If Ron Paul were President, 16 to 28 states would keep abortion legal

Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?

From the Weekly Standard. (H/T Triablogue)

Excerpt:

“[Ron Paul] has an outstanding chance of winning in Iowa,” according to Bob Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 state campaign chairman. “There’s a lot about Ron Paul that people like,” Vander Plaats says, pointing to Paul’s “almost prophetic” vision of our economic problems and his commitment to do away with “politics as usual.”

But Paul could face trouble with values voters in Iowa, where 60 percent of GOP caucusgoers are evangelical Christians. Vander Plaats says his socially conservative umbrella organization, the Family Leader, has ruled out endorsing Paul because “sometimes [Paul's] libertarian views trump his moral compass.”

“On abortion, [Paul] believes that’s a states’ rights issue, we believe that’s a morality issue,” says Vander Plaats. In a post-Roe v. Wade world, “We don’t believe abortion should be legal in Maine and illegal in Iowa.” (Paul voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, but expressed deep reservations about voting for a federal law on abortion.)

“We’re very concerned” about Paul’s position that the government shouldn’t recognize civil marriage, Vander Plaats continues. The group also balks at some of Paul’s foreign policy views. ”Even though we may agree with him that we’re not called to be the policeman of the world, we do believe we’re called to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel,” says Vander Plaats. “And we do believe [a nuclear-armed] Iran is a definite threat not only to Israel, but to our freedom as well.”

[...]Vander Plaats says he doesn’t think very many Iowa voters are aware that Paul thinks it should be up to states to decide whether or not to protect human life. But now that Paul leading in the Iowa polls, his positions may come under greater scrutiny.

Here’s a 2006 USA Today article listing the states that would make abortion legal under Ron Paul’s plan.

Excerpt:

•Twenty-two state legislatures are likely to impose significant new restrictions on abortion. They include nearly every state in the South and a swath of big states across the industrial Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Ohio and Michigan. These states have enacted most of the abortion restrictions now allowed.

•Sixteen state legislatures are likely to continue current access to abortion. They include every state on the West Coast and almost every state in the Northeast. A half-dozen already have passed laws that specifically protect abortion rights. Most of the states in this group have enacted fewer than half of the abortion restrictions now available to states.

•Twelve states fall into a middle ground between those two categories. About half are in the Midwest, the rest scattered from Arizona to Rhode Island.

[...]The 22 states likely to enact new restrictions include 50% of the U.S. population and accounted for 37% of the abortions performed in 2000, the latest year for which complete data were available.

The 16 states likely to protect access to abortion include 35% of the U.S. population and accounted for 48% of the abortions performed.

So Ron Paul, far from being pro-life, would allow abortion on demand in 16 to 28 states, many of them the most populous states in the union – like California and New York. I understand that he calls allowing abortion in 16 to 28 states “pro-life”, but voters have to think and decide – is that really pro-life? Is it really pro-life when the number of abortions per year will drop from 1.1 million to 550,000? Is that pro-life? (Assuming that the people in the pro-life states don’t just cross the border to get an abortion elsewhere – which is false, of course). Paul’s position is that he is personally pro-life, but he thinks that other people should be allowed to decide if an unborn baby can be killed or not, at the state level. Isn’t that pro-choice though?

Similarly, Paul would allow states to redefine marriage to be anything they want it to be, since he thinks that the definition of marriage is an issue that states should decide. That’s his view. Is that pro-marriage? Does that position take seriously the need for children to be raised by a mother and a father?

Filed under: News, Abortion, Constitution, Constitutional, Federalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Libertarian, Liberty, Marijuana, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Prostitution, Ron Paul, Same-Sex Marriage, Social Conservatism, Social Conservative, Social Issues, Unborn

If Ron Paul were President, 16 to 28 states would keep abortion legal

Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?

From the Weekly Standard. (H/T Triablogue)

Excerpt:

“[Ron Paul] has an outstanding chance of winning in Iowa,” according to Bob Vander Plaats, who served as Mike Huckabee’s 2008 state campaign chairman. “There’s a lot about Ron Paul that people like,” Vander Plaats says, pointing to Paul’s “almost prophetic” vision of our economic problems and his commitment to do away with “politics as usual.”

But Paul could face trouble with values voters in Iowa, where 60 percent of GOP caucusgoers are evangelical Christians. Vander Plaats says his socially conservative umbrella organization, the Family Leader, has ruled out endorsing Paul because “sometimes [Paul's] libertarian views trump his moral compass.”

