Ron Paul loves abortion

[mord]

yes it's true NARAL gives him a good rating

Pro-Lifer Ron Paul’s Record on abortion vs. Every other Pro-Lifer’s record on abortion
Posted by chip91 on August 5th, 2007

I’ve talked about Ron Paul’s more then satisfactory ratings from “NARAL Pro-Choice America.” Here they are compared to every other Republican presidential candidate who has served in Congress.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

2006: 65 percent
2005: 75 percent
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)

2006: 0 percent
2005: 0 percent

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

2006: 0 percent
2005: 0 percent

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

2006: 0 percent
2005: 0 percent

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)

2006: 0 percent
2005: 0 percent

Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN)

2000: 0 percent
1999: 0 percent

Notice the difference?

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 9:36 pm and is filed under Pro-Life?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your

http://chip91.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/

[Daniel]

I don't think it's a matter of Ron Paul loving abortion. He just hates government regulation of any kind.

[mord]

So maybe it's naral loves paul










 




 



 



 


 

[EagleEye]

To me murder requires government intervention...sometimes morality must triumph over freedom.

[White Israelite]

Ron Paul on Abortion
Click here for 14 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

    * Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
    * Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
    * Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    * Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    * Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    * Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    * Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    * Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    * Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    * Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
    * No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
    * Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

[mord]

Heres NARAL's site       http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/paul.html

[Shoshana]

Ron Paul on Abortion
Click here for 14 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

    * Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
    * Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
    * Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    * Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    * Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    * Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    * Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    * Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    * Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
    * Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    * Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
    * No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
    * Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Yet more reasons why I won't vote for him.

[Barach Velvel ben Lazer Eliazer]

He's actually Pro-Life, which means he's against abortion.

He's still anti-American, and doesn't have a clue about the real threat to America. He's all about bringing the troops home, not at all realizing the vast consequences that would have on the entire world. He really is in the wrong party, just as Chris Wallace eluded to during the first Republican debate.

The only thing that's solid about his campaign is his immigration reform promises and respect for the constitution, but even Bush claims he respects it, so that claim has no value taken by word.

He's a safer vote than Obama or Hillary, based on the weighing of pros and cons, but if elected, he will do some serious damage that may in the end have similiar effects as if those two democrats take office.

[White Israelite]

He's actually Pro-Life, which means he's against abortion.

He's still anti-American, and doesn't have a clue about the real threat to America. He's all about bringing the troops home, not at all realizing the vast consequences that would have on the entire world. He really is in the wrong party, just as Chris Wallace eluded to during the first Republican debate.

The only thing that's solid about his campaign is his immigration reform promises and respect for the constitution, but even Bush claims he respects it, so that claim has no value taken by word.

He's a safer vote than Obama or Hillary, based on the weighing of pros and cons, but if elected, he will do some serious damage that may in the end have similiar effects as if those two democrats take office.

How does him being against the Iraq war make him anti-american? If anything, he's more concerned about our country than the rest of the world.

[Erica]

He's actually Pro-Life, which means he's against abortion.

He's still anti-American, and doesn't have a clue about the real threat to America. He's all about bringing the troops home, not at all realizing the vast consequences that would have on the entire world. He really is in the wrong party, just as Chris Wallace eluded to during the first Republican debate.

The only thing that's solid about his campaign is his immigration reform promises and respect for the constitution, but even Bush claims he respects it, so that claim has no value taken by word.

He's a safer vote than Obama or Hillary, based on the weighing of pros and cons, but if elected, he will do some serious damage that may in the end have similiar effects as if those two democrats take office.

How does him being against the Iraq war make him anti-american? If anything, he's more concerned about our country than the rest of the world.

I'll agree with that. There are plenty of people against the Iraq war. Many of them are patriotic and hate the war because of the real reason Bush had US forces take over. Those same people who hate the Iraq war, ALSO support our troops to the fullest.

[JewishTeddyBear]

Saying that one supports the troops yet demanding that they come home is not supporting the troops at all.   It is, in fact, the very opposite of that.  Support for troops is only meaningful if one supports their efforts as troops, as fighting men.

