“Jane Roe” Endorses Ron Paul on Roe v. Wade Anniversary
Ron Paul’s consistent pro-life stand throughout his years in congress — not to mention his years as an OB/GYN — has won him the support of Norma McCorvey, who was Jane Roe in the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision thirty-five years ago today. She has since become a pro-life activist, leading Crossing Over Ministry (formerly Roe No More Ministry). Here’s what she says about Dr. Paul:
“I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul’s action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.
“After taking all of the presidential candidates into consideration, it is obvious that Ron Paul is the only one that doesn’t just talk the talk. For this reason and those stated above, I am publicly endorsing Ron Paul for president.”
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
THIS is AWESOME!!! This is EXACTLY the sort of endorsement we need to pick up even more steam! What a breath of fresh air.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
Fantastic! As a Catholic who has studied Ron Paul thoroughly, I find him to be the only candidate who reflects a genuine, universal Christian ethic to his platform.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Gee, I wonder if this will make the news tonight (ha, ha)… I think that the campaign should include this endorsement in a TV ad for Dr. Paul. This would enrage liberals! Also, it would help Christians realize how strongly pro-life Dr. Paul is, which is something I think is not stressed enough. I will be emailing a link to this awesome endorsement to all of my Christian friends.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
Awesome! Maybe now we can finally outlaw abortion.
We need to stand up to the idiots who talk about “individual rights”! Individuals, especially women, do not matter, they are subservient to the state. When will people understand this?
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am
This is great news! Someone should contact Fr. Frank Pavone from Priests for Life to let him know about this. Maybe we could get his support as well.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 am
Why isn’t this on the homepage? This is HUGE and Dr. Paul needs to more aggresively court the pro-life and Christian vote!!! This is a VERY BIG endorsement! I hope this leads to others realizing that Huckabee is not the only practicing Christian in the race and that the guy is nothing but a phoney! Dr. Paul is the Real Deal with a real plan to eviscerate Roe v Wade that doesn’t require waiting to appoint more pro-life Supreme Court judges and having a case to challenge this decision. God bless Norma and God bless Dr. Paul!
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Hey John Q. -
Ron Paul doesn’t want to outlaw abortion. He wants to return the decision to the states. Thats a HUGE difference. Abortion is a personal decision and unless it is your pregnancy I don’t see why you should have any say in the matter.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“Individuals, especially women, do not matter, they are subservient to the state. When will people understand this?”
—John Q.
You must mean how the state would be able to force women to bring a fetus to term if Roe v. Wade was successfully overturned. How unlike a supporter of individual rights that sounds.
Oh, wait, I see what you’re doin’ here. You’re pointing out the hypocrisies of Ron Paul supporters and baiting them into making asinine comments regarding Dr. Paul’s insistence that it would be left to the states to decide.
I mean, the states did so well regarding segregation it should be easy for them to handle the abortion issue. Right? Or would Ron Paul supporters have kept the Feds out of that issue also? I would guess so.
Regardless, well done good man.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Tom’s point is important.
Please do not turn this into a crusade about personal abortion beliefs.
This, more than any other topic, runs the risk of alienating women voters, particularly along the coasts. I live in New Jersey, and have many friends in MA, NY, DC and CA. The biggest obstacle I have encountered in introducing Ron Paul as a candidate is any mention of a government-sanctioned anti-abortion position.
Most women I have met in my lifetime (40 years) will simply not accept abortion as illegal. Almost without exception non-negotiable pro-choice.
Far too many potential supporters to alienate.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
“Hey John Q. -
Ron Paul doesn’t want to outlaw abortion. He wants to return the decision to the states. Thats a HUGE difference. Abortion is a personal decision and unless it is your pregnancy I don’t see why you should have any say in the matter.” [Tom]
Ron Paul correctly realizes that abortion is wrong. He just believes that the states should prosecute it, just like they currently prosecute the murder of born people.
The idiotic statement that “unless it is your pregnancy I don’t see why you should have any say in the matter” makes just as much sense as saying if you are not black, you can’t oppose slavery. Or if you are not a woman, you can’t oppose wife-battering. What a stupid statement to make.
James Niemela
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I find all this very interesting because under Dr. Paul there is a greater possibility that the states will be able to legislate in this matter and the fed’s would be out. To me, this means that the states would each ask themselves where life begins which would hopefully stop these 3rd trimester deaths.
I would hope however, that we would honestly agree that the Liberty of a women allows her more power over her body and her government during the early weeks after conception. An honest and conscious society will have to compromise as we never did with the Roe V Wade decision because life and death are not as black and white as the moment of conception OR the moment of birth. Any religious fanatic who won’t agree that the woman’s Liberty should allow her some ‘window’ to decide whether or not to have a child is just as idiotic as any pro-choicer who feels that it is just fine to have an abortion in the last weeks of a 9 month pregnancy.
