MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rand Paul's Strange Abortion Incoherence in the Debate

By trying to straddle the federalism divide on abortion, his stance seems confusing and unconvincing to all sides.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is a super chill guy on political stages such as tonight's debate, even when maybe he should be a bit more forceful in either his defense or attack. He was asked a question tonight by Chris Wallace in which his current abortion position was conflated with his father Ron Paul's.

"Your answer is to turn abortion back to the states the way it was before Roe v. Wade," Wallace told him. "Does that mean that if a liberal state, let's say, wants to make abortion legal, that you're okay with that and what do you say to conservative voters who believe deeply that abortion is murder?"

I expected him to begin his answer with a sharp, "Why Chris that's just not true! Why, just last week I introduced again into the Senate the "Life at Conception Act" which would give full federal protection to unborn life."

But he didn't do that at all. The introduction of that bill, and not for the first time, I assume matches his actual beliefs about what is politically appropriate to do about abortion. The bonus, and what I presumed was the reason it was announced so close to Iowa caucus, is that it also has  the political convenience of appealing to a mass GOP base, especially of the evangelical variety we are told is so important to Iowa.

So I assumed he would take this opening to loudly hype his proposed federal law that, by any interpretation I can give it, would ban abortion federally. (Though in a world with Roe v. Wade still in effect, it would be an instant lawsuit magnet if anything like it ever did become law.)

Instead here is how Paul answered. He didn't evade discussing the law, but he certainly blunted both its political efficacy and any clarity about his actual positions. Excerpts from Rand's somewhat rambling reply:

I've supported a variety of solutions, both state as well as federal. In fact, just last week, I introduced the Life at Conception act, which would say that the 14th amendment would defend an individual even in the womb.

Great! You've made your point for the GOP base that wants an anti-abortion guy. But wait, that's not all:

But I think on the broader question of religion and politics, you know, I think liberty, itself requires a virtue -- requires a virtuous people. In fact, Washington said that democracy requires a virtuous people.

Os Guinness, the theologian, said that liberty requires restraint but the only restraint consistent with liberty is self-restraint. There's a lot packed into that statement. But the bottom line is we must have virtue, we must have a religious bearing as a nation. The government is not always going to save us and it's not always going to come from government.

But if we don't know right and wrong, I think we have lost our way. I think we become unmoored and I think without the religious foundation that guides us all, I think we have a great risk of going horribly in the wrong direction.

That's a great idea for him to get out there, one supposes. The libertarians, and even a certain strain of religious folk, like that idea that government can't be the key to enforcing religious virtue. 

Wallace was understandably confused by the "state as well as federal" line and then probably driven off the right track by all that talk about virtue not coming from government in the context of an abortion question.

Wallace hits him again: "Do you favor the idea that abortion should be a states' rights issue and if a liberal state wants to make it legal, that that's their choice? Yes or no?"

And then, on this issue in which equivocation has some severe political hazards, Paul flat out replies with a technically in some ways correct but pretty misleading answer:

Both. No, both the federal and a state approach. I have said that we could leave it to the states but I've also introduced a federal solution as well. So the federal solution would be the Life at Conception act which is an act that would federalize the issue. But I've also said for the most part, these issues would be left back to the states....

I think it would be better the more -- the less abortions we have, so the more states that we have that made abortion illegal, the better, as far as trying to save and preserve lives.

It's hard to imagine a more wishy-washy evasive sounding answer than starting the answer to a "yes or no" question with "both."

What might he have been thinking, likely blunting any possible political benefit to a law he's twice introduced and seems proud enough of? He seems to want libertarians, constitutionalists, and federalists to understand both that he doesn't think religious virtue can in general be enforced by the federal government, and that he believes in state solutions as much as possible even when virtue and the law might meet. 

That's an interesting insight into his general philosophy, but it is a bit blunted in the specific case of abortion by the fact that he does advocate a federal law that would in essence outlaw it.

So he ended up with a message that came across incoherent on the whole, and never seemed to to actually effectively and finally answer the question in a way that the very voter for whom the Life at Conception Act would be appealing would actually understand what he was saying. 

