Ron Paul: Take abortion out of federal courts

The true Ron Paul comes out - pandering to this bunch just like the rest. Good bye to the independent and moderate Republican votes, Ron!!

Some biased reporting here...

Paul is not advocating a total "ban" on abortion; he saying that, constitutionally, this is a matter for each state to decide as opposed to a blanket ruling from the federal government/courts.

All contentious issues (abortion, gay marriage) should be decided at the local level to decide what is right for each individual community.

Ron Paul has always been an extremist, he just doesn't believe in starting wars for no reason. But to make Ron Paul seem reasonable, what does that say about this bunch of Republicans running for President?

Nah, I don't think Ron Paul is pandering. He's always been pro-life, and always been for less control of federal government.

LOL @ first comments. He is pandering to the constitution knucklehead. Read article 1 section 8 and you will see that he is not pandering to any one, he is stating what the law requires the gov to do and not do.

Ill just have to donate more $$ to the cause of freedom, after all I know how to spend my money best.

Ron Paul or bust 2008

Paul is also pro free trade. He advocates unilateral elimination of trade barriers that would create even more free trade than the treaties do without the reduction of our sovereignty.

Abortion is not a federal issue. Just like education is not a federal issue. Just like on and on and on......

He's not pandering. This has always been his stance on abortion. He's just getting more specific because there are a lot of voters out there that were confused how making it a state issue would eradicate abortion (which it will in some states and won't in others). He finally had the opportunity to expand on his previous statements. Its definitely not pandering. The Constitution is his guide. If he strays from that then you could say he was pandering.

An excellent overview of Ron Paul's positions, with only one footnote lacking: some of his stands are at odds with the dominant libertarian (small-l) disposition.

Most libs are pro-choice and respect an inherent right to personal - and particularly medical - privacy. There is disagreement on the facts of the matter and the application of liberty principles to abortion. Therefore, most libs are willing to accept Ron Paul's "federalist" position, that leaves criminal law to the discretion of each state. Others believe it is necessary and proper for the federal government to ensure that women's fundamental rights are not abridged by any state.

There's also disagreement among libs about whether free-trade agreements are a "step in the right direction" or an "insidious cover" for statist interventions and managed trade. Almost every libertarian would be happier with a totally free world market with no impediments to voluntary exchange, beyond basic protections from civil and criminal coercion.

I don't know any libertarians who are either "isolationist" or "interventionist," but some do dispute Paul's appraisal of what constitutes an imminent threat. He makes his own case and libertarians are free to disagree.

On the whole, a very good summary of Paul's message. With a few caveats, it would be delightfully precise.

Medical decisions should be between a woman and doctor. Not the federal government. Birth Control is available and abortion should not be used for this purpose. There is no reason for hard working americans to pay the bills for people who refuse to use birth control.

The article is a little misleading as it doesn't explain that Paul doesn't want to legislate whether or not abortion is legal but rather that he wants Congress and the Executive to use Separation of Powers to argue (legislate that way if need be) that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to make a law which is effectively what they did when they decided in 1973 that abortion is a privacy issue when in many people's views it is a state issue because when the taking of a life becomes murder is required to be decided. Murder is against state laws, not a federal law.

I'm not pro-life per se, but I see the distinction in not having legislation from the bench. The Court interpreted the Constitution one way that Ron Paul and other conservatives think was a misinterpretation.

But, let's face it. If GWB with a loaded right-wing court, and GOP Congress couldn't get Roe v Wade overturned what makes anyone think its ever going to happen? Ron Paul, at least would use constitutionality as a litmus test (as they all should) when working toward the goal of allowing states to decide the matter. Some would likely ban it save for the mother's life at risk, others will add rape as an acceptable reason, and some will allow it completely, or to certain pregnancy thresholds.

We have different cultures and attitudes in this country. We are really 50 separate states, so we should act like it and limit the federal government's involvement in every matter.

Paul is also pro free trade. He advocates unilateral elimination of trade barriers that would create even more free trade than the treaties do without the reduction of our sovereignty.

The writer missed the actual facts of his comments on roe vs wade so i will put it in perspective.

Ron Pauls decision to over turn roe vs wade is to give the power back to the states for the federal decided to dictate to all states the law which is unconstitutional. The federal goverment need to stop medling in the lives of the american people and should allow us to be accountable for our actions for it is our choice and not the choice of the fed.

People keep taking Ron Pauls comments out of context for thier own personal purposes, i read an article earlier from a newspaper in Pennsylvania that actually stated that Ron Paul said the USA was asking or deserved the attack on 9-11 to which HE HAS NEVER MADE ANY SUCH COMMENT EVER.

This propaganda is what is ticking most of the american people off i will sum it up in a simple manner. MORE LIES, ALL LIES, STILL LYING, STOP THE LYING AND START TELLING THE TRUTH.