“On abortion, [Paul] believes that’s a states’ rights issue, we believe that’s a morality issue,” says Vander Plaats. In a post-Roe v. Wade world, “We don’t believe abortion should be legal in Maine and illegal in Iowa.” (Paul voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, but expressed deep reservations about voting for a federal law on abortion.)

“We’re very concerned” about Paul’s position that the government shouldn’t recognize civil marriage, Vander Plaats continues. The group also balks at some of Paul’s foreign policy views. ”Even though we may agree with him that we’re not called to be the policeman of the world, we do believe we’re called to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel,” says Vander Plaats. “And we do believe [a nuclear-armed] Iran is a definite threat not only to Israel, but to our freedom as well.”

[...]Vander Plaats says he doesn’t think very many Iowa voters are aware that Paul thinks it should be up to states to decide whether or not to protect human life. But now that Paul leading in the Iowa polls, his positions may come under greater scrutiny.

Here’s a 2006 USA Today article listing the states that would make abortion legal under Ron Paul’s plan.

Excerpt:

•Twenty-two state legislatures are likely to impose significant new restrictions on abortion. They include nearly every state in the South and a swath of big states across the industrial Rust Belt, from Pennsylvania to Ohio and Michigan. These states have enacted most of the abortion restrictions now allowed.

•Sixteen state legislatures are likely to continue current access to abortion. They include every state on the West Coast and almost every state in the Northeast. A half-dozen already have passed laws that specifically protect abortion rights. Most of the states in this group have enacted fewer than half of the abortion restrictions now available to states.

•Twelve states fall into a middle ground between those two categories. About half are in the Midwest, the rest scattered from Arizona to Rhode Island.

[...]The 22 states likely to enact new restrictions include 50% of the U.S. population and accounted for 37% of the abortions performed in 2000, the latest year for which complete data were available.

The 16 states likely to protect access to abortion include 35% of the U.S. population and accounted for 48% of the abortions performed.

So Ron Paul, far from being pro-life, would allow abortion on demand in 16 to 28 states, many of them the most populous states in the union – like California and New York. I understand that he calls allowing abortion in 16 to 28 states “pro-life”, but voters have to think and decide – is that really pro-life? Is it really pro-life when the number of abortions per year will drop from 1.1 million to 550,000? Is that pro-life? (Assuming that the people in the pro-life states don’t just cross the border to get an abortion elsewhere – which is false, of course). Paul’s position is that he is personally pro-life, but he thinks that other people should be allowed to decide if an unborn baby can be killed or not, at the state level. Isn’t that pro-choice though?

Similarly, Paul would allow states to redefine marriage to be anything they want it to be, since he thinks that the definition of marriage is an issue that states should decide. That’s his view. Is that pro-marriage? Does that position take seriously the need for children to be raised by a mother and a father?

Filed under: News, Abortion, Constitution, Constitutional, Federalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Libertarian, Liberty, Marijuana, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Prostitution, Ron Paul, Same-Sex Marriage, Social Conservatism, Social Conservative, Social Issues, Unborn

Ron Paul on the issues: Ron Paul’s positions on abortion and gay marriage

Ron Paul on gay marriage

Let’s look in this article from the Advocate to find out Ron Paul’s views on same-sex marriage.

Excerpt:

Paul was asked whether his libertarian views on such controversial issues — mainly his belief that personal liberties should not be encroached upon by the federal government — could help him attract socially conservative voters. Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.

“If you do not protect liberty across the board, it’s a First Amendment–type issue,” he said. “We don’t have a First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, ‘Yes, we have our religious beliefs protected, but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion — you can’t do this’ … if you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. But there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people, but yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial. If not, you’re going to end up with a government that can tell you what to eat or drink or whatever.”

Gay conservative group GOProud released a statement in support of Paul and the other politicians seeking the party’s nomination.

“[We] thank Congressman Ron Paul for rightly making the case that marriage and family laws should be decided at the state level, not by the politicians in Washington,” the organization said Friday.

That’s Ron Paul’s view of marriage.

Ron Paul on abortion

Here’s what Ron Paul wrote about abortion.

Excerpt:

As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It’s a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It’s equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

What states would legalize abortion if Ron Paul allowed states to decide whether abortion should be legal?

Here’s the map:

Which states would Ron Paul allow to legalize abortion?

That’s Ron Paul’s view of abortion.

You can read more about Ron Paul’s troubling views on social issues on Caffeinated Thoughts.

But there’s more. Here’s Ron Paul’s view of the Middle East. He is indifferent to Iran having nuclear weapons. Especially troubling, given the recent terrorist attack on American soil, which implicated the elite Iranian Quds Force.