Who knows what if any importance this exchange in the debate will have, but he seemed to take an opportunity to defend and explain one of his own legislative goals and get whatever political goodwill that might engender from the relevant community, and at best complicated it and at worst ruined it.

A somewhat frustrating example of a guy who doesn't often seem like he's equivocating or trying to be all things to all people seeming very literally to be doing that, in a confusing way that might unnerve both pro- and anti-abortion folk.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • This Machine||

    Bury the abortion thread in the late-night articles. Genius. This one's not seeing 1000, that's for sure!

  • ||

    I think it might have done him some good.

    He was above Rubio by a hair earlier but now seems to have slipped back some.

    Of course this may also mean that Rubio staffers are voting faster than Rand's.

  • ||

    There's a small, cynical part of me that wishes he'd said something like "I'd like abortion to be just as safe, legal, and rare as clitoridectomies are here in the U.S."

  • GILMORE™||

    *see? perfect example of what i mean below.

    Boil your view down to a simple statement. tho i think the term 'clitorectomies' would be lost on many.

  • GILMORE™||

    Seriously. Both abortion and federalism are obviously things he *genuinely* cares about

    Trying to reconcile these things on a debate stage as a candidate however, is epic stupidity. he needed to get his shit straight and his pitch line bone-stupid-and-simple on the subject over a year ago.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Seriously. Both abortion and federalism are obviously things he *genuinely* cares about

    Which means a genuine authoritarian. Like his dad. Wallace nailed Rand to the wall, exposing the same hypocrisy that's been on his Senate website for years.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Caring about both abortion and federalism means you are a genuine authoritarian?

    please explain.

  • Marshall Gill||

    He is a senile old man. His "explanation" wouldn't clarify anything, only make his positions even more confusing.

    Here, let me help you. Ronald Reagan was a Libertarian President! John Kasich is the MOST Libertarian candidate left in the race! The Pauls are extreme Socons!

    Yeah, Hihn basically posts like he is Bo's senile grandpappy.

  • JoshH_83||

    please check out my comment below - I would appreciate feedback.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Marshall Gill, stalks and attacks again

    He is a senile old man.

    Childish

    His "explanation" wouldn't clarify anything, only make his positions even more confusing.

    Which part of this befuddles you:

    http://bitly.com/1UvuQes

    Here, let me help you. Ronald Reagan was a Libertarian President!

    Shame on you I said MOST libertarian.
    *Publicly and actively defended gays just prior to announcing, versus your bigoted hero,
    *Though a devout and very public Christian, consider just abortion. Opposed, but never tried to impose his views by force of law. Falwell and Robertson attacked Reagan as all talk, but followers ignored them. Umm, not imposing your views by force is MORE libertarian than your cult leader.

    *In Reason interview described libertarianism as very core of conservatism.
    *Grace Commission spending cuts largest ever (buried by GOP)
    *New Federalism ONLY total restructuring
    *Milton Friedman said he, Goldwater and Reagain were libertarians, but in the GOP.

    You also lie about Kasich. I said most qualified. Led tax cuts to balance budget under Clinton, plus executive experience as governor.

    Yeah, Hihn basically posts like he is Bo's senile grandpappy.

    Gill keeps attacking because I stood up to him (like here), which increases his rage. Is he out of control?
    (Tone and boldface responding to aggression)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Emmerson Biggins|1.29.16 @ 4:50AM|#
    Caring about both abortion and federalism means you are a genuine authoritarian?
    please explain

    It's not federalism. It;s the perverted version of states rights originating with southern racists ... based on a lie. The lie is that all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government belong to the states.

    But 9th Amendment was INTENDED to prevent such bullshit but reserving unenumerated RIGHTS to the people.

    1) Rights come before powers in a government of delegated powers. duh.
    2) Paul supports the totalitarian notion that (state) government has powers which have NEVER been delegated.

    (Somebody please explain this to Marshall Gill, below. He's a trash mouth bully, when issues are over his head -- which is often)

  • MSD62581||

    It was the north which was using states rights to resist the Fugitive Slave Act and not return escaped slaves to their masters.

