The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Rand Paul and Abortion

Text Size

Rand Paul and Abortion

By W. James Antle, III on 5.27.10 @ 2:56PM

Jacob Sullum notes that there is some distance between Rand Paul and his father on abortion. Although both are pro-life, Rand has expressed an openness to supporting national legislation -- and even the human life amendment -- to ban abortion while the elder Paul favors stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion and kicking the issue back to the states, where he hopes the practice will be outlawed.

Then again, the differences might not be that great. Rand Paul also prefers to deal with the issue through jurisdiction-stripping and federalism, which is what led his main primary opponent to tar him as pro-choice. Rand placed greater emphasis on his willingness to ban abortion to more effectively combat such claims. And Ron Paul, despite constitutional and other concerns, has been willing to support federal pro-life legislation on many occasions.

View all comments (8) | Leave a comment

Sean| 5.27.10 @ 3:26PM

I suspect that many Republicans are really not for banning abortion. Nothing else can explain their lack of a push to strip jurisdiction when they were in power.

WM| 5.27.10 @ 4:15PM

On this issue, he is a kook and totally unprincipled. From his campaign web site:

"I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue...

In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws...

I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade...

I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement."

In other words, he is for states being the right authority over the issue, except when the majority vote in that state does not work out the way he likes, and then there should be a federal law to override it.

And he is for the federal government usurping the states, except when we are talking about the judicial branch of government. States good, judiciary bad. Who needs the courts?

And just in case any abortions slip through, he is for Constitutional Amendments, two of them, that necessitate contacting the FBI (since the Amendments would presumably make it a federal crime, else why bother to write them?), and arresting and executing abortion docs--and the woman, since she is aiding and abetting murder. Just to clarify, how many years in the federal pen next to Big Bertha should that rape victim get for aborting a rapist's fetus?

I wonder how Rand Paul thinks such an arbitrary system of unchecks and debalancing would work with such vexing issues as socialized medicine, cap-and-trade, and immigration, and who he thinks would be the ultimate winner if such a system were implemented.

Of course, we all know that the issue of abortion is exempt from such trivial considerations, because anything and everything is justified to save the beh-behs, don't we? After all, fetuses are people because we just feel so strongly that that is true, we just know it, and so we have proclaimed that science has proclaimed that it is so, so the matter is settled. Who can argue with science?

And since fetuses are people, I am sure that everyone here will also stamp out that nonsense about allowing abortions in the case of rape or incest, and will publicly say so.

San Francisco attorney| 5.27.10 @ 5:16PM

Republicans don't seem to be making a big stink for banning abortion. I ask why didn't they push harder when they were in jurisdiction when they had the upper hand?

Truthyness| 5.27.10 @ 5:21PM

I assume all the people complaining about how the federal government didn't have constitutional authority to pass the Civil Rights Act would say that the federal government doesn't have authority to ban abortion either. Of course, a constitutional amendment is a different matter, but you'd have to get, what, 38 states to hop on board that one? Do you think that would ever happen? That seems a pipe dream to me.

Truthyness| 5.27.10 @ 5:16PM

It's interesting that he's so strong on defending the right of business owners to refuse to serve or hire someone based on that person's race, but he supports all these measures to put the federal government between women and their doctors.

DailyKos has his lead down to 3%. I suspect Rasmussen will show him doing somewhat better than that, though the honeymoon 25% lead won't have lasted long even in Rasmussen.

Of course, all this support for federal legislation and amendments on abortion is pretty meaningless, because none of it's ever going to happen. The most one can hope for from a Republican is that he will support Supreme Court justices who will interpret the Constitution and not impose their own value judgments. That would result in Roe v. Wade being overturned, returning decisions on abortion fully to state legislatures and courts, where it belongs. Even that I doubt will ever happen, but at least it's conceivable, with a Republican president and Congress.

Tim*| 5.27.10 @ 6:00PM

Apparently , Rand Paul views life as sacrosanct and , as a doctor , he doesn't think doctors should snuff out babies. That appeals to The Commonwealth's Evangelical Voting Block.

What's Rand Paul's Democrat Opponent say ?
“I believe abortion should be as rare as possible, but should be kept safe and legal,” Democrat Candidate Jack Conway said. “I do not support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. I do support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health choices in consultation with her family, her doctor and her spiritual adviser.”
Seems ,as though Commonwealth Voters have themselves a clear choice.

We,Tea Party Rebels Support Rand Paul

We Can See November From Our House .