Browse By

Strict Madisonian Ron Paul Loosens Up to Push Abortion Agenda

22 thoughts on “Strict Madisonian Ron Paul Loosens Up to Push Abortion Agenda”

  1. qs says:

    Nice link Jim,

    As a RP voter, I need to time to look this over before I draw any conclusions.

  2. qs says:

    Your second link isn’t working. Maybe it was working and now it’s not idk?

  3. qs says:

    “The responsibility of the Congress is twofold. First, we should never fund abortions. Nothing could be more heinous than forcing those with strong right-to-life beliefs to pay for abortions. Second, Roe vs. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation-a constitutional option. If we as a nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a “right” cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens.

    Much has changed over the past hundred years. Where technology has improved our living standards, we find that our government has significantly changed from one of limited scope to that of pervasive intervention.”

    It seems like he wants to stop using tax money for pro-abortion causes. He’s not giving money to anti-abortion groups

    What’s wrong with that?

  4. Jim says:

    Link works now (a number in the link was off). H.R. 636 specifically allocates federal tax money for anti-abortion counseling. That’s not consistent with his Madisonian view of the enumerated spending authority of Congress.

  5. qs says:

    I minor point on that Rosa Parks stuff.

    Paul voted for MLK day in 1983 despite Reagan’s opposition and most house Republicans voting against it.

    At that time he had a similar situation as the Rosa Parks thing in 1999.

  6. qs says:

    Possibly the reason he voted for MLK day but against the Rosa Parks memorial was the Vietnam example that was entirely funded by private fund raising and organization.

    All the Federal Government had to do was authorize a place to put it. Same with MLK day.


    1. Jim says:

      The Rosa Parks thing wasn’t a memorial sitting in a place; it was a medal.

    2. Pooka says:

      All Ron Paul wackos sing after me…

      Hey, ho, hum,
      general welfare’s dumb,
      except for me
      Texas shrimpery
      and I take-a da money
      from the white supremacists!
      Hey, ho, the wind and the rain…

  7. qs says:

    Well Obomber bombed 22 Pakistanis last week, which is something a president Paul would not have done.

    So I laugh when so called liberals make fun of Ron Paul like Pooka.

    1. Pooka says:

      Ron Paul is NOT like Pooka!

  8. qs says:


    Paul isn’t proposing new money for this. All he is is reallocating the money.

    AKA the money has already been spent.

    Granted I’m not saying this is the most principled position, but AT LEAST he’s not advocating new spending.

    And he’s not murdering Pakistanis either like Obomber!

    1. Jim says:

      Don’t change the subject to Obama. This isn’t a partisan Barack-Obama-is-a-saint website, so I don’t have any idea why you’re bringing this up except to distract from the issue at hand.

      I know your last comment is olive-branchy on this, and that’s nice. But he IS advocating new spending. He’s advocating taking the old spending, which was on helping poor people, which is not his idea of promoting the general welfare, and which he says should never have happened ever, and turning it into new spending, which is on telling people not to have abortions, which sure sounds like his idea of promoting the general welfare, which is exactly what he says Congress should never do, but which he now seems to be saying is a peachy keen idea, because…

  9. qs says:

    No, you’re simply wrong.

    This is like taking money from the $800 billion dollar TARP funds from the financials and banks, which is what the fund was designed for, and diverting it to GM and the car companies instead.

    That’s what Bush and the dems wanted even though it was probably illegal.

    The money had been spent, but now you’re diverting it to some other random cause.

    I already said I’m not necessarily agreeing that he should be doing that, but he’s simply not advocating NEW SPENDING like you’re claiming.

    Also you act as if Ron Paul only does what he wants and never works within the system. Paul doesn’t agree with Boehner on almost anything yet he voted for him to be minority leader because he needs his committee chairmanship, etc. Notice he’s only one of 14 cosponsors of the bill. It’s not as if he operates in an alternate dimension without the influence of fellow party members.

    It would be nice to see him actually comment on this. Normally he has a pretty good explanation and rational for his decision making.

    1. Jim says:

      This is a legislative act that allocates and legitimates congressional spending, which Ron Paul has sworn up and down is constitutionally impermissible.

      This is an act of cosponsorship. He’s not having to cosponsor this legislation in order to satisfy any party leader; no party leader is in on this peace of legislation. This is Ron Paul’s choice.

      And no, he often doesn’t have a good rational explanation for what he does, if by that you mean he is principled and internallly consistent. He says he’s for freedom, but not for women’s right to self-determination. He says he’s against government meddling in people’s lives, but this is pretty meddlesome legislation here, and he has sponsored legislation to use government to push religion. He says he doesn’t want all that spending that isn’t specifically enumerated in the constitution, but then he gets all earmarky. Spend, spend, spend.

      No, Ron Paul may have rationales that sound nice to you, but I wouldn’t call them rational.

