I’m 28, I don’t worry too much about being old. =)

As for expanding the base, I’d like to engage in economic populism, and target blue-collar voters to shore up support in the Midwest where it’s most desperately needed. Win over union-types and minimum wage earners who tend to skew also more towards being racial minorities.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM

NotCoach on April 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Beat me to it.

kingsjester on April 23, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM

That’s straining the boundaries of Conservatism a bit.

The social branch of Conservatism holds rather strongly to traditional values…sees the positive role that they play in modern society…seeks to protect and preserve these values for futures generations.

That includes the value of life across the entire spectrum of life (from conception to death). And it includes traditional marriage and the traditional family.

That isn’t to shut you out or down or discourage you. It’s just to help define the lines, based on my own opinion.

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Right.

He should drop all Presidential capital on a jammed through EO that SCOTUS will overturn and wreck all other possible legislative changes.

The Anti-Rand crowd better start thinking harder.

And no Cruz won’t go at him unless he’s a shill for applause lines, ala Palin, cause it’s too easy to show the political dominoes that fall once you push hard on that one issue.

budfox on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Who said anything about an executive order? The key on abortion (and all social issues for that matter) is not POTUS, but SCOTUS handing down a correct decision.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM

I think cruel is the term to focus on. I agree that the entire thing is barbaric, but cruelty has multiple facets. You point to the method of execution, but cruelty also deals with the notion of proportionality. Beheading a serial killer is going to be considered far less cruel (or even not cruel at all) than beheading an 8-year old for sucking a lollipop even though the punishment is the same, because cruelty also implies that the punishment being administered is an overreaction to the deed for which a person is being punished.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Go down that road, and you eventually have the USG, in the form of the courts, dictating to the States what are and are not appropriate criminal sentences. And not just for capital cases. Remember, the Amendment you quote mentions life, liberty and property. Such a theory would place the courts in a position to dictate to the state legislatures appropriate sentences, based on their opinion of proper proportionality of punishment to malfeasance, for any sentence that required someone to do some jail time or pay a fine.

Now, does that strike you as being in line with the proper role of federalism or anywhere near the spirit of the Tenth Amendment…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Should old white women like Dianne Feinstein have any say in the personal matter of how many rounds a man can have in his AR? Abortion takes as many babies as 100 Adam Lanza’s every day.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Nobody, male or female, should be dictating to us how many rounds any American can have in their guns.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Then how do you hope to expand the base beyond old white men?

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Oh, look everyone – a “conservative” who is obsessed with calling us a party of “old, white men”. I mean, ignore the fact that this may well be Debbie Wasserman-Schultz herself, he/she really, truly is a concerned conservative activist and not a troll.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Nobody, male or female, should be dictating to us how many rounds any American can have in their guns.

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM

Yes, your party is more concerned with outlawing guns themselves.

crrr6 on April 23, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Go down that road, and you eventually have the USG, in the form of the courts, dictating to the States what are and are not appropriate criminal sentences. And not just for capital cases. Remember, the Amendment you quote mentions life, liberty and property. Such a theory would place the courts in a position to dictate to the state legislatures appropriate sentences, based on their opinion of proper proportionality of punishment to malfeasance, for any sentence that required someone to do some jail time or pay a fine.

Now, does that strike you as being in line with the proper role of federalism or anywhere near the spirit of the Tenth Amendment…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 12:28 PM

SCOTUS already tells states what sentences are appropriate or not on the basis of proportionality (or at least what they believe to be so). Louisiana had a law which allowed for the execution of child rapists. SCOTUS overturned it. The courts already are in control of sentencing, so we might as well get them to exercise that authority intelligently.

As for the 10th, the 10th applies to matters not covered by the Constitution. But the 5th and 8th cover this issue.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Then how do you hope to expand the base beyond old white men?

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Wait for the stupid young’ins to get brains. This might mean letting Hillary win in 2016.

nobar on April 23, 2014 at 12:32 PM

I think an incrementalist process is fine.

The problem of course is that the Republican party has spent the last 15 years or so claiming this is what they are going to do on a host of issues and then not doing it.

Is Paul different? This is hard to say. Of course the problem is, as the left has shown, incrementalism is incredibly effective.

They couldn’t get socialized health care, for example, back in the 60s, but we wouldn’t be where we are today if they didn’t take smaller steps in the past like Medicare D, CHIP, etc.

Abortion of course is an issue perfectly ripe for incrementalism.

The left argues that there should be no restrictions on abortion because of the 1% or so of abortions that result from rape/incest. If that is off the table what do they have?

18-1 on April 23, 2014 at 12:32 PM

As for expanding the base, I’d like to engage in economic populism, and target blue-collar voters to shore up support in the Midwest where it’s most desperately needed. Win over union-types and minimum wage earners who tend to skew also more towards being racial minorities.

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM

I’ve never understood why the GOP ever gave up on ‘Reagan Democrats’. Living in Western PA, these guys are more conservative than hard core Republicans on every issue except Jobs. Low Hanging Fruit if there ever was one. It’s there for the taking if the GOPelites would bend a little on their country club memberships.

reddevil on April 23, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Then how do you hope to expand the base beyond old white men?

Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Are you another butthurt loser minority who can’t succeed without government largess? Is that why you’re so angry about old white men?

Darth Executor on April 23, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Paul is doing the smart thing here.

Remember, Lincoln did not come out for a ban on slavery, he just was against it’s spread. For once I wish the pro-life movement would learn the lessons of past movements in American history. It is a process, one step at a time. Basically what Paul is saying is: lets see if we can get rid of late term abortions first.

And just like Lincoln, let the other side overplay its hand.

William Eaton on April 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Then how do you hope to expand the base beyond old white men?
Basement Dweller on April 23, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Why would you be interested in expanding a base you don’t want to be part of?

anuts on April 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Because the value of life has to be protected and preserved, even for those of our fellow countrymen that we may not like or agree with.

Just write it of to moral absolutes and what is right rather than who is right.

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 12:07 PM

I’m not too keen on “moral absolutes” myself, but it is beyond the point. I would just like to point to an interesting contradiction in how “true conservatives” perceive the world. When a guy points his gun at you to empty your wallet and rape your ass, you have no problem shooting the turd and call it a self-defense. But when the same guy points the government’s gun at you to empty your wallet and rape your ass, you call it a “moral absolute” not to kill him. Strange, isn’t it?

Rix on April 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM

From the social side, we do have one or two “sleeper” issues. Education in the form of school choice is one of those sleepers. Opportunity to appeal to a broad scope of people from the entire political spectrum.

lineholder on April 23, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4