I have been a democrat all my life and have recentlt changed to republican just so i can vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul 2008

I dunno, doesn't sound like anything different than what he's always said about abortion not being a federal issue.
Pandering? Nah, not really.. nothing contradictory.

Educate yourselves before you make negative comments about Ron Paul. Avoid showing how ignorant you are when you parrot statist positions.
Anyone with Critical thinking cap and not depending on the bureaucracy for their living will love Ron Paul because he speaks for the people. A first in decades.

Learn more here:

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/

Interesting view.

So if a more conservative state didn't want abortion legal, than it would be illegal? If a more progressive state allowed abortions, then they'd be legal?

That sounds like the best solution I've ever heard on the abortion issue. Won't make either side happy, but it is a solution.

Ron Paul advocates fair trade.
he prefers free trade, but not if we are still being charged tariffs by other countries. If China puts a tax on U.S. imports, the U.S. should tax Chinese imports

Does it matter what this guy says? Is anyone listening besides the far right?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am a career Naval officer who has always been politically neutral--but this is about voting for America and our Constitution! I am supporting Ron Paul with my wallet--and my heart.

Go Ron go, Save America!

Though I disagree with Paul on abortion, he's pretty clear about his view on this issue. He does not believe the Constitution grants the federal government the power to regulate abortion.

He believes the Constitution should either be amended, or the power should revert back to the states.

I personally would like to see the Constitution amended to (a) define when life begins, and (b) state that a mother has full control over her own body up to and until the moment of birth.

Pandering to pro-lifers? NO! Ron Paul feels that social issues should be decided at state and local levels, not by a central govt. Ron Paul feels DC should have no say about abortion as well as gay marriage. He would never advocate banning gay marriage either. Paul is being his usual consistent self. He gives the same story everytime because the TRUTH only has one story.

Pro-choicers: as long as the abortion issue remains in the Courts, the chance that pro-lifers can make it illegal with crazy things like constitutional amendments is a very serious reality.

Ron Paul wants state control over it. That way, your community can reflect your values. If you think otherwise, you can use the democratic process (that you have more control over at the state level than the federal level) or you can move.

His reason for this is Constitutional anyway - he does not believe abortion IS a constitutional issue, so it should be in the hands of state legislatures.

If Paul doesnt think abortion should be a federal issue, then why did he vote for the "federal" "partial birth abortion" ban?

I dont consider supreme court decisions that expand liberty to be the federal govt taking away peoples rights or infringing on state powers. The congress or the president can do that, but the supreme court interpreting the constitution and bill of rights is different. State powers is fine for public works, etc... but not for civil liberties. Your basic rights shouldnt change depending on which state you live.

Everybody should know that Paul doesnt think the 1st Amend should be enforced on the states either. That means no 1st amend protection against state govt, or no protection for many of the other bill of rights either (excpet maybe the 2nd, youd have to ask Paul). That would lead to ALOT of loss of freedom imo. Im a libertarian, but Im definitely NOT for Ron Paul. He's a kind of libertarian I dont recognise.

BTW Roe v Wade is a perfectly legitimate decision. The BORs lists some of our most important rights, but not all. Listing all would be impossible (see the 9th Amend).

1) Ron Paul has served in Congress 10 times, 20 years. Not "twice".

2) Ron Paul wants to leave abortion up to the states. That is not extreme, especially coming from an OBGYN.

Legally an unborn child is a person, until the mother decides to terminate that life. It's a contradicting.

Mark Silva,
You are absolutely wrong by writing that Ron Paul "wants to ban abortion". That is completely untrue. The truth is that he wants the decision to be made by individual states.

This is where I disagree with Ron Paul. I do believe that a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases. It's a personal choice and not a goverment choice.

But, Ron Paul still has my vote. He'll never overturn Roe vs Wade. Too many Democrats would oppose it and it would have to go to the Supreme Court again where it would be struck down. But, I do think that he can considerably lower taxes, get the troops home faster than any candidate and begin the journey towards rethinking the nature of government and changing U.S. foriegn policy. These are much more pressing issue in my opinion.

And when we've all broken up into our little individual states and communities with our own little beliefs on what is good for "our" communities, when do we come to the realization that we will have, in essence, dissolved the "United" States and the undermined the very Constitution - the unifying document that applies to ALL THE PEOPLE of the "United" States - that you all claim is Mr. Paul's guideline?

Soldier in Iraq are not dying for Streamwood, or Alabama, or for pro-life vs. pro-choice. They are dying for the UNITED STATES! And THE IDEALS THAT IT STANDS FOR!

If the past 6 years has shown you people nothing, get this clear now - if we do not all stand TOGETHER, then we will all surely fall separately.

"All contentious issues (abortion, gay marriage) should be decided at the local level to decide what is right for each individual community."

So other "Local" decisions might include;

War Funding?

Voter Rights?
(Isn't that where the term "Jim Crow" comes from?)