  • buybuydandavis||

    This is just epic fail.

    This stuff obviously is important to him but he hasn't managed to cobble together a coherent position on it.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    It's been thirty-three minutes without another debate article.

    Slackers.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Here's a point of view that wasn't expressed in tonight's debate,
    this letter-to-the-editor from today's SF Bay Area's Contra Costa Times:

    I resent the patriarchal, racist, systematic oppression upon which our society's been built. I resent that black lives are taken every day by police without consequence; that parents and children are wrongfully deported to countries like El Salvador, where conditions are so dangerous even the Peace Corps doesn't operate there; and that indigenous people make 59 cents for every dollar a white man makes.

    I resent that wealthy white men can commit crimes with little consequence, while young people of color are arrested for the most minor of offenses. I resent that old white men have so many rights in this country, while others have so few.

    That's what we youthful "progressives," with our fondness for hyperbole, mean when we say "I hate old white men." Do we hate every old white man? No (although I do have a long list). We resent the oppression they perpetuate and from which they benefit.

    This isn't "hate speech." We don't want discrimination against old white men. We just don't want them to discriminate against us.

    Rachel Boyle
    San Ramon

  • mfckr||

    Cool, just threw up in my mouth.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    Wonder if this logic can be used to force reconsideration of Hillary. "How come when a young black man (Jeffrey Alexander Sterling) acts as a whistleblower to expose a deeply flawed US Covert Operation, he gets indited for exposing state secrets, while when a rich, elderly, white woman gets to run for PRESIDENT after either willfully or through incompetence exposing state secrets without so much as a slap on the wrist??"

    Sure, the issue really shouldn't be racialized, and it's stretching logic to call Sterling "young", but if framing Clinton's crimes in the context of "white privilege" gets people to pay attention to the crimes, maybe there is something to that.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Ya, Whitey is da Devil!

    Heard it before, racist slaver.

  • mfckr||

    I wish he'd shutup about abortion generally or just say something like "I'm personally opposed to abortion but won't impose these views on others." Not sure why abortion always has to be the hill GOP candidates choose to die on.

  • cavalier973||

    Opposing the murder of babies seems a good hill to die on.

  • MSimon||

    Religions differ on when the tissue blob becomes a baby.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MSimon|1.29.16 @ 9:01AM|#
    Religions differ on when the tissue blob becomes a baby

    Not relevant. If the feral child has equal rights when still only a gleam in either parents lie .... the woman has identical rights from the same moment.

  • Michael Hihn||

    FETAL child, not the typo

  • MSD62581||

    But not the right to kill.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    Not being a life support for someone else does not equal murder. Freedom means freedom to choose who gets to use your heart, liver, lungs, etc.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Not being a life support for someone else does not equal murder. Freedom means freedom to choose who gets to use your heart, liver, lungs, etc.

    Not quite, Not when the fetus is viable,
    There can be no SEPARATE right to kill a fetus capable of living outside the womb. Banning abortion then has no effect on the woman's rights, if a live birth is required (s it should be)

    And we have Separation in this country.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Opposing the murder of babies seems a good hill to die on.

    It's not murder, and never was, unless one ignores the woman's equal unalienable and/or God-given right to Liberty

  • MSD62581||

    Nope. One person's liberty does not justify the taking of another person's life even if that life is inside her.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Learn the definition of unalienable ..... Do you think he and the Founders were stupid?
    A simple dictionary definition.

    Can I deny your liberty to save the life of somebody on the other side of town?

  • MSD62581||

    You do not have the unalienable right to kill another human. And you are conflating saving with killing in your analogy.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Rand revealed the hypocrisy shared with his dad. His refusal to answer the question on liberal states has been on his Senate website for over a year. There, too, he says abortion should be a state issue, and brags of having sponsored a federal an on abortion. Fence straddling. And Chris Wallace nailed him.

    This is typical of the phony federalists, which starts by lying about the 10th Amendment and rejecting the 9th. That's not federalism, it's the perverted version of states rights first promoted by southern racists. When the judiciary does its job, defending fundamental human rights from abuse by ANY level of government, rights guaranteed by the 9th Amendment from both state and federal level.