Dr. Paul wants to protect Liberty and says that we cannot do that without protecting life. To him, and the Constitution, this means that there shall be no federal funding or role in the death of anyone. This includes those in prison. This is a very healthy doctrine for our children and allows us to really talk about what it means to tell a women that she can’t stop a pregnancy when she is not even showing, and what it means to allow late term abortion. This also forces the discussion on poverty, because to say that a women can’t stop a pregnancy when she has no money and no opportunity is another form of killing. This is because in our country today the oppression of minorities, the corrupt finances of taxing us to bomb and build bridges on the other side of the world and ignore our people, the prison/drug war, the end of public education, and the toxic diet from extreme food market regulations - all provide another form of murder for a child born from an unfit/unprepared mother. These children end up in prison after such oppression.
To have these discussions at the state level would, in my view, force a true Women’s Lib movement to finally get what it truly wanted but forgot, Women’s Liberty and an Amendment to the Constitution as such, just as has been done for minorities, laborer’s and so on. Think about it, we amended the Constitution to give women the right to vote, but what about the right to make the same as a man when you move into his job? And then also, due to the Life argument and the realities of forced sterilizations in other countries, the right to make all decisions about what is done with her body.
To do the same for life, to define it through a true conversation between the states and finally an amendment ratified would protect these lives in a real way instead of unconstitutional federal laws, and would also unite our country while putting that emphasis on protecting life AND liberty at the same time. And, in this same amendment conversation we would have to address the killing by the state with the death penalty, and hopefully the killing done in offshore secret prisons and done by companies protected from immunity like blackwater.
So, to sum up, I believe that through a Dr. Paul administration we would be closer to actually protecting the true Liberty of a woman. Further we will solve the poverty and education problems that are a direct function to the rate of abortion just as the the same poverty and education problems show a direct function to the incarceration and drug rates.
The bottom line, Dr. Paul is the only politician that wants to use our design as individual states that all contribute to the discussion and ratification of our More Perfect Union to solve the problem. Any other solution is going to continue to oppress women while everyone runs around forever trying to keep roe v wade alive. That is not how our system is supposed to work.
Thanks for reading!
Chris V
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.” –Ron Paul, June 4, 2003 http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/81/pro-life-action-must-originate-from-principle/
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Any religious fanatic who won’t agree that the woman’s Liberty should allow her some ‘window’ to decide whether or not to have a child is just as idiotic”…
I’ve never met a religious fanatic who doesn’t think a woman’s liberty should allow her to decide whether or not to have a child. Most of them just think that window (which is HUGE) is before the child is actually conceived. Call it idiotic if you like. I call it “loving babies.”
Go figure, eh!
Vote Ron Paul. Power to the states.
January 22nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The ideal Ron Paul ad would feature a bunch of the kids he’s delivered over the years saying why they now support Dr. Paul and they’re glad he delivered them. Focus on the positive things about these people — they’ve got a pool of 4000 to choose-from, so I suspect a few are quite interesting or quite photogenic or (ideally) both!
JMR
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The abortion issue is the one issue that prevents me from fully supporting Ron Paul. Even though I am a huge supporter and donated to yesterday’s money bomb, when pressed I can’t deny that I find his positions on abortion to be one of the few issues where he is driven by religion rather than logic & reason.
Who is the government to tell you how to handle your family planning?
Nobody wants or is having “an abortion in the last weeks of a 9 month pregnancy”. And the people who are having abortions certainly don’t feel “it is just fine” at any period of time. I know people who have had abortions and it was among one of their hardest choices to make.
This idea that life begins at conception is too intrusive and founded in religion. Are we going to have a funeral when someone miscarries now too?
Planning your family is a *responsible* choice, compared to throwing caution to the wind and having unwanted children who can grow up with poor/irresponsible parents. I live in Milwaukee, WI where the city has a very high crime rate and almost every issue boils down to a lack of parents (unwanted children). Not to mention the FACT that *all* of our environmental/energy problems boil down to a simple economic problem of “too many people, not enough resources.” If people want to make a conscious and early (first 3 months, NOT 9 months) decision to restrain the size of their family, then more power to them.
The government should not be forcing anyone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I think that Ron Paul may be able to draw in many more votes from the pro-life side when they realise that he isn’t their enemy.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sigh.
[watches the melee brawl past him]
Was that the sound of fleeing female coastal voters?
Ah, well.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
John Q is a troll as most will likely gather from his idiotic post, but this is excellent news. Roe V. Wade has helped unleash a reign of judicial terror upon the states by the federal courts, this needs to be returned to where it belongs.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The matter of when life begins is actually a scientific matter. These particular religious ideas are based on observations of science. And interesting article on the science behind this is: http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
I also think that each generation needs to be bigger, and produce more, to support the generation before them. I don’t personally buy the idea that “overpopulation is hurting the economy”.