Immigration?

Civil Liberties?

Far right? Actually he is very popular on campus. Does ending the war on drugs sound like a far right position?

RP actually has the correct Libertarian and Constitutional position on abortion, pro-choice or pro-life. That is, it is a state and local and personal issue. Abortion cannot be legally banned at the federal level without a Constitutional amendment, so it is not his intention to ban abortion.

Ron Paul has the best angle on the abortion issue. It is a states rights problem. Not a federal issue. Even abortionists can see this point. The pro-abortion groups have done quite a job framing baby killing as a woman's rights issue. Look at the pictures. It is a baby. There is no way to nuance your way around it.

There is no reason for hard working americans to pay the bills for people who refuse to use birth control.

Posted by: Flo | October 19, 2007 3:29 PM

What about rape and incest victims, or when there is danger to the mother?

Abortion is a very complicated matter where both sides have important points to make. Ron Paul has said that the more complicated the issue, the more local the decision-making process should be. Instead of shoving everyone into one massive cookie cutter mold, decide the matter on a case by case basis. By returning decisions to the states, this common sense approach can be implemented and make people happier. If you don't like the decision your community makes, you can always find other communities that are more like-minded.

"Ron Paul feels that social issues should be decided at state and local levels, not by a central govt."

So if my "community" were to decide that we did not want people from other "communities" to use our parks, schools, stores, etc. - that is our right?

What if we just want to confine them to the back of the bus. It sounds like that would be our right too.

Get your facts right, or go home. He doesn't want to BAN abortions, he says that it's not the federal governments job to mandate it.

In other words, let the states decide.

For more details, read The Constitution.

Ron Paul is a man of consistent principled adherence to the rule of law. If you want the GUVMINT to run your life, do not vote for him. I can tell you from personal experience in New Orleans that you have no idea how corrupt and inept and Orwellian Big Brother is, and I welcome a return to FREEDOM. It so happens that my state will outlaw abortion, and I am thrilled.

No Need to reply,the people covered it;)
www.ronpaul2008.com

2 voters registered republican to only vote for RON PAUL:)

Paul is NOT saying that this is an issue of constitutionality and that it belongs to the state.

He said "remove the jurisdiction of this issue from the federal courts.’’

He wants to take it from the federal government and give it the states because then he and the "Values Voters" can wage a state by state terrorist campaign to ban it.

He knows that on a Federal level it will not be defeated.

Actually, if you look up the original laws concerning abortion for each states prior to Roe V. Wade, you will find that ALL of them had an out for someone that was raped, in cases of incest, extreme malformation of a child or where the child put the mothers life in extreme peril.

Pro-Choicers - Ron Paul's position helps you better than any other President. Think of it this way. The problem with the way things are is that all the power to decide what a woman can do rests in the hands on 8 men and one woman.

One more swing vote somewhere and all women all across the U.S. lose the right to an abortion. It may not happen today, but face it, it will happen someday.

Ron Paul's solution assures there will always be someplace that a woman can. Obviously, it is not ideal for a 12 year old girl in Atlanta to try to travel to NY, but it is a heck of a lot better than trying to travel to France! Plus, she might only have to go to Florida.

Diffusing the power among the states means that never again will we see a country that makes women slaves. We will always have choices.

You say we have choices now - all over so why vote for this option: because the concentrated power is the problem, not how it was decided. You cannot take the chance that ALL of us will be subject to rusty coat hangers again.

Plus, as soon as this issue comes up for debate and women realize they may lose their right to choose, they may surprise you and come out and vote against it! The Pro-Lifers may have a louder voice, but freedom lovers out number them.

So, don't fret. This is not awful for women. Besides, this would be a very difficult thing for a President to get past a Democratic Congress anyway.

The rest of Ron Paul's ideals are so good for women, so good for the nation, that for once, we must put our greatest political campaign issue on the shelf. We need to protect the children we do have from an all to probable draft.

Heck, we need to protect ourselves from that same draft. They can't attack Iran without more bodies.

Go to www.ronpaullibrary.org to read up on the rest of Ron Paul's positions. (A feat not even possible with the other candidates as all they say are sound bites.)

Peace and love,
Georgia

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul was speaking inconsistently on abortion, should check out www.ronpaul2008.com and www.ronpaullibrary.com. He is an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies and never once considered performing an abortion. He has issued pro-life legislation during his 20 years in congress. He rightly points out that malicious or malpractice related fetal deaths amount to murder in most (all?) states, while the federal government sanctions abortion. Why is the fetus precious in one case, but not the other?

He also opposes the death penalty based on DNA and racial inconsistencies illustrated by research. See his remarks from the Value Voters debate on youtube (none of the other front runners chose to show up).

