Ron Paul is NOT the most pro-life candidate on the ballot. He actually believes the "Right to Life" should be left to the states; leaving a ban on partial birth abortions only for the states to consider. Saying this is something that should simply be left to the states, leaves the door open for more lenient abortion laws. It also more easily legitimizes abortion and will in the end make it even more accessible.
He also has voted "No" on prosecuting anyone that would take an underage child across state lines to receive an abortion without the parents' knowledge. That is not a pro-life stance. Further, Paul couldn't bother to show up for the vote to save the life of Terri Schaivo, which took place in 2005. If you are unfamiliar with this story, this is the euthanasia case that took place in our nation a few years ago and it was hugely controversial. Basically Terri's husband and her parents ended up fighting over her right to life when she ended up in a "vegetative" condition; the state and then the federal government had to intervene. This is a heartbreaking story of a young woman that basically ended up with less Constitutional rights than criminals on death row.
It is very disheartening to hear Dr. Paul say at the debate in Arizona that there is in actuality "no difference between the "morning after pill" and the birth control pill". Really?? Guess that goes to show you what he believes about life beginning at conception. To make a comment like that he obviously doesn't agree with the factual pro-life stance.
We have other candidates, such as Rick Santorum, and even Newt Gingrich that are more strongly, consistently, and without reservation, pro-life. Paul's pretense of being the most pro-life candidate, when researched further, shows he is not very pro-life at all....leaving the unborn vulnerable.
In my promise to keep these pages updated and current, please read here about Paul's latest vote that prevented criminalizing those that would seek or perform gender based abortions.