That being said, I think ALL of us are in this to end Federal control of our lives. The abortion issue will be sorted out on a state to state issue - we can fight for our beliefs there. For now, let us concentrate on getting Ron Paul elected, so we’ll actually be able to have a say in this.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
While I actually disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, I’m still very pleased about this endorsement. I think when Huckabee drops out (and he will) - Getting the support of the pro-life Republican base is possible with an endorsement like this.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
wow Rodney W, this is a great find, and backs up my point:
“The pro-life movement should recognize that [State] jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.” –Ron Paul, June 4, 2003 http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/81/pro-life-action-must-originate-from-principle/
and ‘the presidential candidates’ said:
quote “While I actually disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, I’m still very pleased about this endorsement. I think when Huckabee drops out (and he will) - Getting the support of the pro-life Republican base is possible with an endorsement like this.”
haha, great perspective. I like it!
Only Ron Paul could bring us all together like this on such an intense topic. That’s the ‘love’ in Revolution!!
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Rick Toone, I’m sighing with you, but I’m not fleeing.
I wrote about my disagreement with Dr. Paul on this issue on my blog, if anyone is interested. Maybe politics really is local and voters will be more concerned about who their state legislators are if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Maybe we can all be more open to compromise and considering the grey areas that many families encounter when planning for the future.
http://fightingwindmills.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/sometimes-i-feel-like-this/
Ironically, today is the day to “blog for choice” according to some of my blogging buddies.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I support Ron Paul, have sent him and will send him more cash, in spite of his position on abortion. I am glad that he will leave it up to individual states, but really it should be left up to the individual woman. It is her body, she should be free to make the call.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
its great he got the endorsement but people remember, he is giving the power to the states. I still do not understand why everyone still gripes about his personal views. He is trying to REMOVE the governments hold on the states and NOT put his personal views as the only views for the nation.
Why dont people realize this? I assume it is because ron paul is not SPEAKING UP about it.
Imagine this press conference
“Many are confused on my views on a few issues but what makes me different from EVERY OTHER candidate INCLUDING the democrats is that I will be giving the power back to the states. My personal views are just that PERSONAL but on the federal level the government is not the deciding factor on issues like this BUT “we the people” are and that is left to the states. I want you to look at ANY other candidate and see if they too will give the power back to the people like I will do or if they will push their views upon you at the federal level”.
I think there needs to be clarification because I have had plenty of people “even in these comments” say, I am AGAINGST ron pauls views on this subject”. Well guess what HIS VIEWS WILL NOT MATTER but yours and mine will. We get the decisions, the states get the decision and the government is not going to be the dictator as it has been.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
PLEASE…someone get this directly to Dr Paul…I would be very interested to see his response…
BTW…. I am a LOOOOONG time supporter…and this is the only substantive difference I have with him…
I only have an isue with the fine details of any potential abotion law. The biggest one is consistency. I ran for mayor of Asheville NC in 2001, and was asked about this topic repeatedly. I tried for months to avoid answering this question, as it was not a city issue. Finally on a local talk radio show…hosted by a total anti-abortion religious nut… I decided to answer it…and heres where it went. We already have a working legal, medical, and scientific definition of death. When your brain stops sending signals, the Dr can legally harvest your organs for transplant. Why not apply the same standard to the beginnings of life? Before there is measurable brain activity, I personally have no problem with abortions, they should be MUCH rarer than they are…but no philosophical issue. After measurable brain activity…(approx 10 weeks gestation according to many MD’s) I have a huge issue with it.
BTW….I was endorsed for mayor by both the talk show host whos show brought this on….but by the President of the Buncombe County NOW…so…maybe I’m onto something…
In Liberty,
Dave Goree
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I’d be careful here lest you alienate some of the supporters you already have. I’m a tentative supporter of Dr. Paul. He’s already gotten my vote and my donations despite the fact that we disagree on this sensitive issue. I feel I can support Dr. Paul despite this difference because he makes it an issue for the states, which I see as a logical means to break this deadlock that’s been one of the more divisive issues in federal politics.
I thought, from a policy standpoint, his abortion position was a stroke of brilliance (albeit one provided by the founding fathers). If you change that delicate balance I think you stand to lose people like me that are teetering on the fence.
I’d be careful about trumpeting his pro-life stance too loudly because the instant I think he’s looking at the Bible instead of the Constitution is when I start hunting for someone else to support.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Reason and Individualism:
“it really should be left up to the individual woman. It is her body, she should be free to make the call.”
Even if abortion is illegal, she has a choice. It’s called not having ***. The choice can only be made before she conceives. After that, her body is no longer her own.
GO RON!
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
This argument that Paul and his supporters don’t want to force their views on anyone but frame it as a states-rights issue seems like a disingenuous argument and extremely hypocritical. The basic idea is to localize the power and institution or individual has over someone to as small a sphere as reasonably possible. States rights versus federal law.
Take that to it’s logical conclusion to individual rights. A person’s right to choose to bring a fetus to term using their body as the host. To me anything less is posturing, hyperbole and ‘you religion interfering with my life.’