[Erica]

Saying that one supports the troops yet demanding that they come home is not supporting the troops at all.   It is, in fact, the very opposite of that.  Support for troops is only meaningful if one supports their efforts as troops, as fighting men.

First of all, a lot of these troops had no idea that they'd go into a war that wasn't caused by Saddam Hussein, now we're without 3,700 troops. PLUS 26,000 wounded. I support the troops 100%, because they have to do what they have to do, that dosen't mean that anyone has to respect Bush for putting them in that situation. I'm a military spouse whose husband will be leaving soon and I won't stop him because he knows what he has to do. I'm all for HIM, but I can be against the war. I'm just as patriotic as the next person who believes the war is necessary.

[JewishTeddyBear]

We cannot win our war against the islamofascists if we are a divided country on the issue.  We must be united in this fight against evil.  The dhimmicrats seem awfully anxious for us to lose the war, as if that would make them look good.  They care more about winning next year's elections than about the safety of our citizens.

[Erica]

We cannot win our war against the islamofascists if we are a divided country on the issue.  We must be united in this fight against evil.  The dhimmicrats seem awfully anxious for us to lose the war, as if that would make them look good.  They care more about winning next year's elections than about the safety of our citizens.

First, we must find the real culprit behind 9/11. Osama Bin Laden and al Queda are responsible... and no matter what Saddam  Hussein did to his people,(He was going to get his punishment soon enough..) he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. This war isn't about making Islam pay. It SHOULD be about that but it isn't. We need to be in the hills, holes and mountains of Afghanistan trying to smoke out and shoot up Bin Laden. Think of it like this, by going after the wrong country for 9/11, we are actually opening ouselves up to being attacked again. The blame hasn't been properly placed and I don't blame out troops..I blame the President.

[JewishTeddyBear]

Liberals never get tired of vilifying President Bush.  That is because he has such a clear vision of good and evil, that public opinion really does not bother him all that much: he knows what he is doing is right. 

Liberals mock the notion of there being a good and evil in the first place; they love to blur those lines until the point where one can no longer tell who is good and who is evil.  That is because it is one of their cherished notions that all cultures and societies are equally valid.   That is why liberals consistently glorify third-world dictatorships while vilifying America and Israel.  By clearly demarcating America/Israel as the good guys and the islamofascists as evil, President Bush is thumbing his nose at these cherished doctrines of liberalism.

There is nobody on planet Earth who would rather capture and execute osama bin ladden than would President Bush.  Yet he would be the first one to tell you that this war is not a war against only osama bin ladden, but rather islamofascism.  Even if we capture and kill osama bin ladden, we still have hundreds of millions of islamofacsists who want nothing more than to destroy Western civilization.  Our battle is against this evil, murderous ideology of islamofascism, not against any one individual in particular.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Ron Paul is a Nazi phony, end of story.

And it is a lie that he wants isolationism and to pull our troops from overseas--he wants to send our military against Israel.

[JewishTeddyBear]

the fact that ron paul specifically targets israel when objecting to america giving foreign aid, does reveal him to be the antisemite that he is

[Bodhi]

  Well so does almost every politician in the race..................I don't understand why everyone here is so opposed to Dr. Paul........Would you rather see Hitlery or Obama as commander in chief ?  Is there any other Republican with character?  I think some of it has to do with the false idea that Israel can not defend itself...Israel out gun's and outclasses every country in the middle east.......even without any oil lol!  We have NUKES!  Israel has repeatedly dominated all commers in the region in short order, there isno question who the domionant military power is in the region, it is Israel, hands down lol!  Why be so fearful, there is no need to rely on the US, Israel can kick ass and take names either way......and as for the future of the USA ....Dr. Paul is the only true republican conservative in the race........IMHO

[Erica]

Liberals never get tired of vilifying President Bush.  That is because he has such a clear vision of good and evil, that public opinion really does not bother him all that much: he knows what he is doing is right. 

Liberals mock the notion of there being a good and evil in the first place; they love to blur those lines until the point where one can no longer tell who is good and who is evil.  That is because it is one of their cherished notions that all cultures and societies are equally valid.   That is why liberals consistently glorify third-world dictatorships while vilifying America and Israel.  By clearly demarcating America/Israel as the good guys and the islamofascists as evil, President Bush is thumbing his nose at these cherished doctrines of liberalism.