    The phony federalists need an excuse for states to violate fundamental rights. But proof of the bullshit is they also seek a federal ban ... shameless pandering to bigots and homophobes, and violating the woman's equal and unalienable right to Liberty. All unalienable rights are precisely equal, because none of them can be taken away. So we have "libertarianish" politicians attacking individual liberty. No wonder the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

  • Utiz4321||

    Your rather short sighted. Libertarians can't win an election appeal only to other libertarians. So any candidate of a libertarian bent will have to seek support from other ideological groups. Rand is prolife but that is for some reason considered and anathema to some libertarians and Rand has failed to get enthusiasm behind his campaign from this camp. He can't afford to aliagnate them but his own beliefs align more with conservatives (and increasingly with the nation as a whole) and he needs to appeal to them.

    In politics this kind of non answer on issues that are part of your main platform are par for the course. Why should we expect any person to have a strong decisive answer on every issue? It is not reasonable to expect that of anyone, besides there is nothing the president of the US can do about the issue in any case.

    If you want an ideologically pure cannidate, one that has strong feelings or thoughts on every issue and agrees with you on everything, fall asleep because that person will only exist in your dreams.

  • C. Anacreon||

    You are answering Michael Hihn, a deranged old man living in a senior housing studio apartment, who is on his computer sitting alone in the dark, wearing a dirty t-shirt, ratty boxer shorts and socks with garters, giggling that someone actually read one of his posts. Be careful.

  • Michael Hihn||

    C. Anacreon|1.29.16 @ 3:32AM|#
    You are answering ichael Hihn, a deranged old man living in a senior housing studio apartment, who is on his computer sitting alone in the dark, wearing a dirty t-shirt, ratty boxer shorts and socks with garters

    Already answered to another aggressor. here:

    http://bitly.com/1UvuQes

    Somebody please explain it to C. Anacreon -- using small words. Thanks.

  • JeremyR||

    Eh, I think a lot of people who consider themselves libertarian are pro-life.

    For instance, this woman who was just fired from her job for being pro life

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/.....-pro-life/

  • lap83||

    Who cares, but she COULD have been fired for a reason we actually care about! /prog

  • Michael Hihn||

    Eh, I think a lot of people who consider themselves libertarian are pro-life.

    A far larger percentage are pro-choice ... to the other extreme.
    1) 59% of Americans accept the description of fiscally conservative socially liberal. (Cato)
    2) Until recently, the party platform was explicitly pro-choice, until birth. I spent two national conventions on the Platform Committee trying to change that,, but faced SEVERE hostility. As I recall, there was not even a vote on my revision.

    If Hobby Lobby is fully within its rights to deny contraception coverage (as they are)... then that woman's employer also has the right to fire fer for being pro-life (as they were). But it's hard to escape double-standards on both partisan sides.

  • ace_m82||

    Let me attempt to put Hihn's opinion into something resembling logical English:

    The mother has rights.
    The unborn child has rights, too.
    These rights are unalienable.
    These rights are also equal.

    At least that's what he will say. There is an unstated extra point I managed to get out of him after approx 80 posts on argument:

    The unborn child has no rights until it's viable.

    So, in reality, pretty much the rest of his arguments are red herrings as the demarcation point in his view is viability. Without that distinction, getting to any "logical" conclusion is - to be kind - very difficult.

    So, in his view, you may kill the little one as long as it isn't viable, but once it becomes viable you cannot.

    Now, I disagree with him on the "viability" point entirely, but this is as close as I can get to his opinion. His method of arguing may drive you crazy if you keep trying to get a clear answer out of him, he often squishes around the question as jelly squishes out of the way if you try to nail it to the wall. But, if you start with this, you may be able to make it past the first 50 posts of red herrings and get to the actual part where the argument starts.

  • Michael Hihn||

    ace_m82 stalking me:

    The unborn child has no rights until it's viable.

    Law of the land

    So, in reality, pretty much the rest of his arguments are red herrings as the demarcation point in his view is viability

    law of the land.