He opposes preemptive war because it inevitably promotes death and suffering. Our proud military tradition (I've been in the Air Force for 10 years) is steeped in respect for the Just War theory as outlined by Augustine. Ron Paul does believe in a strong national defense (like Ronald Reagan did), but not in starting wars without a declaration by we the people as represented in congress.

He knows the constitution allows marque and reprisal as a means to counter non-state threats. He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan (while not declared, he felt it important to work within the current system since his plea for marque and reprisal was rejected) and he voted against the invasion of Iraq because Iraq posed no threat and was not tied to 9/11. Check out the 9/11 report (which also seems to support non-interventionism as a National Security Strategy against terrorism.)

By the way, if you think Ron Paul is crazy for wanting to introduce a new gold standard currency to compete with the dollar, consider Alan Greenspan's agreement that we'd be better off without the Federal Reserve (his recent remarks during a CNN(?)interview on youtube).

I am a Catholic and my vote is for Ron Paul. Please check out www.catholicsforronpaul.com

"The federal goverment need to stop medling in the lives of the american people and should allow us to be accountable for our actions for it is our choice and not the choice of the fed."

Actually, people need federal protection from their individual states, and typically from "Christian" bullies on issues like race, integration, abortion, prayer in schools.

So called pro-lifers typically try to frame abortion as people making bad choices...covorting, having unprotected sex, "refusing" to use birth control.

That's the hateful, judgemental side of you religious types.

Personally I don't care if a woman is having her twelfth abortion at age 22 or her first abortion at age 42. DOn't care whether she is a woman who has never exercised birth control or if she is married with grown children and doesn't want to start changing diapers again.

That's up to her, her God if she has one and her doctor. It's NOMDB...none of my danged bidness!

The rape and incest comment was already addressed above. Most states, if localized, could make exceptions for these cases.

Mr. Silva,

You need to correct your article immediately. This statement is blatantly false:

"But Paul also wants to ban abortion"

I really don't understand the arguments about exceptions to Abortion bans.

On the one hand people say "It is a human life".

On the other they say that exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother are OK.

Aren't those human lives too? Certainly you can't punish a fetus for being the product of rape or incest.

"Ron Paul's solution assures there will always be someplace that a woman can."

How does it do that? The only thing it "assures" is a seperation between the haves and the have nots.

Abortion is acceptable if you can afford to travel someplace where people agree with you.

If you can't afford it then you either have the baby or find another alternative (the proverbial "Back Alley")

Abortion: Federal courts usurped authority over all sorts of issues, including abortion, via the "incorporation doctrine" which the US Supreme Court conjured out of thin air between in the early 20th Century. The federal Bill of Rights was put in place, in the words of its preamble, "to prevent misconstruction and abuse of [federal] powers" by confining the federal government to its enumerated powers listed in Article I Section 8. The Bill of Rights only restrains the federal government, it's not a grant of power to the federal courts to impose upon the states.

The incorporation doctrine, as the court claimed, was put into effect by the mystical 14th Amendment. Legal experts can't even agree which clause actually applies provisions of the bill of rights against the states. The court created a doctrine called "substantive due process," based on the "due process" clause of the 14th, which is only about procedure, not substantive law.

Long story short, issues like abortion should be, in the words of the 10th amendment, "reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people."

RON PAUL IS RIGHT-- but he's not attacking the larger issue of incorporation because of popular ignorance on the subject of incorporation.

If you don't believe what I'm saying about the bill of rights, read Barron v. Baltimore, 1833. Opinion by John Marshall (who actually got this case right). Read the distinctions between Article I Section 9 and Section 10. (anything which begins "no state shall" applies against the states. Everything expressed in general terms is a restriction on the federal government-- then read the 9th amendment (which deals only with those rights expressed in general terms- which are superfluous restrictions on federal power).

"Actually, people need federal protection from their individual states"

Right, and the Constitution defines what protection the federal government can provide. Race/integration issues as well as the prayer in schools debate can be handled by simply referring to the Bill of Rights. It goes too far, however, when we start violating the Bill of Rights as a remedy (affirmative action, anyone?)

As to the pro-life/pro-choice debate... there are valid arguments for both sides. The bottom line is that we all condemn murder (don't we?). The real question is when life begins. I tend to lean pro-choice because I don't belief life begins the moment conception occurs. But that is a personal belief. This is exactly why i think it should be a states issue.

I am now a Democrat for Ron Paul. Put your nation before your party - for our children's sake.

I am Catholic, and I support Ron Paul.

His stances on moral issues don't conflict with Catholic social teaching on the sanctity of life.

Someone accused Ron Paul of pandering... but if you know anything at all about the man, you know how ridiculous a claim that is.

Finally, a man I can vote for without holding my nose!

I'm pro choice and I support Dr Paul. The more complicated an issue the more it needs to be addressed locally. The states should determine if they want to allow abortion or not. That is Ron Paul's position on this issue.

