<p>My understanding is that the abortionist can say that delivering the baby would be harmful to the woman’s MENTAL health and thereby legally abort the baby right up until birth.</p>
<p>North Carolina State Law - § 14‑45.1. When abortion not unlawful.</p>
<p>(b) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of G.S. 14‑44 and 14‑45, it shall not be unlawful, after the twentieth week of a woman’s pregnancy, to advise, procure or cause a miscarriage or abortion when the procedure is performed by a physician licensed to practice medicine in North Carolina in a hospital licensed by the Department of Health and Human Services, if there is substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would threaten the life or gravely impair the health of the woman. </p>
<p>It shall not be unlawful to cause an abortion if there is a substantial risk of death. Ron Paul has said several times that during his lengthy career as an OB/GYN he has never seen a medically necessary abortion. Abortion can easily be seen as a civil rights issue, defining whether life begins at birth, viability, or conception. I think Ron Paul handled himself very well on the program.</p>
<p>If he was speaking about medically necessary, as opposed to elective, abortions, then he should have said so, because otherwise his statement is misleading.</p>
<p>It’s like using using the term “abortion” when you mean “miscarriage.” A miscarriage is in fact a spontaneous abortion, so on a literal level, it’s accurate to refer to miscarriages as abortions. But it would be extremely misleading to use the word “abortion” in a statement like “Up to 60% of American pregnancies end in abortion.” That’s true, but most of those abortions are spontaneous, and people typically use the word “miscarriage” for those. Ron Paul is plenty smart enough to know the implications of what he was saying and to be clear if he wanted to be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. Definitely some wiggle-room here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what it is you think he should have said. I don’t think pro-choicers could ever be completely happy with ANY pro-life candidate. And Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. </p>
<p>The key point here is that, unlike other pro-life people, Ron Paul is much more compassionate, understanding, and reasonable about the complexity of the issue. Rather than simply saying ‘put those murderous women in jail’ as other ‘pro-life’ candidates would say, he is going out of his way to get a DIALOG going with pro-choicers, and seeks as reasonable as possible of a solution, for such a volatile issue.</p>
<p>It sounds like you are trying to attack his words and say ‘Aha! A wolf in sheep’s clothing! He pretends to be nice to the feminist pro-choicers but see, he’s really pro-life! Don’t fall for it!’ which is kinda silly because he is unapologetically PRO-LIFE. He’s not trying to hide his pro-life stance; he’s just trying to show some consideration for the other point of view and acknowledge that the pro-choice side does have some very valid points. Quite commendable of him, imo.</p>
<p>What you are finding fault with him on - that he’s trying to be sensitive and reasonable to both sides - and implying that he is somehow being misleading - I consider his STRENGTH because he is seeking dialog and understanding. The abortion issue will never be resolved unless both sides are willing to discuss it, understand the opposing viewpoint, and reach some sort of compromise, at least for the most challenging of the scenarios. </p>
<p>Even conventional crimes like shooting someone are complex and therefore dealt with at the local level. No way could you pin down a federal official and ask him to endorse a set, blanket policy for ALL criminals! It’s just not possible. So it’s reasonable that Ron Paul would refuse to do that for women who get abortions. He DID, however, say that he believes the woman should NOT be held accountable, but that the person committing the deed (the abortionist) would be held accountable.</p>
<p>As you can see from the above-posted video, in which he explains WHY he is pro-life, he is first and foremost a champion of LIBERTY for ALL. His stance is that the least among us should still have their liberties. It is inconsistent for someone to claim to be in favor or liberty and then take that liberty away from a viable human being. So he could not be anything but pro-life. Add to that his adherence to the Hippocratic Oath (‘first do no harm’) and understand that his entire medical career was focused on PROTECTING unborn babies…and…well, how could he be otherwise?</p>
<p>He has been VERY clear, actually.</p>
<p>“I’m not sure what it is you think he should have said.”</p>
<p>He should have said something to this effect:</p>
<p>“In most states, abortions are legal in the third trimester in cases of medical emergency or fatal abnormality in the fetus.” (This is true)</p>
<p>instead of </p>
<p>“In most states, abortions are legal in the third trimester.” (This is misleading)</p>
<p>I’m not sure that’s accurate. From what I’ve read, only the partial-birth type of abortion has ANY restrictions on it at all. So it’s more about the TYPE of abortion, not whether it’s due to medical emergency/abnormalities.</p>
<p>If you can disprove my statement, please do so. I do not claim to be an expert. I’m only going by what I read on wickipedia etc.</p>
<p>Are there other types of late-term abortions besides the partial-birth type?</p>
<p>“only the partial-birth type of abortion has ANY restrictions on it at all.”</p>
