:

Ron Paul Explains It All

Robin Marty

by Robin Marty, Senior Political Reporter, RH Reality Check

August 15, 2011 - 2:44 pm

Ron Paul has the “less government” crowd all fired up these days.  But one place he still thinks government should have the final say?

A woman’s body.

Watch Paul discuss abortion at the Iowa Straw Poll this weekend.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • beenthere72

    Ladies, we simply don’t exist to these people.

  • wendy-banks

    We are identified with the word… (stupid?) What a lieing asswipe.

  • frl83

    As a 75+ year old Texan Christian who has delivered 4000+ babies, he doesn’t like abortion. Given that, he doens’t believe the federal government should ban it at a federal level.

    Ron Paul voted NO twice, once in 1999 (HR 1218) and then again in 2005 (HR 748) to make transporting a minor across state lines in order to get an abortion a federal crime. 

    Ron Paul, voted to keep legal helping a minor (maybe by parents/relatives/doctor/etc) go across state lines to get an abortion, if their state denies them one. Ron Paul – Doesn’t like abortion, but will not criminalize your freedom of movement if you want to go and get one.

  • freetobe

    with all these on the right and libertarian candidates they all want to divide the United states up into just states. Not united God forbid that would be too much like the unions.

    This will only cause more problems like we are handling the ones we have now very efficiently.

    These are dangerous people they need to be out of all government offices state or federal.

    Who is Ron Paul to say that it is ok for us to pay even more to cross state lines?

  • pumpkinpjays

    This whole speech is disturbing on multiple levels.

     

    First of all:  the little story he told at the beginning.  As a healthcare provider, I have strong suspicion there’s more to this situation.  A baby born crying might not be resuscitated for many reasons, including extreme prematurity with a low chance of survival and/or reasonable quality of life (especially considering the neonatal treatment that was available in the 1960s,) or structural or chromosomal anomalies that are incapatable with life.  To this day, babies are born, cry, and die.  It is always a travesty.  It is always a tough day at work.  And it’s better than torturing babies with medical procedures only to prolong their suffering.

     

    But I digress.  Does anybody else think there’s a difference between a pre-viable fetus and a live crying baby?  The fact that he equates a crying baby with an abortion is unconscionable.