    Without that distinction, getting to any "logical" conclusion is - to be kind - very difficult.

    Law of the land + definition of unalienable

    So, in his view, you may kill the little one as long as it isn't viable,

    Law of the land

    but once it becomes viable you cannot.

    Depends on the state, which pro-lifers have fucked up for decades. Require a live birth at viability. But political power is more important than saving babies -- and stalking.

    Now, I disagree with him on the "viability" point entirely, but this is as close as I can get to his opinion. law of the land.

    if you keep trying to get a clear answer out of him, he often squishes around the question as jelly

    I jam it up your ass. Sideways. Like here.

    the first 50 posts of red herrings and get to the actual part where the argument starts.

    You confuse personal opinions with binding legal rulings, publicly humiliating yourself, so stalking me ... forever?

    (boldface responds to another aggression by the thug.)

  • ace_m82||

    Now, dear Hihn, I'd like to point out that I didn't even actually argue with you here at all. I stated what I believe your opinion is (throwing in a few comments on how weird your method of arguing is) and you become quite crass. That's totally unnecessary. You also call me a "stalker" and "aggressor", further proving you don't know what words mean.

    To be fair, most of what you said is "law of the land" is indeed the law of the land. That being said, that's a total dodge. We're (supposedly) libertarians here, the law of the land is usually quite wrong. Calling the "viability" point the law of the land is a red herring. You should argue as to why it should be the law of the land.

    Also, Hihn, I don't know if you realize this, but I also post freely on abortion threads all the time. I didn't see this one until it was pretty late and saw you here (big surprise, let me tell you) arguing with someone who doesn't know your very odd method of arguing. I thought, "Hey, let me at least summarize Hihn's POV because that will help everyone and prevent this chain of posts go on forever." And what happens? You attack me like a rabid dog.

    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You attack all movement you see and then call the movement "aggression". I think I now know why you really don't like the concept of governmentlessness now; if we all acted like you, we'd all be dead.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Now, dear Hihn, I'd like to point out that I didn't even actually argue with you here at all. I stated what I believe your opinion is

    IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND. YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE VIABILITY STANDARD! .... AND YOU STILL DENY IT!

    To be fair, most of what you said is "law of the land" is indeed the law of the land.

    (snicker) It's ALL the law of the land. No, I was NOT born in Kenya.

    Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers."
    -Eric Hoffer, "The True Believers"

    Throughout human history, the worst abuses have been committed by those who believe they are defending some "greater good" -- the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.
  • ace_m82||

    Shouting in bold now? Really mature.

    Yes, I know what the current definition of "viable" means. I tell you it's incorrect to think that only live human beings that are "viable" rate NAP protection.

    It's ALL the law of the land. No, I was NOT born in Kenya.

    Well, to be fair, as you pointed out, several states have differing laws on abortion, so calling everything you said "the law of the land" full stop would be being inaccurate with the English language. That was my only point. Of course, I should have expected you to fly off the handle about that, though I'm not precisely sure how it's at all arguable.

    As for your quote at the end, did you ever once consider it may be you that it applies to? After all, you're the one who claims to speak for the "mass movement" of the 91% of libertarians who reject the label, right?

    As for me, I will only use force of arms against aggressors. You, on the other hand, happily support using aggression against lots of other people. So, again, who's actually living the most like a libertarian here, Hihn?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I tell you it's incorrect to think that only live human beings that are "viable" rate NAP protection.

    LAW OF THE LAND. (laughing)

    Well, to be fair, as you pointed out, several states have differing laws on abortion, so calling everything you said "the law of the land" full stop would be being inaccurate with the English language

    Pay attention, chump. Viability is the law of the land. States can regulate abortion only AFTER viability. (laughing harder)

    After all, you're the one who claims to speak for the "mass movement" of the 91% of libertarians who reject the label, right?

    (ANOTHER fuckup!)lol) I just cite a survey conducted by Cato. You're lying again about who I speak for. I use the label all the time, have run campaigns on it and more. I don't reject the label, but I've spent decades watching congenital liars like you destroy it

    You, on the other hand, happily support using aggression against lots of other people.