Why do some of you choose to stop at states rights and not individual rights. I think it’s because it is a convenient place for you to stop for this issue.
It simply comes down to a religious belief that a couple cells coming together is weighted by divinity. This is not science and attempts to call it so are less than honest.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
OK, I just noticed something. In the previous comment the word s. e. x. is redacted and you must hover over it to see the text.
Are you serious! Is this a function of the site to automatically redact that word!
I guess that says enough right there, doesn’t it.
Grow up before you entertain important discussions and you’ll probably understand more in the end.
Enjoy your party!
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Actually, if you read Dr. Paul’s book on abortion, he comes right out and says that his religious background had nothing at all to do with his opinions on abortion. It was his experience in medicine, observing abortion close up in the ’60s (when they were being performed illegally). So let’s lighten up on the “he’s looking at the Bible instead of reason” stuff. One can make a good argument against abortion on the basis of reason, as indeed the group Libertarians for Life consistently does.
Like everything else, this is a constitutional issue as well, and Roe is obviously an unconstitutional decision. A strong federal government with the power to enforce “individual rights” is absolutely not what the Framers gave us. They were too sophisticated to fall for such a dangerous idea. Instead, they favored keeping political power as local as possible, so people had a ghost of a chance of exercising some control over it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I sure hope this endorsement doesn’t take away any of the steam that has been building. This could be divisive enough… I personally have a strong view on abortion, that it is a personal choice of the woman that is pregnant. I worry passing this so called legislative morality from the Fed level down to the states will wreak more havoc than we have now. Sure this will gain RP some support from the religious right wing, but, who’s support might he lose?
I really think it would be important for Ron Paul to be clear to us what this really means, I personally am worried. Please respond Dr. Paul - it is useless for all of to speculate (and not really fair).
Thanks.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
This is a suprise to me about Ron Paul’s view on Pro-Life! I stand by him on most of what he says but I am definately pro-choice.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“Even if abortion is illegal, she has a choice. It’s called not having ***.”
Evidently this person does not believe that there is such a thing as rape. The brutality of the “pro-life” position (whose name is quite Orwellian) can be brought into clear focus by thinking of an innocent 16-year-old girl who was raped and then raped again by the State forcing her to have the baby.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“Many are confused on my views on a few issues but what makes me different from EVERY OTHER candidate INCLUDING the democrats is that I will be giving the power back to the states. My personal views are just that PERSONAL but on the federal level the government is not the deciding factor on issues like this BUT “we the people” are and that is left to the states. I want you to look at ANY other candidate and see if they too will give the power back to the people like I will do or if they will push their views upon you at the federal level”.
Good advice from Ron Paul Money Bomb. It would be wise of Dr. Paul to address this issue, full face.
Again, I would respectfully suggest everyone agree to disagree about personal abortion politics.
The greater threat our movement faces comes from the Democratic side. Has everyone noticed the number of views — and the powerful emotional response — to Barack Obama’s MLK speech? We have no hope against the onslaught of socialism unless we remain united: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Many pro-choicers support Ron Paul because he is adamant about individual rights. Someone else’s belief in pro-choice is as valid as his pro-life belief. The issue here is that Roe v. Wade is unconsitutional.
It’s not legislating morality. It’s legislating the Constitution!
We all know and admire this about Dr. Paul, he is a strict constitutionalist.
Overturn Roe v. Wade, and then leave it to the states.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“I am glad that he will leave it up to individual states, but really it should be left up to the individual woman. It is her body, she should be free to make the call.” [Reason and individualism]
But the baby living in her body is not her body. She can’t murder her preborn baby living in her body, any more that she can murder her born baby living in her house. Let’s be realistic.
James Niemela
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
“Evidently this person does not believe that there is such a thing as rape. The brutality of the “pro-life” position (whose name is quite Orwellian) can be brought into clear focus by thinking of an innocent 16-year-old girl who was raped and then raped again by the State forcing her to have the baby.” [Reason and Individualism]
I guess rape is the only crime where we kill a child for the sin/crime of it’s father.
/sarc off/
James Niemela
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
This thread makes my point. Quite frankly if I were Dr. Paul I’d have said “Thank you for your support Ms. McCorvey” and never announced it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
What a delicate subject. Let us deal with one another in a like manner, delicately, concerning it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Thanks to those who mentioned Libertarians for Life.
Those who think prenatal homicide is in the best interests of, & ought to be a legal option for, women who have been raped would, I hope, think differently if they were more fully informed on the subject. Research shows that women are most likely to be traumatized by abortion, & most likely to suffer Post Abortion Syndrome (a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), if they felt they had no choice in the matter, & that it is precisely in these so-called “hard cases” that they feel they have no choice. It is then that they are beset on every side by people & institutions all telling them “you have no choice….you can’t have this baby….do the sensible thing” etc. For more information on this subject, check out http://www.afterabortion.org , the website of The Elliot Institute, which has done the pioneering research on this subject.
