Unlike most people who claim to celebrate strict limits on government power over individuals, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejects the reproductive rights American women already have. Indeed, less than a week ago, on the heels of a 13-hour filibuster on libertarian ideals, the Republican senator introduced "fetal personhood" legislation -- called the "Life at Conception Act" -- which would extend constitutional rights to "preborn humans."
Paul's bill (S.583) immediately picked up 15 co-sponsors, all of them Republicans. As Rachel explained on the show the other day, the legislation, if approved, would "ban abortion altogether at the federal level," and would probably ban hormonal birth control and in-vitro fertilization.
What about giving Americans the ability to make their own choices? Don't worry; the Kentucky senator intended to make "exceptions."
For those who can't watch clips online, Paul said that under his vision, "there are thousands of exceptions" to his proposal to ban all abortions in the United States. He added, "[E]ven if there were eventually a change in the law -- let's say people came more to my way of thinking -- there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family."
How reassuring. The senator intends to ban all abortions in the United States, and give fertilized eggs all the legal protections afforded to American citizens, but he hopes to do so in a vaguely pro-choice fashion.
How many exceptions would there be? Who would decide them? We don't know -- it's not in his bill and Paul hasn't been willing to explain.
Do you ever get the feeling Rand Paul hasn't fully thought through the positions he takes?
Even during his 13-hour filibuster on drone strikes a couple of weeks ago, the Kentucky Republican wanted to know if the Obama administration feels it has the authority to "use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil." The attorney general issued a one-sentence response -- "The answer to that question is no" -- and instead of digging further, asking who gets to define what constitutes "combat," Paul walked away satisfied.
I can appreciate why there are so many Americans eager to have a high-profile champion of civil liberties taking bold stances in the Senate. I just don't think Rand Paul is the champion they've been waiting for.
Leave a Comment:
he wants liberty for corporations.
but, when it comes to my and every other woman's womb, he wants all in.
I don't think so.
He is the typical hypocritical republican, he claims to be for individual liberty, but is unwilling or too stupid to realize that his positions on women and LGBT individuals are antithetical to liberty. It is amusing to see all the unthinking idiots at CPAC fawning over this guy. I only hope they nominate him for president because he would lose by the largest landslide seen to date.
He wants the unborn to be considered people. Yet there will always be exceptions, such as when HIS wife or daughters needs to make a choice, THAT will be between them and their doctor. But when its YOU, there are no exceptions.
Rand Paul, unfortunately, is the spokesperson for the clergy in America who go into their pulpits each Sunday and urge their parishoners to vote for Republicans because they are for the "right to life." Some of these clergy are buttressed by the faith based initiative monies and by large contributions from the .1%ers to speak out for more and more restrictions on religious freedom on those who do not believe as they do.
In this debate over abortion and religious freedom, the role of the clergy must be examined in light of the Constitution which provides religious freedom for all, not just a few. They must come to understand that equality is given to each of us by a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Willow I agree, like the Congressman that didn't care about LGBT rights until his son wouldn't be able to get married.
I hope he passes a bill to pay the medicial expenses of all these births and then pay for these children thier parents can't afford to feed and cloth. send to school and college. thenhe and his party can start another war to do away with them
.
What about ghosts...they once had a heart beat too...who stands up for them...just because you can't see them either and they aren't breathing in the air of this world either like a fetus is no reason to ignore their rights. They might reincarnate soon and for you to ignore their right or say you don't believe in reincarnation is religious discrimination...I have proof they existed but you don't have proof a fetus existed as a human so they have more of a claim of personhood than your fetus.
I should get a job in Rand Paul's office huh. No drones on the fetus please. How do these goobers get elected anyway.
I thought Rand Paul was a follower of Ayn Rand? This will not set will with our libertarian friends. Nor will it set will witih the hard line large government window peeping evangelicals.
There's a quote that started going around last year:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Randians (Randites?) (Randinistas?) demonstrate that they STILL have a 14-year-old's ability to analyze complicated issues.
1st time I've heard that quote Beregond, but that is a great one!
Thanks for posting.
That was John Rogers, of Kung-Fu Monkey. Bottom of <A HREF="http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html">this post.</A>
"We don't need no stinking government...I can write my own license for being an opthamologist."-Rand Paul
Wow, just about lost my coffee over that one! ROFL
Please run in 2016, Rand. Puleeese!