    Only if you keep fucking up the law of the land, bully

  • ace_m82||

    LAW OF THE LAND.

    Yes, I know. The law of the land is wrong, just as eminent domain is also wrong.

    Pay attention, chump. Viability is the law of the land. States can regulate abortion only AFTER viability.

    Excepting they do beforehand as well.

    I just cite a survey conducted by Cato. You're lying again about who I speak for.

    So, when you say "This is why 91% of libertarians reject the label libertarian" you are not, indeed, speaking for them? Riiiiiight...

    Only if you keep fucking up the law of the land, bully

    Misuse of the English language aside, you do support "the law of the land" many times when that law includes aggression. I do not. Ergo, I'm a better libertarian than you are!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your rather short sighted.

    Sorry if I was unclear,

    Libertarians can't win an election appeal only to other libertarians.

    Which is how I got elected in two different states, and launched a winning tax revolt, And 95% of the threads I'm in, I am the ONLY one making the electability argument.

    Why should we expect any person to have a strong decisive answer on every issue?

    What voter block does he satisfy be taking both sides of any issue?

  • MSD62581||

    "he says abortion should be a state issue, and brags of having sponsored a federal ban on abortion."

    This really isn't accurate. What the Life at Conception Act would do is use the 14th Amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade and thus, send the issue back to the states as it was prior to 1973

  • Michael Hihn||

    "he says abortion should be a state issue, and brags of having sponsored a federal ban on abortion."

    This really isn't accurate. What the Life at Conception Act would do is use the 14th Amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade and thus, send the issue back to the states as it was prior to 1973

    1) You're being manipulated. That takes more than an act.
    2) It's expressly denied to the states in the 9th Amendment.
    3) He REFUSED Chris Wallace's question, twice, regarding a liberal state that allowed abortion. Wallace burned his ass..
    4) What you quoted of mine was shamefully dishonest, when the same paragraph explains why you're wrong.

    This may be traced to your error above, when you don't know what unalienable means. Which I also described in the same comment you deleted. (sigh)

  • MSD62581||

    Incorrect. The LCA can indeed overturn Roe v. Wade by a simple majority vote in both houses. I used to work on getting this legislation through. I would know.

    Nope, not wrong. And what I quoted of you was dishonest? Isn't that on you to get your quotes right?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    For what it's worth, Matthew Dowd thought Rand came out looking the best from this debate. Baby steps.

  • Glide||

    The FiveThirtyEight staff also voted him the winner, and they usually just ignore the fact he exists.

  • Utiz4321||

    it would have been much better for him to have answered, "I am prolife and as such anything option with in the law as it is now I support. Sometimes that is federal, sometimes that is at the state leave ....." The problem is that libertarians have been lukewarm on him from the get go and it is largely this issue that makes them so. Some libertarians believe to be a libertarian you have to be pro-choice. Besides being wrong and dogmatic it probably be a reason we won't see a libertarian president.

  • buybuydandavis||

    As far as separation of powers goes he doesn't see care - he just wants his way

  • MSimon||

    Women who commit abortion should get life in prison. It is premeditated murder. Same for any one personally involved.

  • mfckr||

    Someone forgot their sarc tag.

  • MSimon||

    Well no. I'm just being consistent with the pro life view. However, most pro-life folks find my logical extension of their statements extreme.

    What they prefer is "misdemeanor murder and the initiator goes free." A very serious crime no doubt.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MSimon
    Well no. I'm just being consistent with the pro life view. However, most pro-life folks find my logical extension of their statements extreme.

    It;s unconstitutional . Blatantly. Because all fundamental rights are co-equal, and regulation of abortion has not been delegated anywhere as required by the 9th amendment

  • MC Guru||

    While I agree that abortion is murder, nobody gets life for premeditated murder for a first offense without aggravating circumstances. If you just kill a guy you dont like and he instantly painlessly dies, you get 25 years (in CA, to use my state for example (CA penal code section 190). A woman getting abortion would not pass the threshold for automatic life. The "doctor" performing the abortion would automatically get life, with consideration for the death penalty, again applying that section due to the use of poison to kill the baby.

