Monday, April 19, 2010

N. Kentucky Right to Life endorses Rand Paul

I received two things in the mail on Friday: one, a Trey Grayson campaign mailer charging that Rand Paul was "evasive" on abortion; two, a mailer from Northern Kentucky Right to Life (the most surly and purist of the pro-life state groups) indicating that Paul answered their survey 100 percent pro-life while Grayson "Responded with an unresponsive letter, evading the answers to specific questions."

Nice going, Trey.

Here are the rest of the reasons NKRTL decided to endorse Rand Paul:
Based upon his 100 percent Pro-Life answers to the questionnaire, NKRTL-PAC endorses in the Republican primary Rand Paul, M.D. Because there have been published certain allegations by his opponent Mr. Grayson, challenging the commitment of Dr. Paul to clear principles of the Right to Life movement, NKRTL’s Executive Committee, President Robert C. Cetrulo, vice President Fred H. Summe, and Dr. Arthur M. Kunath, conducted a lengthy personal interview with Dr. Paul regarding these issues. While Dr. Paul is open to all avenues of redress against the horror of abortion, including state legislation, federal legislation, and judicial appeals, he is committed, without qualification, to support a mandatory personhood human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would establish the unborn child as a person entitled to constitutional protection of the right to life. He is likewise committed to opposition, without exception, of any public funding of chemical abortifacients, however described, and to any legislation which would mandate health insurance coverage of either surgical or chemical abortion as well as contraception.
Northern Kentucky Right to Life's site is here.

6 comments:

Lisa Graas said...

Purist? Judie Brown of American Life League has called the legislation Rand Paul prefers (the bill authored by his father) "pro-abortion"........for good reason. It is federal legislation saying that the unborn are "persons" but state legislatures may allow abortion anyway. The argument in favor of the bill is that it is a "states rights" bill. No. It would be a federal law saying the unborn are persons who may be killed. I interviewed Rand Paul's campaign coordinator and his campaign manager many weeks ago and both told me that Rand Paul will not work for a Human Life Amendment and that he prefers this bill which, in impact, is pro-abortion. Judie Brown speaks at Northern Kentucky Right to Life events. They are ostensibly on the same page much of the time but if they've endorsed a candidate who prefers legislation that Judie Brown calls "pro-abortion", one needs to investigate further to find out the truth of the matter. I wonder what you base the "purist" claim on. Endorsing a candidate who supports pro-abortion legislation is far from purist. I am wondering if there isn't some favoritism going on here. Rand Paul's biggest donor is a company owned by a family who donates to Northern Ky Right to Life. I don't mean to accuse. Perhaps it is all on the "up and up". But in light of this information, I think it's important not to just take their word for it and actually investigate for yourself if Judie Brown is correct in her assessment that the legislation is pro-abortion. My experience as I have been making this argument is that people give a knee-jerk response stating that I am "attacking" and "smearing" Rand Paul. I am not impressed with that. Let's debate the impact of the legislation itself. Read the bill. Ask Judie Brown about it. Do some homework. Lives are at stake.

Jedes said...

Yes, Lisa Graas is a minority "purist", who supports an "all or nothing" strategy that continues to allow babies to die in all 50 states. A human life amendment is currently impossible to pass. Any logical thinking person knows this- the founders made amending the constitution difficult, and the best approach is a state to state legislative approach.

Rand Paul has states he will vote for any pro life legislation, including those even purists like Lisa endorse. Lisa takes her high horse while babies die in all fifty states, while the majority of us logical pro life supports take a multi pronged approach to the issue- "anything to reduce abortions = good".

Lisa has an unhealthy obsession and irrational hatred toward Rand. It's rather unfortunate and very unhealthy. I continue to pray for her.

Lisa Graas said...

I appreciate the prayers. I will certainly pray for you, as well.

Thomas said...

Lisa,

The federal government doesn't have any more power to prohibit abortion than it does any other homicide. It's a state issue, unless it takes place on federal property.

Wanting states to decide abortion cases doesn't make one any more pro-abortion than wanting states to decide their own homicide laws makes one pro-homicide. If you think that, then you'd have to think the Constitution itself is pro-homicide.

And Ron Paul has said before that the one issue that he would violate his oath to uphold the Constitution would be on the abortion issue.

Lisa Graas said...

Thomas, if Rand Paul doesn't support our federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, how on earth did he get an endorsement from NKRTL?

Stand against this scandal.

http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/04/rand-paul-supporter-challenges-ky-right.html

And.....more lies.

http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com/2010/04/trey-grayson-pro-life-candidate.html

Thomas said...

Lisa,

I don't know if Rand Paul supports the legislation or not. The point is one may oppose a federal bill banning for abortion, and still -- consistently -- be pro-life, for two reasons:

1. The Constitutional reason: non-economic crime is generally outside of the power delegated to Congress under the Constitution. It would be unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that all states impose particular homicide laws. Since abortion is a form of homicide, under the Constitution, it is outside of Congressional jurisdiction.

Now one might be for an federal anti-abortion statute, as Ron Paul is (and I am). But one has to recognize that it's an unconstitutional expansion of Congressional power.

2. Pragmatic reasons: one may well be against a federal statute because it would be struck down by the federal courts, or because it simply would never pass. In either case, focusing resources on a federal abortion ban would be ineffective, and resources would be better spent on trying to get a feasible statute to return states the power to ban abortion, or to get a federal partial birth abortion ban through. (Both those have problems too, but they're not insurmountable.)

The point: opposing a federal ban does not make one pro-abortion.