How Ron Paul Would Effectively End Abortion In America

Ron Paul:

"To summarize my views--I believe the federal government has a role to play," said Paul. "I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence."
"I don't see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues," Paul said. "The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a 'Federal Department of Abortion.' Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.
"As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts," said Paul. "This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state."

While most Pro-Life Republicans talk a good game,they rarely do anything to actually stop abortions.Ron Paul is not only Pro-Life,but he has a plan,that is not only capable of ending this scourge in our country,it is also Constitutional.Tell me who is the most Pro-Life candidate?

Herman Cain Is Pro-Choice/Pro-Life Or Something Like That

Herman Cain tells Piers Morgan that he is Pro-life/Pro-Choice or something like that:

And yet, interestingly, here’s what Cain said to Morgan concerning abortion for people who are not his family members:

No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

Morgan then said that Cain cannot hide behind the “mask of the pizza guy,” and that, as a person who may potentially become president, his views on issues like abortion become “a directive to the nation.” Cain’s response?

No, they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.

So, there you have it: Herman Cain is against abortion, personally, but is firmly pro-choice, as he believes the government should not intervene in social decisions. And that extends to same-sex marriage, by the way. As you may recall, Cain said recently, during an appearance on Meet The Press, that “I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same-sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage.”

Herman Cain is very wishy-washy when it comes to matters involving the Constitution.He is Pro-Life but doesn't want government to protect unborn innocent life.He is pro traditional marriage,but doesn't want a Constitutional amendment to protect it from the left,who want to destroy the traditional family.Let us not forget this,Herman Cain said,he believed in 2nd Amendment rights,but then said,the states had a right to restrict those same rights.

Being wish-washy makes Herman Cain a good T.V. personality,but it makes him unfit to be POTUS.

Hat tip to Pundit & Pundette.

'Fourth-Trimester Abortion'

Mark Steyn:

From the Court of Queen’s Bench (the appellate court) in Alberta:

The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…

Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

Indeed. As Judge Joanne Veit puts it:

“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

Gotcha. So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person – that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?
Speaking of “onerous demands”, suppose you’re a “mother without support” who’s also got an elderly relative around with an “onerous” chronic condition also making inroads into your time?
And in what sense was Miss Effert a “mother without support”? She lived at home with her parents, who provided her with food and shelter. How smoothly the slick euphemisms – “accept and sympathize… onerous demands” – lubricate the slippery slope.

Francis Schaeffer,warned us this would happen:  

I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession... The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.

First their was abortion,then euthanasia,now this,infanticide.Who is next?The handicapped and the mentally retarded?