This Abortion issue will never be solved to everyones satisfaction, so lets not use it to divide us and BLOW THIS CHANCE FOR FREEDOM!!!

Conservatives will realize pretty soon that Ron Paul is far and away their best choice. He has the 20-year voting record to prove his commitment to smaller government, lower taxes, and the Constitution. The so-called front runners don't.

Some of the second tier candidates are also good conservatives, but none of them have the fundraising capability or nationwide volunteer network that Ron Paul has put together.

It is not true that most libertarians are pro-choice. Many are. The split is probably even. The Libertarian Party has a pro-choice plank and it is hard to remove planks. Those libertarians who are pro-life either work within the LP, become independents or work within the Republican party. So, just by looking at the members of the LP, you can't tell whether most libertarians are pro-choice.

Dr. Paul has said repeatedly that he would leave the issue of abortion rights up to each state. He is 100% correct that it should not be a federally-regulated issue!

I saw the whole speech when I got home from school and he, again, was as solid as ever. No pandering was done. He stated his views on the issues with as much consistency as possible. Go RON!

Any man who has the courage to challenge the status quo is definitely a man to be considered. The federal government, especially the current administration, has made too many moves to become "Big Brother" always looking over our shoulder, always deciding what's best. There is a difference between the feds oversight of what's best for the country and a right of a woman to decide what's best for herself.

There are religious implications to the abortion issue, that being, "When does the fetus gain a soul?" If we operate on the assumption that at a certain point in the fetal developmnet process a soul is created, then I can understand the passionate pro-life side as I also understand the pro-choice side and the desire for a woman to have control of her own body and not have society dictate to her what to do. The abortion issue is an emotional one and will never find peace.

Thank you to everyone on here who has addressed the biased reporting on the issue of abortion in this article.

Ron Paul does wish to abolish Roe v. Wade so that for example California can opt to legalize abortion whereas West Virginia might opt for a ban. That's it, Ron Paul's solution to the abortion problem is to let it be decided on a more local level.

I think it's a great idea because socially conservative states will be able to get what they want and more liberal states will also be able to get what they want. What is wrong about that? And how is that in any way pandering?

J. Cline,

He is a libertarian; Hope you are prepared to pave the street in front of your house, purify your own water, conduct your own air traffic control functions, conduct tests on new drugs, etc, etc, etc. And oh yes, you owe your soul to the company store.

Ladies,
This guy, likable and frank, is telling you the truth; He wants to take your reproductive rights away, and it's not just the right to an abortion. Forget about birth control of any kind. He says he doesn't want the gvmt. to interfere in your lives, while on the back channel he will take away all your reproductive rights.

Certainly you can't punish a fetus for being the product of rape or incest.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 5:16 PM

So, you're OK punishing the woman who has to carry that child in her womb? I'm willing to bet that you are not a female Anonymous, because, my friend, you have no idea...

Dr. Ron Paul stands for and by the Constitution of these United States of America. As you have probably noticed from these comments America stand for and by the good doctor.

Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice should not matter here. Dr. Paul is correct in that it is not a matter for the Federal Government to describe or decide. It should revert to the several states. Given the split in this country, you would probably see close to a 50/50 split amongst the states on this issue.

However, who makes the laws in this country? Congress, the Judiciary or the executive branch? It should be congress, but in Roe vs. Wade, the Judiciary made their own law. That is unconstitutional.

So if my "community" were to decide that we did not want people from other "communities" to use our parks, schools, stores, etc. - that is our right?

What if we just want to confine them to the back of the bus. It sounds like that would be our right too.

Posted by: Carl L | October 19, 2007 4:48 PM

Carl, that's nonsense. Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. The Constitution requires the equal protection of the laws and the common enjoyment of all privileges and immunities of all U.S. citizens throughout the country. Those rights are specifically guaranteed by Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, as well as the 14th Amendment thereto. Quit pandering in ignorance.

"OH THE GOP STOMP CONTINUES"

THERE GOES RON PAUL'S RUN. BARBARA BUSH JUST COMPARED HIM TO THE KATRINA VICTIMS. NOW HE TOO WILL BE BETTER OFF UNEMPLOYED, HOMELESS, AND TREATED LIKE A REFUGEE IN A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

IS MAN UPSET THAT ANOTHER MAN CAN'T BEAR CHILDREN? IS MAN UPSET THAT A WOMAN HAS CONTROL OVER HIS ABILITY TO PROCREATE.

NO MAN WILL TELL MY DAUGHTER WHAT SHE CAN AND CANNOT DO AS A WOMAN. NO MAN, NOT EVEN A GAY REPUBLICAN WHO HAS FOUR KIDS AND SPENDS ALL OF HIS DAY TRASHING GAY MEN AND WOMEN, BECAUSE HE IS STUCK ON XY AND NO GENES.

NO MAN WILL! NOT EVEN GEORGE BUSH!

