OOPS: Rand Paul Makes Case Against The Pro-Life Agenda

[ProSense]

OOPS: Rand Paul Makes Case Against The Pro-Life Agenda

By Igor Volsky

Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced “The Life at Conception Act,” a personhood measure that would outlaw abortions by declaring that “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.” “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” Paul said in a statement. Anti-abortion activists have tried to advance similar measures across the nation.

But on Tuesday, during an appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room, Paul — who is said to be eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — seemed to waiver from his belief that all abortion is tantamount to killing human life and should be illegal. Asked if the measure offers exceptions for rape or incest victims, the Tea Party star admitted that it includes “thousands of exceptions” and explained that medical decisions “in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family” — free of government interference:

BLITZER: Just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother is that right?

PAUL: I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different. Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother…. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to, but I think it is important we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family and physician. <...>

BLITZER: It sounds like you believe in some exceptions.

PAUL: Well, there is going to be like I say thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved so I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law let’s say people came more to my way of thinking there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.

Watch it:

<...>

Paul describes himself as pro-life and has called on Congress to “end abortion on demand once and for all” and overturn Roe v. Wade. But in the answer above, he almost seems to adopt a pro-choice frame, inadvertently making the case for why the right wing’s efforts to declare a fetus a person (and outlaw abortion) undermines women’s health care and well being and invades the doctor/patient relationship.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/19/1746261/oops-rand-paul-makes-case-against-the-pro-life-agenda/

What I would say is that Paul is a calculating asshole.

The GOP dilemma on immigration (MSM duped by Rand Paul, again)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022535741

[awake]

1. I watched the interview Rand Paul is slick & if he gets the GOP nomination we need to watch out

This guy is more likable than his dad and could prove to be a tuff candidate to run against, he would get a fair amount of young people voting for him. Given the state of the GOP it will be hard for Rand Paul to win the nomination, but if he did it would change things up.

[ProSense]

2. And a lot of people are gullible. n/t

[awake]

3. exactly

[LAGC]

4. I think he's a closet libertarian like his father.

He had to run as a more authoritarian conservative to get elected, but his roots are showing.

He also just recently came out and suggested he was open to some level of immigration reform as well.

Needless to say, some of the conservatives are not happy.

[ProSense]

5. He

"He also just recently came out and suggested he was open to some level of immigration reform as well. "

...was lying.

[LAGC]

8. You could be right.

But the Chamber of Commerce has considerable pull within the GOP as well, so it wouldn't surprise me if Rand was under their puppet strings.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/19/rand-paul-embraces-immigration-reform/

[Jamaal510]

11. They both are fake libertarians IMO.

What kind of libertarian wants to tell women what to do with their own bodies and restrict the ability of gays to lead happy relationships? About the only things that remotely symbolize libertarianism coming from the Paul clan is them coming out against the Patriot Act and them not wanting federal government to enforce drug laws. And even with the matter of drugs, they're okay with the Drug War being waged as long as it is done on a state level, and not federally. I never heard them advocating full legalization.

[CTyankee]

16. Yep. totally fakey-fake libertarian. He just acts that way because he wants to appeal to young

voters. He's really as big a totalitarian as the rest of the repuke crew.

He knows the republican brand is in the toilet right now. We should flush him along with the rest...

[Rozlee]

25. Ron Paul was always a fake.

His tirades against Big Government spending were a joke. He'd point out examples of the spending by other states but wouldn't mention his own boondoogles. Like decorative trashcans and lights for his district. Money for a shrimp research farm. Money to build a multi-million recreation center for a church. 30 million for a maritime academy to refurbish a ship. He once said in his book, Freedom Under Seige that women that stayed in a job who were being sexually harassed were partially responsible for that harassment. Quote from the book: Why don't they quit once the harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? This last is off-topic, but illustrates to me Ron Paul's misogyny; something that one would think at odds with an OB/GYN. But, then, I consider every male in the GOP a misogynist and every female as well.

[olddots]

6. Little Randy is stupid but not a fool

This is what makes him so dangerous--look at his eyes .