  10. qs says:

    Well so long as you admit he’s not increasing the amount of money congress will be spending. Well you agree with what the article says “reallocating” or not.

    H.R. 636, also known as the Positive Alternatives Act, reroutes money allocated for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) benefits, programs and services for poor Americans, reallocating that federal money to go instead to support the budgets of non-governmental groups telling poor people not to have abortions. The following is the complete list (on February 1, 2009) of cosponsors of H.R. 636; all of them joining Republican sponsor Rep. Michele Bachmann in promoting the bill:

    This isn’t the first time he’s made this distinction either. He supports defunding all 720 of our military bases in the world. He said with that money he would probably use half of it to pay down debt and the other half for infrastructure (roads and bridges) saying that yes ideally and constitutionally that the Federal Government should not be building roads but saying that as long as he was not advocating new money and as long as we were going down the correct path, he would allow this sort of solution despite it being less than perfect.

    I don’t know if this makes it any more justified, but I do take solace in that he’s not increasing the level of spending overall.

  11. qs says:

    “He says he’s for freedom, but not for women’s right to self-determination.”

    Paul is not for a Federal ban on abortion as far as I’ve seen. He’s never advocated that ever.

    He thinks abortion should be dealt with on a state level. He has also indicated he would probably support gay marriage even on the State level although he likes the idea of doing away with marriage licenses even better along with legalizing prostitution and legalizing all drugs.

    Also there’s nothing wrong with him being personally pro-life. Even Feingold doesn’t support 3rd trimester abortions. Most of the other Democrats don’t either. This is to a degree a gray area. When a man has sex with a woman it’s pretty obvious what’s going to happen so they did make a choice, and even advocates of the “right to choose” generally prefer early term abortion rather than anything goes.

  12. Jeffersonish says:

    The truth lies somewhere in between. First, a bit of disclosure. I worked hard on and donated quite a bit to Ron Paul’s campaign. I did so not because he is perfect but because he was BY FAR the best candidate.

    That said, I am pro-choice and abortion is one area where I had to hold my nose. I found Dr. Paul seemed to experience cognitive dissonance when it came to the abortion issue. He demonstrated that when he gave his speech on the house floor explaining his rationale for voting for the partial birth abortion ban. So for him, it comes with the territory.

    …and with THAT said, you are distorting the facts. I read the text of the bill. ( search for H.R. 636 in the 111th Congress.] H.R. 636 simply expands and existing program’s medical services to include counseling and other services for non-abortion options. As a pro-choice advocate, I think NOT having an abortion IS a valid choice. He is NOT adding money to the program. He isn’t TAKING money from some people and giving it to others, unless you consider the doctor providing the abortion the ones having money diverted. As far as the clients go, NOT having an abortion would probably end up costing less, thus allowing the money to help more clients.

    Ron Paul has shown a disregard for HIS understanding of the Constitution (which I agree with) before when abortion was involved, but this is not one of those cases. The fact of the matter is, he can try to get this amendment added and then vote against the bill as a whole, knowing that if his vote on the overall bill fails to defeat it, his modification will make it more pallatable.

    1. Jim says:

      Um, no, Jeffersonish, no on a number of counts… H.R. 636 is a bill, not an amendment. TANF is not a medical program, and TANF is not itself even a program. One does not head down to one’s local TANF office to get food stamps. TANF is a federal social welfare funding source. H.R. 636 does not expand an existing program. It creates a space for the creation of new programs, funded by TANF funds, to do something that TANF funds are not currently used for at all, which is to advocate for people not to have abortions. Not to counsel people. To advocate. Or as the text of the bill says, “information or counseling that promotes childbirth instead of abortion.”

      Ron Paul swears up and down with veins popping out of his neck that the Congress can’t constitutionally spend money on something unless it’s been specifically enumerated in Article I.
      Ron Paul wants to have federal money spent on “information or counseling that promotes childbirth instead of abortion.”
      “Information or counseling that promotes childbirth instead of abortion” is not specifically enumerated in Article I.

      Y’all keep tap dancing around that one all you like. It’s entertaining to watch.

  13. Albert Howard says:

    Albert Howard interviews Ron Paul on YouTube who is one of the only African Americans to be granted an exclusive interview with the politician.

    Congressman Ron Paul will be held accountable for his stance on Israel.

    1. Jim says:

      I love phrases like “one of the only African Americans to be…”.

      I myself am one of the only English-speaking Earthlings to breathe air. Astounding!

  14. qs says:

    I didn’t write that sentence, but I don’t see anything wrong with it.

    1. Jim says:

      I wrote that with tongue in cheek. Anybody can be “one of the only ___.” Follow the link and check out Albert Howard’s stuff, qs. He’s so much of a self-promoter that he pushes through the plane of annoying into the astral sphere of fun. I like his “God is Jealous” campaign video best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!