"He is a libertarian; Hope you are prepared to pave the street in front of your house"

The federal government has never paved the city street in front of my house. Nor has it paved the county roads... nor the state highways.

Have you bothered to take a look at the immense size of our nation? It is larger than the entire EU. The federal government should protect our rights as defined by the constitution. The states, within that framework, should handle their own business.

Pearlywhite said:
"And when we've all broken up into our little individual states and communities with our own little beliefs on what is good for "our" communities, when do we come to the realization that we will have, in essence, dissolved the "United" States and the undermined the very Constitution"

No! You have created a strawman. Read the constitution. It is not some imaginary document that means whatever you want it to mean. The federal government is out of control and is not what was envisioned by the writers of the constitution.

You seem to think that the problems you are seeing are the result of power in the wrong hands in Washington. The real problem is too much power in Washington period. Ron Paul wants to change that.

Another hit piece by the socialist Baltimore Sun. The author got Dr. Paul's position wrong ON PURPOSE! The guy LOVES Hillary. He's totally without any sense of honesty or journalstic impartiality or integrity.

The true Ron Paul comes out - pandering to this bunch just like the rest. Good bye to the independent and moderate Republican votes, Ron!!

Are you kidding me? This is what Ron Paul has always believed in. He isn't pandering to anyone.

C. Morris:
You're being a bit hysterical with the fear-mongering.

Dr. Paul would simply defederalize the abortion issue, returning legislative authority back to the state level where, in my opinion, it belongs.

As a Christian woman and a mother, I have no problem with this.

Two Democrats and 0ne Independant in my family registered Republican so we can vote for Ron Paul.

I heard Paul state that he personally feels that abortion is an act of violence that is perpetrated on the un-born. His view is that the federal government should not regulate violence. It's not in the constitution. That is up to the individual state. I like this reasoning. It's simple and it makes sense.

Pandering or speaking on issues that are relevant to the event? I'd argue for the latter. Dr. Paul has made all of these views clear in the past. It's all about taking power from the Federal Government and letting states decide more complicated issues.

C.Morris wrote:
"He is a libertarian; Hope you are prepared to pave the street in front of your house, purify your own water, conduct your own air traffic control functions, conduct tests on new drugs, etc, etc, etc. And oh yes, you owe your soul to the company store."

Yes, most Americans have heard one story too many about government waste and incompetence. The more we can privatize services currently provided by government the better off and richer we will all be.

Why stop at paving streets and air traffic control? Maybe we should have the government making our shoes and establishing government grocery stores. We don't because we all know the quality, selection, service would go down.

Did you ever wonder why people who do not fly should have to pay for air traffic control? Why should people who never visit a National park pay for its upkeep?

Who are the people who do not fly or visit national parks? Poor people for one. Of course they do not pay income taxes you might say. Those corporate taxes that some are so fond of flow right into the prices we all, including poor people, pay for everything we buy.

Please get your facts straight before writing an article. Ron Paul has never advocated a ban on abortion. Abortion decisions should be made at the state level, not from Washington.

No, Ron Paul is not pandering, and no, this will not drive away the moderates. I AM the spitting image of a farm-raised, educated, midwestern moderate. I voted for Kerry in 2004 against my better judgement because I wanted a different cabinet in the white house, and because I will never support the Straussian Neoconservatives. That's exactly why I won't vote for Rudy McRomney or Hillary Clinton, two more "Empire State" yankees who don't represent America. Ron Paul is exacty who he has always been, and I prayed he'd run as an independent in 2004. He's got my vote until the day he dies.

This article is clearly ignoring the fact that Ron Paul NEVER advocated a ban on abortion but rather thought it should be up to the STATE, which is more Constituational.

Dear Mr. Silva,

I think you owe your readers a retraction for your article titled "Ron Paul: Take abortion out of federal courts." And further more I believe you owe your boss an explanation and maybe a letter of resignation. You have disgraced your profession. And I doubt this is your first offense. Below I will list your lies versus the factual reality

"Ron Paul, the feisty physician from Texas who has twice served in Congress"
The factual reality is that Dr. Ron Paul is currently serving his 10th term in the Congress. This is an incredible and elementary school level factual error.

"has gained widespread recognition as his party’s only anti Iraq-war candidate"
This is another interesting stretch of your imagination. You make this unsubstantiated assessment. And then later you go one to be contradicted by Ron Paul himself when he said "We have found that a lot of people are coming to join for the message we have been delivering. The message is not complex. It is rather simple… Freedom is much better than bureaucracy and government socialism… Freedom really works." But rather than take the truth from Ron Paul. You make up your own opinion and interject as if it were a verifiable fact. This is extraordinarily dishonest and disgusting.

Will you please stop writing lies and opinions. We readers deserve better than that!