Regarding the notion that being pro-abortion/pro-choice is the feminist, women’s rights position, check out http://www.feministsforlife.org There the reader will find quotes from feminist foremothers including Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc. condemning abortion quite passionately, calling it, among other things, “child murder” & “the ultimate exploitation of women”.
Incidentally, has Dr. Paul made any outreach to FFL? I should think his combination stance against abortion and against the war would make him very appealing to these people.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Hot potato! Hot potato!
Run from issues we’re on the wrong side of!
(shhhh… don’t tell anyone.)
It’s tough living in a society isn’t it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
If some women are traumatized by abortion then it is only because they have been brainwashed to think that a clump of cells is more than that, and the real truth of the matter is that whoever did the brainwashing is the party responsible for the trauma.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
She’s the one who gave us millions of abortions, right? Isn’t she the very definition of flip-flopper? Yeah, some endorsement.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 pm
So, if you knew a man who was right about everything, and I mean EVERYTHING. And he was obviously well versed in EVERYTHING that he was right about. And then you found out that you and he had a major disagreement about a very important issue, is it really the voice of wisdom which decides so swiftly that HE is obviously the one who is wrong?
It is simply amazing that so many who would otherwise support Ron Paul, who is obviously the best thing by far that can happen to this country since Andrew Jackson squashed the bank way back then, [these “supporters”] will nearly sh&t a brick over an issue that he is taking the exact same stance on that he takes on all issues. Politics is about compromise, and if you can get behind a pro-life candidate because of your own “religious” views, even though he will leave you perfectly free to run your state however you and the people want, then you’re nothing but the bigot you think everyone else is. Sorry to say it, but open your minds.
And love babies.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
that should read, “if you CAN’T get behind…”
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Let me add something to this delicate issue. For those good supporters of RP and others NOT supporters yet who are strict pro-chosers (I’m a prolifer)… think about RP’s position a little more closely and about the demograhics of electoral states. The Red vs Blue issue.
There are some states like California, Vermont, Mass and others where the majority of citizens would likely vote for “reasonable” prochoice laws. Now there are states like mine, NC, who would very likely stop most abortions. I don’t know how many states would end up being pro-choice and how many pro-life???My guess is that the majority would be prolife with the exception of the liberal NE and liberal West Coast states.
IF one feels really strongly either way, it is much easier to look your State legislator or State Senator in the eye and make your case. IF you’ve done this with your state elected folks, you’ll know what I mean. I have m,uch more succes on issues of concern to me at the local and state level than at the federal level.
Majority will rule. The big issue to me is whether a person living/being a citizen in a state which is pro-life who goes and has an abortion in a stete which is prochoice and then comes back to the prolife state… will that women be prosecuted because she is a citizen of the prolife state? IMO, that is where the federal govt and the Constitution become a factor to decide about “interstate commerce” ( i know that sounds callous) which is a Constitutionally authorized enumerated power.
I’m don’t want to get into a debate about pro-choice vs prolife other than to say that it takes two to tango. IMO, the father has some say. It’s NOT just about the mother. Then we “soften” the issue of whether life begins at conception or not. It takes mutual consent of both the man and women and the doctor(s) involved.
Bottom line, if discussed with reason rather than purely with emotion, the endorsement by Jane Roe is a big WIN. FWIW, the NJs of the world aren’t likely to vote for RP no matter what… so loss of RP prochoicers in NJ, etc. is somewhat irrelevant. Now IF you say there would be a major loss in the South, SW, and MidWest you IMO have a point.
FACT; RP can win without the support of the “liberal” NE and Pacific coast.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Admitting that one was in error & changing one’s position in accordance with what one has learned isn’t flipflopping; it’s living with integrity. That’s something we all have occasion to do many times in our lives if we live long enough, & keep on learning, & are committed to living in truth.
To see what Norma McCorvey has to say for herself, check out her website http://crossingover.bravehost.com
After I wrote my previous post I remembered another Right to Life group you’ll probably never see mentioned in the MSM: Pro Life Alliance of **** and Lesbians http://www.plagal.org
Years of involvement in Right to Life & Right to Keep & Bear Arms issues & more recently in Green issues have taught me that it’s always a mistake to form one’s mental image of a cause, movement, or group on the basis of the what the MSM & the punditocracy say. In real life, causes, movements, groups, & individuals are vastly more diverse & complex than they appear to be. I’ve learned that when forming a mental map of an issue, whether one new to me or one I’ve been involved in for a while, I should always remember that, if my map is realistic, it will have a lot of blank spaces on it, & that, if I’m honest, I’ll label those blank spaces “terra incognita” not “here be dragons”.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“So, if you knew a man who was right about everything ,.. is it really the voice of wisdom which decides so swiftly that HE is obviously the one who is wrong?”
If I had reason to not trust my own thinking, then yes, I should defer until I lift myself up such that I can think. But I’ve long since done that. Ron Paul is as right about abortion as the Founding Fathers were about blacks.