[freshwest]

7. He's a weasel. The bill he wants enacted precludes those exceptions. Kiss off, Rand, Ayn is calling.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. I'm guessing he is trying to make inroads with the "Christian-right" who will not be happy with his

fairly anti-interventionist foreign policy positions - assuming he sticks to his positions. Although there are strong whiffs of racism, islmophobia and obvious xenophobia in his foreign policy thinking - the suggestion of anti-interventionism runs greatly counter to the so-called "Christian-right'" apocalyptic calls for intentionally attempting to provoke World War III with the Arab and Islamic world in order to set the state for the destruction of the Haraam al Shariff in Jerusalem and usher in the second coming of Jesus Christ. However, if he can establish credibility with the "Christian-right" as the Senate's strongest opponent of abortion and convince then that a Rand Paul Presidency would actually mean a nation wide ban on all or almost all abortions - they may be able to overlook his non-interventionist - albeit xenophobic driven non-interventionist - foreign policy worldview:

What Would a Rand Paul Libertarian Foreign Policy Look Like? Posted on Mar 18, 2013

By Juan Cole

When the Senate passed a resolution in September pledging never to accept an Iranian nuclear weapon, there was only one dissenting vote: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. “A vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of pre-emptive war,” the libertarian-leaning Republican said.

Paul most recently made headlines with his nearly 13-hour filibuster of the confirmation of CIA Director John Brennan, an architect of the Obama administration’s drone program. He wanted assurances that the administration forswore the use of drones against U.S. citizens on American soil. His longer-term strategy to rein in the drone program is to try to have the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution repealed. Paul complains that the resolution is far too expansive and has authorized U.S. involvement in “20 countries.”

There is much in Paul’s proposed foreign policy that will appeal to progressives. The American left typically also opposes war as anything other than a very last resort, and would favor withdrawal from Afghanistan and avoidance of a Syrian quagmire. Containment of Iran as a policy is obviously preferable to bombing it. Questioning of President Obama’s rather lawless drone strikes and an aspiration to finally end the Authorization for Use of Military Force are all to the good. Still, the grounds of Paul’s foreign policy should raise alarms. His expansive notion of “radical Islam” sweeps up many movements and countries that are not playing an adversarial role against the United States and do not need to be contained. In some ways, Paul wants to replace the neoconservatives’ war on terror with a containment of terror, yet he shares many of their mistaken premises about the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. Sometimes his dismissiveness toward other countries, as with his reduction of Libya to 100 tribes, is almost racist.

Despite his disavowal of isolationism, Paul’s policy prescriptions would often have that exact effect. Would it be better to give aid to revolutionary Egypt in hopes of thereby remaining in a position to influence Morsi’s directives, or to cut it off because the country’s electorate dared to vote for a Muslim fundamentalist? There is also a danger that Paul’s instinct to disengage without delay could have the opposite effect of the one he is seeking. He acknowledges that after getting abruptly out of Afghanistan, the U.S. might have to go back in with aerial bombardment if the Taliban regroup. Wouldn’t it be ironic if a President Rand Paul one day had to initiate drone strikes on Kandahar and Khost? Moreover, some of the grounds of his reluctance to engage with the Middle East also have a whiff of prejudice and Islamophobia

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/what_would_a_rand_paul_libertarian_foreign_policy_look_like_20130318/

[Johonny]

10. what mechanism would Rand Paul used to decide these thousands of exceptions?

because we know the government is out, except like his dad when of course he argues for the government to function. It's the magic libertarian argument. He believes in absolute personal freedom and thus minimum government, but of course we will have a Republican authoritarian law on abortion, but there will be exceptions, how will the exceptions work... well you'll need some kind of government agency to oversee this, but he believes in absolute personal freedom...

The never ending Rand (Ron) Paul logic loop on pretty much every subject he talks about. Some people see him as clever, I see him as a doorknob with lips. His world view doesn't work.

[Myrina]

12. He's a failed eye dr. I don't really want him legislating my uterus, thanks.

[caseymoz]

13. Rand Paul in 2016??

The Repubs might as well gift wrap the White House for the Democrats. Rand himself is beginning to look more Newt Gingrich. There is no way the majority of Repubs will vote for him.

Maybe he's counting on Repubs gaming the Electoral College, but just as many states might base their electoral votes on the winner of the national popular vote.

Might as well dream, Rand.

[reACTIONary]

23. +10! Hope it happens - but it won't (nt)

[RedstDem]

14. its sounds like verbal masturbation.

he spoke hundreds of words and said nothing. (new)

[malaise]

15. Paul is a physician?

WTF???

