Ron Paul on Abortion Republican Representative (TX-14); previously Libertarian for President





Sub-sections under Abortion: Voting+Sponsorships

Other issues under Abortion

Morning-after pill same as birth control pill; not immoral

PAUL: As an OB doctor, I've dealt with birth control pills and contraception for a long time. This is a consequence of government control of medical insurance. The problem is the government is getting involved in things they shouldn't be involved in, especially at the federal level. But along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don't see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don't blame the pills. The pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society.

GINGRICH: When government provides a morning-after abortion pill [under ObamaCare], you inevitably move towards tyranny.

PAUL: Actually, the morning-after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill, so if you legalize birth control pills, you really can't separate the two. They're all basically the same, hormonally.

Source: CNN's 2012 GOP Debate on eve of Arizona Primary , Feb 22, 2012

Right to privacy is explicit, but not for contraception

SANTORUM: The Supreme Court created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution.

PAUL: No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can't go into anybody's house without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the 4th Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this; it was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it's not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.

Source: WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate , Jan 7, 2012

More laws don't solve problems on abortion

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL , Sep 22, 2011

Efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 6 , Apr 19, 2011

Deregulate the adoption market

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 8 , Apr 19, 2011

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

Abortion causes inconsistent moral basis for value of life

Day-after pill allows individual moral choice

Abortion is murder

People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be unwanted.

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60 , Apr 1, 2008

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 , Apr 1, 2008

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement

I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“

I know we’re all interested in a better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn’t go to the supreme court to be ruled out of order

Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 7, 2008

Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 7, 2008

Get the federal government out of abortion decision

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida , Nov 28, 2007

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench

HUCKABEE: Yes.

TANCREDO: Yes.

COX: Yes.

BROWNBACK: Yes.

PAUL: Yes.

HUNTER: Yes.

KEYES: Yes.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007

Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos

HUCKABEE: No.

TANCREDO: No.

COX: No.

BROWNBACK: No.

PAUL: No.

HUNTER: No.

KEYES: No.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion

HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?

Q: It’s the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It’s an American law.

BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reagan’ policy that we wouldn’t use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.

HUNTER: It’s actually a UN policy.

KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.

Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?

HUCKABEE: Yes.

TANCREDO: Yes.

COX: Yes.

BROWNBACK: Yes.

PAUL: Yes.

HUNTER: Yes.

KEYES: Yes.

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized

A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC , May 3, 2007

Ron Paul on Voting+Sponsorships

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and health plans must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion.

Provides exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:

[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:

[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.

Reference: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; Bill H.3 ; vote number 11-HV292 on May 4, 2011

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics; were created for the purposes of fertility treatment; were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics

Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded

Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor's home state waive the parental notification required by that state

Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion

Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor's home state have been satisfied

Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian

Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act

Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill HR 748 ; vote number 2005-144 on Apr 27, 2005

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.

Reference: Human Cloning Prohibition Act; Bill HR 534 ; vote number 2003-39 on Feb 27, 2003

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Bilirakis, R-FL; Bill HR 4691 ; vote number 2002-412 on Sep 25, 2002

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Reference: Amendment sponsored by Hyde, R-IL; Bill HR 1646 ; vote number 2001-115 on May 16, 2001

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Canady, R-FL; Bill HR 3660 ; vote number 2000-104 on Apr 5, 2000

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL; Bill HR 1218 ; vote number 1999-261 on Jun 30, 1999

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life.

Q: What is the RLC’s position on abortion?

A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Source: Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement 00-RLC14 on Dec 8, 2000

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003

Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NRLC scores as follows:

0% - 15%: pro-choice stance (approx. 174 members)

16%- 84%: mixed record on abortion (approx. 101 members)

85%-100%: pro-life stance (approx. 190 members)

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1973 in response to the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision, legalizing the practice of human abortion in all 50 states, throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy.

The NRLC has been instrumental in achieving a number of legislative reforms at the national level, including a ban on non-therapeutic experimentation of unborn and newborn babies, a federal conscience clause guaranteeing medical personnel the right to refuse to participate in abortion procedures, and various amendments to appropriations bills which prohibit (or limit) the use of federal funds to subsidize or promote abortions in the United States and overseas.

In addition to maintaining a lobbying presence at the federal level, NRLC serves as a clearinghouse of information for its state affiliates and local chapters, its individual members, the press, and the public.

Source: NRLC website 06n-NRLC on Dec 31, 2006

Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans.

A bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes: No funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.

None of the funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

No credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion.

No health care service furnished or operated by the Federal government may include abortion.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using non-federal funds.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any nonfederal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, so long as only non-federal funds are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program.

The limitations shall not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor; or in the case the woman is in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Source: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act 10-HR5939 on Jul 29, 2010

Prohibit federal funding for abortion.

TITLE I: Prohibiting Federally-Funded Abortions and Providing for Conscience Protections Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or the woman would be place in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

TITLE II: Elimination of Certain Tax Benefits Relating to Abortion Disqualifies, for purposes of the tax deduction for medical expenses, any amounts paid for an abortion.

Excludes from the definition of "qualified health plan" after 2013, for purposes of the refundable tax credit for premium assistance for such plans, any plan that includes coverage for abortion.

Source: H.R.3 &S.906 11-HR0003 on May 5, 2011

Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Wikipedia Explanation:Title X of the Public Health Service Act, titled "Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" is a US government program dedicated to providing family planning services for those in need. Title X provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information. Priority for services is given to persons of low-income.

Sponsor Remarks by Rep. Mike Pence:It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants; and performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.

OnTheIssues Explanation: Federal money is never explicitly provided for abortions. But Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, paid for via private funds. At issue is the "fungibility" of money: Planned Parenthood can use federal funds to supplement their budget and hence free up other funds for abortion. This bill would end that practice.

Source: H.R.217 11-HR217 on Jan 7, 2011

Supports the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge.

The Susan B. Anthony List's 2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge asks declared presidential candidates to commit to key pro-life goals if elected to the presidency in 2012. While this is by no means a complete list of all pro-life objectives, having a President that actively supports these pro-life aims will keep up the momentum to achieve our ultimate goal of ending abortion in this country. The Pro-life pledge:

I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions: FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;

THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

Source: Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge 12-SBA on Jan 1, 2012

Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers.

A bill to require States to report information on Medicaid payments to abortion providers.

Directs each state that makes a Medicaid payment from federal funds during the fiscal year for any items or services furnished by an abortion provider to: report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on all such payments; and publish the report on a public Internet website of the state.