    Which isnt enough punishment for the sick fucks that make a business out of industrially murdering unborn children.

    They need to be forced to work hard labor until they pay off their medical student loan at convict labor wages. If they manage to pay it off, they need to be rowed out into international waters and dumped overboard. Scum like abortion "doctors" have no place in civilisation.

  • MSimon||

    "Aggravating circumstances"? Babies are helpless. We need to get serious. And serious means jailing for very long periods the initiators of the crime. Women. No mercy.

    ************

    If the laws are enforced a black market will evolve.

    We don't have near enough black markets in the US.

    And of course we will need Vagina Police. Some one has to keep women from misusing their vaginas.

  • Berserkerscientist||

    Women are free to control their end of the umbilical cord. The fetus is free to find somewhere else to incubate if they don't like it.

  • MC Guru||

    Go peddle this horseshit elsewhere, you dissembling shitweasel.

    The women getting the abortions arent Mary the fuckin mother of Jesus. God the Father didnt reach down from heaven and put those babies inside them.

    They fucking spread their legs and took a chance. Sex has the possible outcome of pregnancy no matter WHAT precautions you take short of sterilisation. If some woman chooses to take that risk and loses the gamble, thats on HER. Sometimes when you make choices, the outcome is not what you prefer. If that outcome is a human life, you absolutely MUST allow it to be born. anything else IS depraved murder

  • Berserkerscientist||

    So you are pro-slavery. Got it.

  • JeremyR||

    No, women who get abortions have been punished enough.

  • MSimon||

    Then laws are superfluous.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MSimon|1.29.16 @ 9:06AM|#
    Then laws are superfluous.

    They must be constitutional. For a few centuries now.

  • JoshH_83||

    If you believe like Rand does, that before the rest of the rights of the constitution, and separation of powers delegated to the states, vs. the federal government... before those powers, are the rights of the individual, and the most basic right of the individual for the RIGHT TO LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

    So, it is not ambiguous or incoherent, that by whatever method that can be achieved, to advocate for this RIGHT TO LIFE for all individuals, by either National law, or "state's rights"

    So, to the author, I don't understand why you are confused? Should I just assume that you do not believe that someone has "life" or is not a "person" while in the womb?

  • Michael Hihn||

    before those powers, are the rights of the individual, and the most basic right of the individual for the RIGHT TO LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...Do we believe Jefferson and the Founders, or you?

    1) Unalienable means. cannot be taken away
    2) Thus ALL fundamental rights are precisely equal ... Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and many others.
    3) In highschool, we lean about conflicting rights. No rights can be absolute, to the extent they conflict with each other,
    4) The fetal child and the mother each have unalienable rights which are precisely equal. Thus, per well established precedent. ONLY the courts are empowered how to best protect BOTH rights.

    So, it is not ambiguous or incoherent, that by whatever method that can be achieved, to advocate for this RIGHT TO LIFE for all individuals, by either National law, or "state's rights"

    The same is true for the right to Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the other fundamental rights.. By what power do you deny those rights?

    Should I just assume that you do not believe that someone has "life" or is not a "person" while in the womb?

    You were taught that, but it's clearly irrelevant. Should i just assume that you do not believe in the fiounding concepts of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights? On what authority?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Sorry, the top paragraphs didn't post correctly

    before those powers, are the rights of the individual, and the most basic right of the individual for the RIGHT TO LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

    MANY more such rights, all equal to each other.

  • BMcWilliams||

    Agreed with Doherty's comments completely in re: to the abortion question in the debate. Also completely oppose the LACA in general. Discussed on our "Rand Pauluses and Minuses" podcast. This is an affront to states' rights, women's rights and also would drive women top back alley abortion clinics. Full thoughts: http://lionsofliberty.com/2016/01/27/179/

  • buybuydandavis||

    This was Rand being completely unprincipled as far as the separation of powers.

    He wants his way to win by any means necessary. It doesn't matter to him who has the power as long as he gets the results he wants.