<p>You’re talking about federal law. All 50 states have laws banning elective abortions in the third trimester (that’s just as a minimum; many states have additional restrictions beyond that).</p>
<p>Do you have a reference site for that? (Not that I don’t believe you but I would like to get better educated on it.)</p>
<p>“In its landmark 1973 abortion cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion is not absolute and that states could restrict or ban abortions after fetal viability, provided their policies meet certain requirements. In these and subsequent decisions, the Court has held that
�� even after fetal viability, states may not prohibit abortions “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother;”
�� “health” in this context includes both physical and mental health;
�� only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes “health” and when a fetus is viable; and
�� states cannot require additional physicians to confirm the physician’s judgment that the woman’s life or health is at risk.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf[/url]”>http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf</a></p>
<p>Correction: the vast majority of states have laws banning elective abortions in the third trimester, not all 50.</p>
<p>36 out of 50 states explicitly ban late-term abortion.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf[/url]”>http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf</a></p>
<p>Most states not listed among the 36 – such as Mississippi, New Mexico, and West Virginia – still have their pre-Roe outright bans on the books. <a href=“http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_APAR.pdf[/url]”>http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_APAR.pdf</a> </p>
<p>The practical effect of that combination is to ban post-viability abortions, because the state law has to be enforced to the maximum extent allowable under the Constitution, and under Webster, that’s after viability. (The whole question is academic anyway in Mississippi, as there is exactly one abortion clinic in the state, and it only provides abortions through 16 weeks.) [Jackson</a> Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi - Abortion Clinics OnLine](<a href=“http://gynpages.com/jwho/]Jackson”>http://gynpages.com/jwho/) </p>
<p>Returning to the practical side, I am not aware of any provider in any state that offers elective third-trimester abortions. Because third-trimester abortions tend to be as lengthy and medically invasive as births, they generally occur in hospitals, so hospital policies have a huge practical effect on availability. Some states, such as Alaska, require all post-first-trimester abortions to take place in hospitals. [url=<a href=“http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/alaska.html?templateName=lawdetails&issueID=8&ssumID=2451]Alaska[/url”>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/alaska.html?templateName=lawdetails&issueID=8&ssumID=2451]Alaska[/url</a>]</p>
<p>I stand by the suggestion I made in #46 about what Ron Paul should have said if he didn’t want to be misleading.</p>
<p>For those who weren’t alive or don’t remember the way it was prior to Roe and *Griswold v. Conn., <a href=“1”>/I</a> contraceptives were outlawed even for married couples by some states and (2) abortions were generally illegal in the states. Folks, that has only been since the early 1970s!!!</p>
<p>As to protecting the unborn in that “States Rights” world? Abortions still were done when they were illegal. Rich girls got safe ones from the “country club” doctors and the other girls did them themselves with knitting needles and coat hangers or went to the “non-professionals.” </p>
<p>If we go back to the “good old” way of letting the states decide, we’ll just return to pre-birth control level pre-teen, teen and unmarried pregnancies and to dead unborn and dead young, not wealthy pregnant girls. Nice way to protect “the Oath.”</p>
<p>If you don’t think states will restrict contraceptives, think again. Texas legislators have literally done everything they can to stop sex education from suggesting BC as a way to go.</p>
<p>Don’t you just relish a bunch of pious male legislators deciding what women can and can’t do about their reproductive system. By the way, in many states back then (1970s) women also could not deal with property without their husband’s consent. Some states did not recognize a claim by a woman that she had been injured by her husband [interspousal tort immunity]. Ya’ll are going to love States Rights, at least those who by gender aren’t at risk of losing freedoms.</p>
<p>Aren’t there other countries where the “key” men get to make these decisions?? You might consider what life is like in those countries.</p>
<p>Go Ron, Go.</p>
<p>It would be great to return to pre-birth control levels of teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancies are substantially higher higher now than they were then. [Teen</a> Pregnancy](<a href=“http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubteenp.htm]Teen”>http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/pubteenp.htm) [N</a> C H S - 2007 Press Release - Teen Birth Rate Rises for First Time in 14 Years](<a href=“NCHS - 404 Error - Resource Not Available”>NCHS Pressroom - 2007 Press Release - Births: Preliminary Data for 2006) Attribute that to anything you’d like, but I believe the biggest issue is irresponsible behavior by teenagers and the abstinence-only rider on federal education money. By eliminating the federal Department of Education, that problem would be effectively solved. </p>