M. Klein
Owings Mills, MD

C. Morris, enough with your FUD. Paul is a Constitutionalist. Those are his own words. In other words, if we in Minneapolis want the State of Minnesota to provide us with roads and bridges, we can do it ourselves. Especially if we don't have the federal leech from the East siphoning off our state's income to fund lawless, endless warfare and imperialism. Minnesota knows best how to spend Minnesota's money. It's on things like the Mayo Clinic and cancer research. Not on military adventurism.

If your not part of the 1% of the population that owns 99% of everything, your a Ron Paul supporter. Maybe you just don't know it yet.

"Why stop at paving streets and air traffic control?"
Greg W"

Because these functions are in the interest of public safety and civilization at large.
I wouldn't, myself, go much beyond that, except for National Health Ins.

"Why should people who never visit a National park pay for its upkeep?"
Greg W"

The parks already take in more money at the gate than they receive back from Congress. Hopefully the Dems will change that.

"Abortion decisions should be made at the state level, not from Washington.
Posted by: Tyler | October 19, 2007 8:01 PM"

That's disingenuous to say the least. Of course he is against abortion. Why would any woman want to put here reproductive decisions in the hand of local politicians?

John W.

If Paul is successful in making this a state issue your "equal protection" will only apply in some states.

You can't have you cake and eat it too. You can't say that a woman's access to an abortion should be controlled by the state and then say that "the constitution provides equal protection of the laws and the common enjoyment of all privileges and immunities of all U.S. citizens throughout the country."

"He is a libertarian; Hope you are prepared to pave the street in front of your house, purify your own water, conduct your own air traffic control functions, conduct tests on new drugs, etc, etc, etc. And oh yes, you owe your soul to the company store."

Well, you've got a bridge collapse and 8 people dead after a federal- and state-funded program failed to fix it for 17 years. You've got kids committing suicide in FDA trials of psychotropic drugs. You've got 20 million illegals who just gingerly stepped over the broken "border". And until recently, you had a big hole in the downtown of our largest city because our government didn't see any terrorists planning to take out the World Trade Center.

There, now go sign up for Ron!

Go Dr. Paul! This guy is a rock. He'll take on any issue, any time, because he speaks from his own principles. And millions agree with those principles. It is no contest. Other candidates can't imitate his real honesty and values... and ideas. He has solutions.

So foolish that anyone could think that Moscow- excuse me- Washington can tell anybody what they can and can't do. States rights rock. Let my people decide. And don't worry y'all, I guarantee you'll still be able to visit me in Ma. and get an abortion if you can't handle the responsibility of sex.

Yes, Ron Paul has always been opposed to abortion.

The US Supreme Court deviated from all of their past decisions in the Roe v. Wade decision (which Roe has admitted lying about) by basing their abortion ruling on absolutely no precedence.

Justice Blackmun said the supposed "right" to abortion, the "right to privacy" (which is no where in the U.S. Constitution) was found in the penumbra of the meaning, in the shadow, of what our Forefathers meant.

Uhm, right - the founding fathers meant to, but forgot to add, "Yes, women we want you to kill your unborn children." One would think that'd be a huge oversight on their part.

Somehow Justice Blackmun conjured this up - maybe a bit of tea leaf reading?

The point is - Ron Paul wants the decision to go back to the states. Let the states make the laws - NOT the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ron Paul is awesome and I hope he will be our next President in 2008!

This is in reply to those saying we should retract something about this story about Ron Paul, who said today at the Values Voter convention that Roe versus Wade should be overturned but rather than waiting until "we,'' as he addressed the religious right audience he was addressing, can get enough judges on the Supreme Court to overturn it, the Congress should remove jurisdiction over abortion from the federal courts -- which is a questionable act of legislation to begin with. So tell me, what do you suppose happens in this country when Roe v Wade is overturned -- abortion becomes illegal in most places. That is precisely what Ron Paul was offering today to this audience of religious right voters whose agenda includes the abolition of abortion. Say what you will about Ron Paul -- Libertarian, anti-income tax, anti-Iraq war. Today, for an audience that wanted to hear it, he also declared himself anti-abortion. Deal with it.

Such inept reporting - Ron Paul does not want to ban abortion. He does not believe that it is an issue for the Federal government to decide. The decision to legalize or not legalize should be left to the states. Mark Silva is either a poor or a biased reporter. I'll leave others to decide but either way, I'll skip any article that has his byline.

I am pro-choice and I think that it would be a great idea to remove RvW. The Feds have no business in such matters.

Ironically, handing the abortion issue over to the Feds actually energizes the religious zealots to get involved in politics.

By returning the issue to the states, yeah, abortion might be illegal in Alabama, but other states would no longer have to worry about the zealots from 'Bama.

Also, Ron Paul is for free trade. His beef is that NAFTA and CAFTA are highly regulated managed trade agreements, contrary to their names.

BTR

Nice Smear Article.

