Ron Paul is okay with early term abortions and the abortion pill. Will principled pro-lifers' still support him?
By Martin Hill
March 23, 2012

Dr. Ron Paul's presidential campaign webpage, captioning him as "A Pro-Life Champion", states in part:

"As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is. Dr. Paul's experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn't also advocate respecting the God-given right to life-for those born and unborn. .... The strength of love for liberty in our society can be judged by how we treat the most innocent among us. It's time to elect a President with the courage and conviction to stand up for every American's right to life."
But in a recent CNN interview, Piers Morgan asked some legitimate questions seeking clarification about Paul's views. In the interview, Paul concedes that if a woman was raped, an early form of abortion would be okay (i.e., preventing implantation of the conceived fetus to the uterine wall via hormone shot). Paul says that he'd give her a "shot of estrogen". He adds at the conclusion of the discussion that "I won't satisfy everybody there", knowing that many of his supporters are ardent pro-lifers who want to outlaw abortion and the morning after pill alltogether.

Granted, fertilization does not necessarily occur immediately after intercourse (though it could). So immediately following a rape, a woman could or could not be have conceived a human child. So if life begins at conception, according to the pro life view, is it not wrong to kill, or even potentially kill, an innocent child? Principled pro-lifers insist that abortion is wrong even in that instance, and they are correct. Paul's answer, while politically correct, is disappointing. He is rationalizing abortion depending on the circumstance. Abortion advocates have always used "the case of rape or incest" as an avenue for convincing the American public, even those who tend to disfavor abortion, to support continued legal abortion. Paul is using this same logic in his replies to CNN.

When speaking to pro-life groups and seeking their donations and votes, why doesn't Paul say that he opposes abortion "except in the case of rape or incest"? Because he knows that they wouldn't accept that position. If abortion is truly murder, (which it is), Christians can not compromise on this fact. Thus, Paul is being disingenuous when claiming that he is against abortion. The fact is that, Ron Paul is only against abortion most of the time, but not all of the time. Which brings me to the main point. Do you want to support a man who thinks that abortion is okay sometimes? I certainly do not. This speaks to a man's character. A truly good and decent man would never advocate killing an unborn innocent, regardless of the stage. Thus, I am hereby effectively revoking my endorsement of Ron Paul for President of the United States.

You see, PRINCIPLES MATTER. There are absolutes. Not everything is 'relative'. There are black and whites. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is such a thing as good and evil. And advocating killing an unborn baby, even in the early stages, is just evil. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a man who promotes something evil.

In a recent interview with Jay Leno, Ron Paul admitted that he is not against the "morning after pill" and that he prescribed a lot of birth control during his career. That is precisely what eugenecist ghoul George H. W. Bush promoted throughout his disreputable career, along with others in the establishment who promoted population reduction and destruction of the family.

The charade known as the national elections are for the most part, theatre to keep the masses distracted. Most of the Republican candidates who've been babbling about abortion for fourty years never had any genuine intent or desire to outlaw it. Furthermore, even those who claim to be against abortion, such as Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, all endorse many other wicked policies and are nothing but warmongering police-state promoting creeps. Paul on the other hand, has a stellar record of promoting good policies of anti-war and limited government. He has stated many times that he wants to spread the message of liberty, and that his campaign works to that effect. Paul's supporters often agree that "even if Paul doesn't win, he still wins!"(?) by getting the message out there. But if his goal is not really to win and to merely spread messages, then what sort of message is Ron Paul sending by compromising on the issue of abortion? A very bad message indeed. Below is a clip from the CNN interview and a portion of the transcript.

I know some will say that I am 'extreme' and that we have to 'compromise' and take what we can get. That is garbage. I don't want any of them. Good luck America, you will need it.

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured on, WhatReallyHappened, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise,,, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. His website is

MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this.

But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them --

MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?

PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical -- there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy --

MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception?

PAUL: Life does begin at conception.

MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life.

PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is -- but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.

MORGAN: But here's the thing: although it is a hypothetical, it does happen. People do get raped and they do get impregnated. And sometimes they are so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they are pregnant. They have to face this dilemma. And they are going to have a president who has a very, very strong view about this.

PAUL: [continues...]"....They are talking about a human life. So a person immediately after rape, yes. It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there.... "


Ron Paul Pressed On Abortion In The Case Of Rape

Ron Paul On 'The Tonight Show': I Prescribed Birth Control, Would Not Ban Plan B

Plan B is an abortion pill.

The New Yorker: Ron Paul's Abortion Problem
December 29, 2011

"But in signing the pledge, Paul may have ended up doing himself nearly as much harm as good. Alone among the signatories, Paul appended a "clarifying statementt" in which he reiterates his opposition to banning abortion on the federal level. On Monday, Personhood USA, the group that drafted the pledge, sent Paul an open letter that expresses "serious concerns both about the internal inconsistencies within Rep. Paul's statement, and the inconsistency between the clarifying statement and the language of Personhood USA's pledge." Such are the perils of going off-message.
Ron Paul's statement regarding the Personhood USA pledge

Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge - A further clarification and discussion

Cult of personality:
Mesmerized DailyPaulers freak out and attack a poster who dare asks about their hero Paul's blatantly inconsistent position on the sanctity of life

Also: More examples of (alleged) freemason Paul talking out of both sides of his mouth

Ron Paul on 9/11 conspiracies (in chronological order)

Ron Paul: Israel "OUR BEST FRIEND"

Ron Paul: "I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are "self-determination" and "self-reliance."

Four years after Ron Paul's "Trotsky Memo", vote fraud continues unchallenged

FREEMASONRY: Their God is the devil A month after Ron Paul directly debunked rumors and said there is Absolutely �No Deal� with Romney, his own campaign chairman says the opposite, claiming Ron would be open to a compromise or VP slot. (Why would someone running for president in a primary concede defaeat and accept a VP slot?!:)

CBS NEWS: For Ron Paul, winning isn't everything

"Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign chairman, said he does see evidence that Paul's ideas are making a difference."
...."It's something we'd like but it's not terribly important to us," he said. "We're looking potentially for Ron to be the vice presidential nominee...we're not looking for easy concessions like a speaking slot." He says the campaign would also push for a cabinet position for Paul or major changes to the party platform."

Time Magazine Chimes in on Ron Paul-Mitt Romney "Secret Deal"

godaddy counter