<p>While I do not favor criminalizing abortion because of the similar abortion rates in countries where it is legal and illegal (according to Guttmacher), teen pregnancy is an enormous economic drain on the country. The massive disparity in abortion frequency among the poor and other women shows that this is a major problem. I have not yet heard a convincing argument for why it is a major problem that the federal government should deal with. Ron Paul’s personal views aside, would removing federal court jurisdiction on abortion issues be an un-Constitutional, illegal, or undemocratic decision?</p>
<p>07DAD, I would contest that women have a great degree of control over their reproductive health. There are numerous ways to not have a child without terminating it. Several are available to the woman as a decision, others are available to the woman at a drug store. I don’t see how the federal government is currently STOPPING states from restricting contraceptives, except through the FDA. Would removing federal authority over abortion really cause states to start restricting birth control? If such a public opinion existed now, what federal laws prevent state-level contraceptive restriction? It is the responsibility of the citizens of a state to express their beliefs through their legislators. The federal government does not have a responsibility to police the states unless there is a violation of federal law, like equal protection.</p>
<p>Right now, the Constitution is interpreted to protect reproductive rights. The Supreme Court opinions have relied on the idea that the Constitution provides protection of a zone of personal privacy - a right not spelled out in the Constitution. Scalia, Thomas and others do not believe this right of privacy exists because it is not spelled out in the Constitution. If other like-minded justices are appointed, the line of cases that created a “zone of privacy” will likely be overturned. With that will go any federal protection of not only the right to abortion, but also to access to contraceptives, and with whom and how an individual can have sexual relations. All of these things would be left up to the legislatures of individual states.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whereas most ‘pro-life’ candidates have seen the appointing of pro-life justices as the solution, that is NOT Ron Paul’s stance. He favors changing the jurisdiction of abortion, NOT relying on Supreme Court justices. He maintains that it is a LIBERTY issue, NOT a privacy issue. He is adamantly in favor of LIBERTY for all, so much so that many Christians do not like him because he refuses to deny gays their freedoms. Certainly sexual practices and contraception are included in the province of LIBERTY.</p>
<p>I think it’s a very lame argument to argue against removing federal jurisdiction over abortion because then contraceptives would be outlawed. That is quite a stretch. They’re not even in the same ball park.</p>
<p>I agree with ninja: women have plenty of control over their reproduction, up until their ‘choice’ impacts another person’s liberties.</p>
<p>There is no easy answer to teen pregnancies and other social problems. But citing all those issues does not negate the wrongness of abortion on demand. Whenever one finds oneself going to great lengths to justify something, that something ought to be re-evaluated with an open mind, to ascertain whether one is in denial. Such is the case with abortion. All the justification in the world does not negate the simple fact that the least among us, the most vulnerable, are having their rights denied, in favor of avoiding inconvenience by the woman. It is not a question of woman’s right vs baby’s right: the ‘rights’ are not equal because one is a right to life whereas the other is a right to convenience (in most cases).</p>
<p>There was a time when minorities were not granted rights because they were not considered equal. The liberties granted to us by our Constitution are meaningless if they are not applied to everyone, including the least among us.</p>
<p>So how is Mr. Paul changing the jurisdiction of abortion? Explain to me procedurally how he plans to do this. Explain to me his basis for all of this liberty? Is he just going to annoint himself the “liberty fairy” and sprinkle “liberty dust” over the country so that everyone will leave everyone else alone?</p>
<p>I have yet to talk to one Ron Paul supporter who really understands what a libertarian is - they hang on to that word “liberty” but have no idea what could and most likely will happen if there is no federal protection of that liberty.</p>
<p>[Search</a> Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)](<a href=“http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00300:]Search”>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00300:)</p>
<p>The basis of his belief in liberty is the Constitution. If he is President, he will use his power to respect individual rights (ie - NOT engaging in warrantless wiretaps, NOT signing the USA PATRIOT Act which he voted against) and limit the power of the federal government over the states and people to a Constitutionally acceptable level.</p>
<p>So if the liberty provided by the Constitution protects me from warrantless wire taps, why does it not protect me from being told who I can marry? Is that not a part of liberty?</p>
<p>I still just don’t get the “let’s make it safe an legal since people will do it anyway” argument.</p>
<p>Should we also make robbery legal so that all robberies are safe and nobody ever gets shot?</p>