There is only one “argument” against first-trimester abortion: religious faith. It’s a matter of faith and religion, not reason and science. The “pro-lifers” are really just trying to ram their religion down everyone else’s throats. It is not constitutional. The Supreme Court did the right thing with Roe v. Wade.
Still, I support Ron Paul for president, because he leaves this matter for the states. That is not good, but in my judgment it’s still worth supporting him on the other issues. Really, those of you who support Ron Paul on this are in an inconsistency. If abortion really is murder, then it should not be a matter for the States. Unless you think it should be OK with the federal government to commit murder?
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm
“FACT; RP can win without the support of the “liberal” NE and Pacific coast.”
I disagree. The country split almost exactly 50/50 red blue last time around. I would rather Dr. Paul take a greater majority than cutting as close as Bush did in 2004. I hope you’re not saying Ron Paul doesn’t need the Left Coast and Great North East!
I support Ron Paul even as I differ from his personal beliefs on this one issue. I think individual liberty trumps all other issues. We should agree to disagree and move on.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I kept looking at his sign in my store window today….His name in big white letters on the front door…Right in the face of everyone who came through…
I kept thinking about yesterday..So happy if someone would ask about his man…Would he end NAFTA..YES…Would he stop the IRS and the FED…YES…Would he end the war…YES!!! Would he stop nation building…YES!! Would he restore personal liberties…Yes!! So much pride…So much enthusiasm…So happy to have discovered a true voice for the individual…
And then came today…and an endorsement…And my mind flooded with images of megachurches and Christian militants..
Would he end abortion? yes
My two daughters crossed my mind…Every right that women have fought for crossed my mind…I thought of my mother who cried for weeks everytime she became pregnant by my abusive father and was trapped in a cycle of dependence…I thought of my own abortion when I was nineteen and dug deep to see if there was any regret….The answer was no…I was too young and too poor…But I am old now…So I deeply pondered what life would be like for the generations of women who would come after me if this right was rescinded or handed to the states for decision…I dwelled hard into our possible and likely future…And I saw religion taking place of reason. I saw the Bible beating down free thought…I saw the future…And I know it’s path.
I had to consider, with depth, on the ballot I will place…Because, like the Constitution, the ballot is not about me or my convienences but for the generations who follow us…It is for them that I cast a name….And I ask myself…
What would my answer be to those generations of women who are depending on my vote for their future?
I kept looking at his sign in my store window today…His name in big white letters on the front door…
And for the first time since I heard him speak…
I truly thought.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
The abortion issue boils down to one issue and one issue only:
* All human beings have an inalienable right to life.
* An essential role for government is to protect humans’ right to life.
So, is the unborn fetus a human being or not?
If so, then the fetus deserves the full protection of government from those who would seek to kill or harm him/her.
If not, then at what point does the fetus become a human being worthy of protection? In other words, at what point does “it” irreversibly change from an organic “thing” into a human being? Upon birth? The third trimester? The second trimester? As Dr. Paul has pointed out before, medical science can now save the life of a fetus only weighing one pound! If upon birth, was the delivered baby really any less of a human being ten minutes, an hour, or even a day before he/she was delivered?
Two women are six months pregnant. One woman has an unwanted miscarriage due to a mugger’s assault. The other woman pays a doctor to abort her fetus. Is it consistent for the former incident to be considered an act of murder by the government while the latter incident is considered a legal act of personal privacy? Does the fetus’ status as a legitimate “human being” worthy of protection rely solely upon his/her acceptance or rejection by the two individuals who participated in his/her conception?
To use another analogy, let us say that a species of bird is considered endangered and granted legal protection. The law usually stipulates that the protection in question extends not only to the adult birds of that species, but also to the nests and unhatched eggs of those birds, too. Do unborn human beings not deserve the same legal protection that is extended to unborn birds of an endangered species?
Lastly, there is absolutely no point in playing the semantics by attempting to contrast “human beings” with “persons.” Personhood terminology has always been used throughout history to diabolically deny one group of human beings their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, whether those “non-persons” have been Jews, black slaves, the poor, the elderly, the physically challenged, the mentally challenged, or unborn children.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
With Fred Thomson out, the National Right to Life Committee’s endorsement may be up for grabs, please call or email to request they endorse RP. The pro-life movement is powerful, large, well-organized and very committed to the right candidate. RP has a better pro-life record than Thomson anyway, according to the NRLC website. It’s high time to capitalize on Dr. Paul’s tremendous strength in this area. I believe this voting bloc is still looking for their candidate.