[EC]

17. Wait a minute

isn't he an EYE DOCTOR? Other than that he is saying (just like all the others when you quiz them) CHOICE.....

[davidpdx]

33. See Post #14

He may have to find a cure for his own blindness.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. Rand Paul is even more two-faced than your average politician. That's really something. nt

[nxylas]

21. And I think that will be his undoing

His father attracted the following that he did because he seemed like he was not just another politician. "Integrity" is a word that was bandied about a lot by the Paulbots. RP Jr is trying to have it both ways, and I think people will see through it sooner or later, even if he is the media's darling at the moment, because of the filibuster. Maybe I'm giving the electorate too much credit, but I hope not.

[MsPithy]

19. Nope, not "calculating," just plain old stupid.

The only intellectually consistent position of a Libertarian is to be pro-choice. The only reason Rand can get away with not offending the right wing whack jobs in his party, is that the news media are dumber than he is.

[Sheepshank]

20. This way Rand's message is for everyone...no exceptions

calculating little weasel.....he and Jindal.

[wilt the stilt]

22. The free market would have taken care of segregation

was about the stupidest argument I have ever heard. There was a fully functioning "free market" system working.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. if one legally defines life and in effect human rights beginning at the moment of conception

then the logical conclusion would be that there could be no exception except possibly if one could prove to a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that the mother's life would almost certainly end if the abortion was not performed. Because one would be saying that a fertilized egg and certainly an eight week old fetus would have the same rights as a three year old child. Obviously a three child's life cannot be terminated because they were born of rape or incest or because they have a non-lethal birth defect. Obviously a three-year-old child could not be put to sleep because they were causing severe emotional distress to the mother. Well, if Rand Paul's bill were to pass and if it were to hold up in the courts (both highly unlikely) what else could the courts possibly conclude - if you already have defined a fertilized egg and even an early term fetus as a human with human rights equal to that of a child?

[jberryhill]

26. No

Roe v. Wade assumes for the sake of argument life begins at conception, but notes that the question is not relevant to a conclusion:

Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

I continue to be surprised by the general lack of knowledge of the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision. What is striking here is that Rand Paul actually states the underlying rationale of Roe v Wade in the quoted interview.

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. but Sen.Paul's statement says

'human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.” “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” - Thus the bill suggests that the rights under the Constitution begins with the fertilization of the egg. Under that logic - it would be hard to see a legal basis for exceptions - even though he states there would be thousands of exceptions.

[jberryhill]

28. Again, you haven't read Roe v Wade

Roe v Wade acknowledges a state interest in protecting unborn life. It goes on to say that interest is subordinate to the mother's right of self determination and privacy in medical decisionmaking until a tipping point is reached during the advancement of the pregnancy.

Yes, one can say "life begins at conception" and there is a "right to life". The point of Roe v Wade is that "right to life" is not an unqualified right when balanced against other rights and interests involved in the matter.

Both anti-choice and pro-choice assertions about "when life begins" are irrelevant and tangential to the legal rationale of Roe v Wade.

The point is, sure, you can say "life begins at conception and has a right to proceed". The point is that the woman is also a person with rights. These rights can come into conflict. What Roe v Wade says is that at the outset, the woman wins. Later in pregnancy, there is an increasing scale of permissible restrictions on that.

I continue to be surprised at how many people think "life begins at conception" somehow is the end point of the discussion. It isn't, and Roe v Wade didn't say it was.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. so in other words, Rand Paul's bill would change nothing?

[jberryhill]

31. That's another story

I'm simply going by the interview comments in the OP. I haven't looked at the bill.

[stevenleser]

30. Quelle surprise. Another Republican talking out of both sides of their mouths. nt

[SidDithers]

32. #StandwithRand...

Sid

[Andy Stanton]

34. Abortion is a bogus political issue for the right wing

The pro-abortion/anti-abortion dichotomy posed by the right wing is false - no one is pro-abortion.

But people are going to have them whether legal or not.

If the anti-abortion folks are so dedicated to their cause let them provide alternatives to those who would be seeking abortions, such as effective birth control, help with adoption and help with babies suffering from birth defects as they move through childhood and adulthood. But all this requires government funding, which the right wing is adamantly against.

[Thor_MN]

35. So what does rAYNd think about "anchor conceptions"?

Better find a way to keep tourists from getting busy, creating new Americans left and right while on vacation.