UPDATE: A commenter adds:

It’s more accurate to say that these are Paul’s views on how states should go about answering these issues. His personal views on these issues are quite clear, that he ascribes to the natural view of marriage and abhors abortion. However he advocates relegating these issues to individual states because of his overriding commitment to a limited federal government and because he believes the constitution does not enumerate such decisions to the federal government for it to answer such questions for all states in the union.

This is true. But if the man becomes President, a lot of unborn babies will still be killed in states that he allows to legalize abortion, and a lot of children will still grow up without a mother or a father, in states that he allows to redefine marriage.  So despite his personal views, the net effect of electing him will be that abortion is permitted in some states, and same-sex marriage, too. So clearly, Ron Paul is not as pro-life or as pro-marriage as other candidates like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum.

Filed under: Commentary, Abortion, Cocaine, Constitution, Constitutional, Drugs, Federalism, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Libertarian, Liberty, Marijuana, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Prostitution, Ron Paul, Same-Sex Marriage, Social Conservatism, Social Conservative, Social Issues, Unborn

New study finds that regular intoxication makes teens more sexually active

Story from the Toronto Sun. (H/T Lex Communis)

Excerpt:

Pot-smoking teenaged girls are more likely to have sex than those who don’t, a new study suggests.

Drunkenness also increases sexual activity in teens, especially when boys and girls are allowed to spend too much time together, according to a report by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada released yesterday.

“Adolescent sexual behaviour places teens at risk of ill health, unintended pregnancy and emotional concerns. The earlier teens initiate sex the greater the risk,” said Peter Jon Mitchell, an analyst for the institute.

[...]The study found 39% of teens aged 14 to 19 have had sexual intercourse, which is 41% of girls and 38% of boys.

Teen smoking also increased the likelihood of promiscuity. Girl smokers were 78% more likely to have sex while boys were 98% more likely to engage in sexual activity, the report says.

“Analysis also revealed that teen girls who reported they had never smoked were 58% less likely than the national average to have had sexual intercourse while boys who reported they never smoked were 56% less likely,” Mitchell said.

Life Site News adds:

Study researcher, Peter Jon Mitchell, said that the findings underscore what parents may know intuitively to be true. “Teens who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior,” said Mitchell. “This study reveals a ‘risk profile’ that may help parents as they nurture their teens through to adulthood. And it becomes all the more critical when we consider the correlation between attempting suicide and sexual activity, particularly among girls.”

The study “Rated PG, Part II: How drugs, alcohol and other factors influence teen sexual activity,” can be read in full in English, here. “Part I: Rated PG: How parental influence impacts teen sexual activity” is available here.

Something for parents to think about. And talk about.

Filed under: News, Abstinence, Alcohol, Boys, Chastity, Drugs, Fathers, Girls, Health, IMFC, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, Marijuana, Parenting, Parents, Pot, Pregnancy, Research, Sex, Sexual Activity, Smoking, STD, Study, Teens

Friday night funny: celebrities, racist bird, jail break, aggressive birds

The video of the week from Hot Air. (H/T ECM)

I’ll tell you right now, I almost never watch movies and I have no television. I hate celebrities. I hate Hollywood. The last movies I saw in the theaters were Expelled (twice), Amazing Grace, Fireproof, and Bella.

This bird is a waaaaaaacist!

This is one is also really funny.

From Ace of Spades. (H/T ECM)

I like birds.

Priorities of Obama supporters

Story from the New York Times. (H/T Stop the ACLU via ECM)

Excerpt:

In the middle of two wars and an economic meltdown, the highest-ranking idea was to legalize marijuana, an idea nearly twice as popular as repealing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. Legalizing online poker topped the technology ideas, twice as popular as nationwide wi-fi. Revoking the Church of Scientology’s tax-exempt status garnered three times more votes than raising funding for childhood cancer.

Is socialism a mental disorder?

Cockatiels escape cage

These guys are smarter than my bird!

Bird vs. Cat

What a crazy beast! This is the strangest thing ever.

Bird vs. Dog

My bird does chase me, but only to bite my toes and for head scratches.

Cockatiel wants head scratch

My Dad is obsessed with making our bird do this trick.

I miss him

ECM sends this fun poster from I Hate the Media.

I remember what it was like to have over 2 trillion in tax cuts and a 4.8% unemployment rate. He was a fair President. I give him a B-.

Filed under: Humor, Animal Attack, Big Bird, Celebrities, Cockatiel, Cockatoo, Dubya, Gambling, George W. Bush, Health Insurance, Health-care, Hollywood, Infomericials, Marijuana, Michelle Obama, Online Poker, Poker, Pot, Racism, Sesame Street