Why don't you write about how Paul stated that Abortion should not be a federal issue? He's PERSONALLY against abortion, as am I, but we BOTH think that the federal govt should stay the hell out of this debate, and let the people speak for the state they live in. Although I'm against personally abortion, I'm not about to go against the constitution and say a person doesn't have the right to choose. That choice should be handled by the states, and Paul would agree.

Congratulations on your smear campaign though... I hope it's satisfying.

Finally, a candidate that has read the Constitution. Finally, a candidate that defends the Constitution. May we proceed with "firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right", as the Kentucky farm boy encouraged us in March of 1865.

I am APPALLED that SO MANY people think they should have a RIGHT to kill babies, this is sickening! Abortion is taking a baby, like YOU once were, and KILLING it! Why don't you abortion people go follow the democrat candidates? Republicans are pro-life, get over it!

Here are just two of many, many examples of hacking this writer did on Ron Paul's remarks and positions ..."Paul wants to abolish the federal income tax – that’s part of his governmental philosophy. But Paul also wants to ban abortion, proposing to overturn the landmark Roe versus Wade court ruling by legally removing jurisdiction over the issue from the federal courts." FYI Hack Writer, abolishing the personal income tax is the "Constitutional position - therefore Ron Paul's -- it's not a 'philosophy' he dreamt up..
#2 It never was the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to legislate on Roe v. Wade. Its was Congress's unlawfully, abdicated responsibility.

You are clearly in over your head trying to relate what this fine statesman knows about our country and it's condition. It's beyond your reach. Go study!

If Amerikka comes out of it's stupor long enough we just might get the first honest and knowledgeable president we've had in generations! Ron Paul IS Hope For America!

*****

Posted by: carl | October 19, 2007 9:21 PM

Yes, Carl, you can have your cake and eat it too. You just have to go to where the cake is.

When abortion becomes a State issue, each State would then have the right to decide the issue for itself. If and when a State declares the right to an abortion to be protected by statute or State Constitution – as many already have – then everyone is entitled to the free exercise of that right within that State. That's what equal protection of the laws and common enjoyment of privileges and immunities mean.

These ideas do not mean that every “right” that a State comes up with has to be “enjoyed” by every citizen throughout all 50 States where they are situated. Were it otherwise, any one State could set policy for every other State against their will. These constitutional protections do mean, however, that every citizen from every part of the country would be able to go to a State where that right exists and enjoy that right to the same extent as citizens of the State. (See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 200 (1973) [Holding that the right to abortion per Roev. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), cannot be denied by a State to out-of-state citizens because of the privileges and immunities clause.].)

That is all I said, and that is all I meant to say.

Ron Paul 2008-2016!!!

The only choice!

Your Grandkids will thank you!!
Brent

Ron Paul is looking out for the common everyday and is not a liar. That is why I am sitting on the edge of my seat everyday waiting to vote for him. If you all did not dontate the max 2300 bucks yet make sure you do it soon. Who knows if we will ever get a chance again to vote for someone who isn't full of it.

I have been a democrat all my life and have recentlt changed to republican just so i can vote for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul 2008

Posted by: Steve | October 19, 2007 3:40 PM

Clearly switching parties has done nothing to improve your spelling.

Vote DEMOCRAT in 2008!

People are having a hard time grasping Paul's very simple position here. Repealing Roe V. Wade simply means taking the federal government out of the issue - NOT outlawing abortion. It means letting states decide. The more local we keep politics, the freer people are to live in a community/state that fits their beliefs, rather than having their lives affected by voters thousands of miles away.

“Why would any woman want to put here reproductive decisions in the hand of local politicians?

Posted by: C.Morris”

Two points:
1. Legal: The constitution specifically defines a limited number of issues that are the purview of the federal government. Amendment 10 states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Abortion and other social and criminal issues are not mentioned in the constitution, and are therefore “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

2. Philosophical and Practical: One woman’s “reproductive decision” is another woman’s “murder”. Most polling data shows opinions falling nearly at 50/50 on this issue. Any issue which is that controversial should not be made at the one-size-fits-all federal level. No matter which woman you ask, when settled at the federal level, one woman gets to suffer a tyranny of the majority. Just because the side you support is in control at the moment does not mean it will always be that way. Leaving this important decision in the hands of a single distant federal authority means that one group of that 50/50 will always suffer what they perceive as an injustice. What if your side is the next minority?

To Mark Silva:

“Today, for an audience that wanted to hear it, he also declared himself anti-abortion. Deal with it.”

Ron Paul has never made any secret that he personally opposes abortion. As an OB/GYN, he came to that position based on his experience. The fact that they wanted to hear it only makes it an important point for him to make to them.

“…the Congress should remove jurisdiction over abortion from the federal courts..”

Exactly the point many posters have been making. Removing the decision from the federal courts is NOT that same a banning it.

I love Ron, his is good man and I am proud that I gave him money. Will do it again next p