Email them at NRLC@nrlc.org or call (202) 626-8800.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
One of the beautiful things about our Republic is the fact that it is made up of 50 little Republics, which can, up to a point, make their own laws in accordance with the wishes of the residents thereof. Reversing Roe v. Wade would return a large measure of that power to the states; Americans would be free to choose-as they are now-which states, and under which laws, they wish to live. I have no problem with that-in fact, it’s a major reason why I support Dr. Paul. I would imagine, for instance, that New York, Massachusetts, California and similarly “liberal” states would continue to allow the practice of abortion, while other states-perhaps “Bible belt” states like Mississippi, Alabama and Utah might choose to limit or outlaw it. So be it! By the way, could we do away with the name calling on this post? I thought we were above that. Dr. Paul manages to disagree without being disagreeable, and I think we ought to as well.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Dr. Paul will loose votes because of this endorsement and what bothers me it muddies the waters on what he has said he would do,Leave it to the states.
Some Pro-Choice voters will not know he wants to give the decision to the states all they will see is this endorsement which seems to indicate he will overturn Roe versus Wade.
I am concerned also he will be called a Hipocrit since personal Freedom is one of his main campaign’s slogans.
Dr. Paul is a Uniter not a devider and this is a great wisdom practiced by the most influential people throughout history.
IMHO Both sides of this Hot Button devisive issue must give a little bit so we can join in the middle if Dr. Paul is to win this election.The idea states will make the decision,to me,is the middle ground.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:59 am
To Woody S.:
I would NOT write of these states. RP will lose some who make abortion the number one issue. We’ll have to see if the endorsement is a net neagtive. If handled right by our message, IMO it will be a net positive
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 am
I am an atheist and am fully pro life. This is a big endorsement.
I also don’t think its fair to say Ron is not in favor of making abortion illegal, he just doesn’t want it made illegal (or legal) at a Federal level. I’m sure if asked if he would vote for it to be made illegal in any state he would quickly answer yes.
The message of personal choice and protecting the right to life of any person, includes an unborn child. Why wouldnt Paul support that?
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:34 am
What interests me is, of all current candidates, this fragile alliance between pro-life and pro-choice is only possible under Dr. Paul. It speaks to his credit, and an ability to unite our nation.
In my line of work, I’ve noticed any law or system set up in opposition to freedom of choice, is unenforceable. By way of example, I would submit drug and alcohol prohibitions, or various sodomy laws promulgated at times throughout our nation’s history. Realistically, in an era of travel, internet access and FedEx, freedom of reproductive choice will flourish, irrespective of legality.
I am pro-choice and pro-Paul.
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:08 am
“In my line of work, I’ve noticed any law or system set up in opposition to freedom of choice, is unenforceable.”
[Madeline Attorney]
Unenforceable. In other words, always going to happen anyway, right? If so, why don’t we also legalize rape, drunk driving, and murder of born people. These things happen every day, notwithstanding the fact that it’s illegal.
James Niemela
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:21 am
Hukabee, eat your heart out you Elmer Gantry. (grin)
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Among other reasons, I support Ron Paul *BECAUSE* I am pro-choice. As it currently stands, the Federal Government has too much power over this one issue. As Laurie from New Jersey pointed out, it’s too easy for the Federal Government to “flip the switch”. If the power to make the decision returns to the individual states, individuals have more power to guide the states decision. Pro-choice women will have the opportunity to speak up and help make a difference in their states. We will no longer feel helpless with our only say in the matter being the vote we cast for president.
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
While I am Christian and quite definitely pro-life, I do recognise the divisive and emotional nature of this issue as I know Dr. Paul does also. This is a very good video on this subject when Dr. Paul was being interviewed by the Nashua Telegraph: http://youtube.com/watch?v=I53ATusQudk
What we need to recognise is that Dr. Paul does actually have the cure for what ails America. Metaphorically speaking he is Frodo. He is on a mission to destroy the Federal R-ing of P-ower, which every competing group in American society wants to grasp and compel others to their way of thinking. This is what is tearing America apart. This is what the founding fathers understood, that Ron Paul understands and what the Fellowship of the Ring, Ron Paul’s supporters, need to understand clearly. This is not merely a battle of issues. It is a war of principle. At stake is the soul of America. Ron Paul wishes to reconcile the warring factions riven by decades of deeply felt convictions that have been exploited by the power hungry for their own purposes.
This is the Armageddon spoken of in the Bible, not some war in the land of Palestine. The peoples of the Earth are today in the Valley of Decision and the nation that holds the key is the United States. This is your moment in history. You have been brought here for a time such as this. Of Dr. Paul the Bible says: “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God”.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
James Niemela, your point is understood.
No matter where we live in the United States, it is statistically likely we each know a woman — friend, family, in our church — who has terminated a pregnancy, almost certainly without our knowledge, or without the knowledge of those around her. Without monitoring her ovulation cycle in detail, or requiring monthly OB/GYN examinations, there is simply no means of determination. Similar obstacles present themselves for drug use.
Unless we, as a society, are willing to mandate periodic compulsory urinalysis and medical examination, such laws will remain unenforceable.
It is my hope the pro-life movement will transmute into an effort to provide positive options for women, during our process of making a choice: effective counseling, a safe environment to make decisions, opportunity for adoption. All of this may be accomplished through non-profit volunteerism, independent of the federal government.