There is nobody on planet Earth who would rather capture and execute osama bin ladden than would President Bush.  Yet he would be the first one to tell you that this war is not a war against only osama bin ladden, but rather islamofascism.  Even if we capture and kill osama bin ladden, we still have hundreds of millions of islamofacsists who want nothing more than to destroy Western civilization.  Our battle is against this evil, murderous ideology of islamofascism, not against any one individual in particular.

Many factions of the evil Islamic terrorists have been developed since the war with Iraq started 6 years ago. Bush used that opportunity to get back at Saddam for insulting his family's honor in 91. Bush mucked everything up for this country.  He said something last week in an interview "I cry a lot" but I'll bet he's never cried like the families of fallen soldiers are. He needs to send his daughters into this war... but he's not willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the safety of our country.

[Bodhi]

Yeah, he want's to kill Osama, and have a profitable business relationshop with the other 37 memebers of the familly...Sorry, Teddy, I guess we agree to disagree.........But I do hear what you are saying, I felt the same way for a long time.

[JewishTeddyBear]

That is another common tactic used in the liberal's arsenal: attacking President Bush for supposedly trying to make up for his Presidential father's deficiencies.  Some go even further than this, by spreading the ridiculous lie that his grandfather was a nazi.  I will throw in another thing here that they do, too: they will say that President Bush was never rightfully elected President in the first place.

I lump all this together for a reason: because it shows just how much the liberals project their own faults onto the republicans.  Prescott Bush had nothing to do with the nazis, and President Bush is fighting this war not because of his father, but because the islamofascists are trying to take over the world and we are trying to stop that.  Ironically, if any son tried to make up for his father, it was the liberal Kennedy family.  Joseph Kennedy Sr was in fact a nazi sympathizer and terrible antisemite, and was so powerful in the Roosevelt administration that he delayed America's entry into the war for many years, resulting in the deaths of millions of Jews.  At least two of his sons, John and Robert, tried to make up for their father's sins, with Robert Kennedy actually giving his life for his strong support of Israel.  And it was Joseph Kennedy Sr who threw the elections in 1960, by having 100,000 dead Chicagoans vote for his son. 

And then there is the race issue.  The liberals are always screaming out how the conservatives are such racists.  Yet it is the Republican party who has not only been the color-blind party, but started out in the first place as the anti-slavery party.  It is the dhimmicrats who are always pushing affirmative action, which is nothing but racism, as it judges people by the color of their skin rather than by the content of their character.  It is the dhimmicrats who are pereptually making an issue out of race, having hillary in there only because she is a woman and having barak obama in there only because he is Black.

[JewishTeddyBear]

G-d forbid that I would ever have to choose between ron paul and hitlery rotten clinton for president.  i suppose if that were the choice, i would have no other choice but to vote for ron paul.  i would do that because not voting at all only helps give the greater of the two evils more of a chance to win, and one candidate is always better than another.  and between hitlery and ron paul, i see hitlery as activetly doing a lot more damage to both america and israel, than ron paul would.

having said that, though, i still maintain that ron paul is an antisemite (i think both he and hitlery are).  the question of israel's military might is not the point; the point is that he specifically targets israel every time he talks about his opposition to the american government sending money overseas.  why does he say not one word about all the money we actually do waste when giving it, for example, to the palestinian authority? 

but since israel's military might was brought up, i have to respond to that as well.  it is almost irrelevant how strong israel's military is.  what good is barry bonds' hitting ability when the opposing team walks him intentionally, or he is not even slated to play in the first place?  what good is israels' military might, when their hands are constantly being tied by endless UN resolutions, pressure from America, and worst of all, incompetent, cowardly leadership of the Israelis themselves?   

It is really depressing that both antisemitism and Jewish self-hatred are so deeply ingrained our collective psyches, because if Israel would just be allowed, say, two weeks to really take care of business, with no holds barred, and with Israel not feeling guilty to defend itself, they could almost completely wipe out the islamofascist problem and be done with it already.