  • MSD62581||

    The author's claim that the Life at Conception Act would federally ban abortion is highly misleading. What that law would do is overturn Roe v. Wade and send the abortion issue back to the states as it was prior to 1973. It could be looked at as a federal solution, but one which removes the federal government from the issue and allows states to write their own abortion laws.

    I know this specifically because I used to work for The National Pro-Life Alliance (a non-profit specifically pushing the LCA above all else). We were supposed to keep it on the down low with our members that passing the LCA would not mean a federally enforced end to abortion but a return of the issue to the states where they could come up with their own abortion laws. Perhaps Reason should look into the law next time before making these blanket assumptions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    But like his dad, he pretends the 9th amendment does not exist, denying states any power here.
    And denies the simple dictionary definition of "unalienable."
    And the OVERWHELMING proof that our founders were strong on Separation.
    Anyone who DOES know the constitution knows an Act cannot do what he claims. (as we all learned in high school)
    And Chris Wallace burned him by asking -- twice -- if a state could allow abortion. Because -- read his remarks and Doherty's remarks more carefully. Rand REFUSED to say what you claim, as he always does.
    He's pandering for votes with false promises, Like all the others. Sponsoring bills for the sole purpose of impressing their base is a well established act by politicians.

    Oh yeah, the 14th says precisely the opposite of his latest claim.

  • MSD62581||

    His dad specifically said that abortion is an act of violence and all act of violence are handled at the state level. Kill someone in your state (whichever one you live in) and the case will be "the state of _____ v. you."

    The Life at Conception Act actually can overturn Roe v. Wade since the decision explicitly said that man didn't possess the knowledge of when life begins, but if it ever became apparent, then Roe's case collapses.

    It would be nice if Rand were more articulate with this in his response. My point was that the author was misrepresenting what the LCA would actually accomplish and it is consistent with separation to support it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    His dad specifically said that abortion is an act of violence and all act of violence are handled at the state level.

    A lie already stated, and, you REFUSE to check even a dictionary, thus show no interest in facts.

    I smile when you people say every state can have its own definition of life!

    The Life at Conception Act actually can overturn Roe v. Wade

    Laws cannot overturn Supreme Court rulings. .

    the decision explicitly said that man didn't possess the knowledge of when life begins, but if it ever became apparent, then Roe's case collapses.

    An even bigger lie, but you don't care. You don't even know that Roe v Wade was replaced in … 1992 ... nearly a quarter century ago!.

    It would be nice if Rand were more articulate with this in his response.

    He never will, because his con game would collapse like a house of cards.

    My point was that the author was misrepresenting what the LCA would actually accomplish

    Also wrong, as already noted. You REFUSE to check a dictionary. You swallow lies of what Roe says, on blind tribal faith. You REFUSE to read the article again. So you’ve shown us in public that you accept whatever you want to believe, that Roe even still applies … and have no interest in pursuing the truth. Oh yeah, the 9th and 14th Amendments.

    Thank you for showing your hand.

  • MSD62581||

    His dad specifically said that abortion is an act of violence and all act of violence are handled at the state level.

    "A lie already stated, and, you REFUSE to check even a dictionary, thus show no interest in facts."

    Yes he did. Something Ron Paul said is not confirmed by looking in a dictionary. It is not my fault that you are too stupid to understand this.

    "I smile when you people say every state can have its own definition of life!"

    States have their own definition of what constitutes first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. Abortion would be no different.

    The Life at Conception Act actually can overturn Roe v. Wade

    "Laws cannot overturn Supreme Court rulings"

    Yes they can. The LCA would use the 14th Amendment to legally overturn the ruling. Roe left a clause which enables this to happen. I already explained this.

    My point was that the author was misrepresenting what the LCA would actually accomplish

    "Also wrong, as already noted. You REFUSE to check a dictionary."

    No, what I said was completely correct. The author says that the LCA would federally ban abortion, but the LCA would only send the decision back to the states as a result of overturning Roe.

    "You swallow lies of what Roe says, on blind tribal faith.
    So you’ve shown us in public that you accept whatever you want to believe, that Roe even still applies"

    If Roe "still applies" why are what it says "lies?" Nice contradiction though.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online