I cherish our society for allowing us to openly have this discussion. I cherish Dr. Paul for a movement which includes both points of view.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“There is only one “argument” against first-trimester abortion: religious faith.”
I’m sorry, comrade in RonPaul2008, but that statement just ignores the many who say, “I’m not talking about faith, I’m talking about science” - including Ron Paul. Now, perhaps we should debate what “science” is, etc, but it is simply close-mindedness to ignore someone’s arguments and relegate them to the level of “religion,” especially when doing so from one’s own religious (secular-material) world view. I could just as easily say, “There is only one argument for first-trimester abortion: religious faith in secular humanism.”
If you think secular humanism is “scientific” you need to study philosophy a bit more.
I don’t mind discussing these issues civilly, and my heart goes out to all on both sides who are hurt by the discussions, experiences and so forth. But it is not discussion to reject arguments by labeling them something they’re not. That’s bigotry. If there are atheists who are pro-life, then maybe all Christians aren’t the fundy-wacks you’re so terrified of (I’m terrified of them too, btw.) Just because a stereotype is the loudest and most ignorant does not mean it is the largest, nor the true representation for all.
But hey - I am stoked to see so many of you RP supporters who recognize this for what it is - an issue of governmental abuse. If we will legalize OR illegalize abortion nationally, there is only one legal way to do it: amend the constitution. Otherwise, the power is given to the states. Period.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I am a life long friend of the Vietnamese community outside of a poor city….Their world is very secular and trust is not given often to those outside of it…So I tell you that I do know of an old Vietnamese woman who preforms abortions in her rundown townhouse for the prostitutes and other asian women …She is does not have a medical degree…And I am quite sure she does not have sanitary equipment..She barely speaks English…
So if you think you will stop it…Think again…If a woman is desperate enough or poor enough they will find these psuedo abortionists and the real nightmare will begin…
When I think of this woman and the likely possibility of our state not legalizing abortions…I wonder if she really has any concept of our politics and the fact that her trade will be booming at the expense of the poor if we make it illegal…
I can’t help but be somewhat worried at this point.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
This is an outstanding endorsement for Dr. Ron Paul. Praise the Lord, people are seeing the truth inspite of the bias media.
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Madeline Attorney: “It is my hope the pro-life movement will transmute into an effort to provide positive options for women, during our process of making a choice: effective counseling, a safe environment to make decisions, opportunity for adoption. All of this may be accomplished through non-profit volunteerism, independent of the federal government.”
I was involved with the prolife group Christians for Life in the early 1980’s in Western Canada. We initiated the Crisis Pregnancy Centres there and they were an offshoot of exisiting centres in the States. I know the Catholic organisation Birthright has been heavily involved in offerring similar counselling and assistance. My sister and brother in law,also Christians helped young pregnant girls with accommodation in their home, when their own parents threw them out, and supported them during their pregnancy. They had the option of keeping their baby or giving it up for adoption. No pressure was brought to bear on them for either decision and assistance was given after the birth of the child as well.
This has been going on and growing for decades it just the way you have suggested. In fact it is only the prolife movement that is truly offerring a “choice” to women with crisis pregnancies. The only “choice” the abortion movement is offerring is … abortion.
There is a great deal of publicity given to showing prolife people in a negative light, very much like they cast aspersions on Dr. Paul, but the truth is the violence is almost all on the other side. The greatest effort of the prolife movement is peaceful, encouraging and constructive as one might expect given their belief in the sanctity of life. There have been individuals in the prolife movement who have committed murder, or other violent crimes against property, in pursuit of their objectives, and they have paid, in some cases, the ultimate penalty for their crime. The violence being committed against the million+ unborn every year in the USA continues to go unrequited.
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Wow!
Sixty-six comments. You folks were busy today.
Glad to see everyone (mostly) getting along quite well. Keep up the good work. And the thinking.
Peace.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I am pro-choice and fully 100% support Ron Paul. The decision should be returned to the states. I believe abortion will never be illegal in all states again. I believe a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion will never pass.
Our only hope to keep our personal freedoms, to make sure each of our votes count, is to elect Ron Paul. The abortion issue will be meaningless without personal freedom across the board.
My husband is pro-life. It is morally reprehensible to use tax dollars taken from people who believe abortion is murder and use it to fund abortions.
One more point: Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end the war in Iraq immediately. A question for anyone who would vote for another candidate solely on the abortion issue (and I admit to voting this way in the past): Is it ok to continue murdering 100’s of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the name of abortion rights?
January 27th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I am just making my way through these comments and after reading several times about how a woman should be able to control her own body, I felt the need to comment. The body in her womb isn’t her body…people normally don’t have two hearts, four hands, twenty fingers, etc. etc.
At any rate, I think the pro-life atheists at this site have some very compelling arguments for those who think that opposition to abortion is merely religious sentiment: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library.html