Quit hoping for these embarrassments to run for president...it's well...embarrassing to even have such idiots in the national spotlilght.
Poor Rand Paul. He is as delusional and disjointed in his thinking as his father, who went off the deep end a long time ago.
That CNN actually gave him airtime to discuss his bill as if it were something rational, sentient people think is reasonable is simply another example of how a once-decent news network now commits journalism malpractice on a daily basis.
Paul Sr. is much more of a pure libertarian than Jr. However, there's no such thing as a pure libertarian - even Sr. jumped on the anti-choice bandwagon during the primaries - and so they always end up compromising their principles.
All politicians compromise their principles (along with their eternal souls), but with libertarians it's just waaaaay more obvious when they do it.
I was under the perception that Libertarians were opposed to government entering into any persons life but then politics always trumps ideology
Oh goodie, we're back to the rights of embryos again... Nero fiddled anyone?
I am going to lovew it when one of these people want a baby and they steal one of thoaw eggs into thier wives or daughter and turn up with a black baby
Lets just say this passes. So we have a fetus(a human) who cant be aborted because it needs an organ of another human to live. This give the fetus 'ownership' over that organ. If this is the case whats to keep me from demanding the heart of another person because I need it to live? They wouldnt have any legal right to refuse because of my 'need'. Yes, he really hasnt thought this through and when you have a law with as many exceptions as this one would need, why bother with the law at all?
Exactly. The entire pro-life argument - most notably in the extreme position of personhood - subjugates the rights of the mother to the rights of the fetus. If nothing else, it's not a libertarian principle to do this. It is also likely to be highly unconstitutional:
Involuntary servitude certainly reads to me like it drives a bus through any law that, at the very least does not exempt rape (legitimate or otherwise).
but "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"
The crime is that of being a woman...
Actually, the crime they universally want punished is not being celibate, they believe that children are punishment for not being celibate and that abortion is wrong because it allows you to "get away with" not being punished for violating their celibacy law.
A pretty seriously deranged view if you think about it at all.
Mike you nailed it
My thoughts exactly. "except as a punishment for crime" of getting pregnant in the first place. I don't care how you try to dress it up, it is still taking my rights to my body away from me. As for CNN giving him airtime for this I am glad. It gives people a chance to see just how wishy washy he is on this. Just wonder which bill he vote he will filibusterer on so he can make another grand stand
CNN Gives him unchallenged airtime.
Put him in front of Chris Matthews and see what happens.
@Knobson
Or Rachal Maddow...
I think Rachel had him on once before a long time ago. It was after he had said that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had he had the opportunity to at the time. Rachel said it was a very frustrating interview because he never really answered her questions and then got snippy with her for challenging him. I'm convinced she's up for a rematch, but him? Not so much.
Rand Paul 2016.
Mandow is just as big of a liar as Bill O'reilley.
Different ends of the 2 party scam.
A "total ban" with "thousands of exceptions?" Nobody can convince me that Rand Paul ever gave up smoking dope.
It wasn't weed that did that...It was the brown acid....
Whatever happened to that old phrase "I can remember when you were just a twinkle in your father's eye"? Maybe the senator could bring it back. Life begins with a twinkle of the eye.
We' may see the day when that "twinkle" becomes subject to "birth control laws". Sad day indeed.
Lets face it the motley collection of groups making up the Republican base are really at war with one another. The internal conflicts within the Republican base lead people like Boehner to walk back reasonable positions and others like Paul to come off sounding like an idiot. Satisfying all the different factions of the Republican party can't be easy. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost. :)
if libertarians are in favor of personal liberties doesnt his personhood bill go against the core of libertarinism?
Of course it does. But Rand needs to gin up right wing extremists in order to get political momentum within the GOP Echo Chamber. And nothing rallies the angry troops better than protecting the fetus, while ignoring the mother and the newborn.
Up is down, left is right, and Conservatism is compassionate.
It's a mistake to treat "libertarians" as a single group.
Rand, like his father, are type 3 leaning towards type 2. Most of us posting here tend to think in terms of type 1, which causes all sorts of confusion when the term "libertarian" comes up.
DC has it right. I suspect most people in this country who identify themselves as libertarians, myself included, would select for themselves option #1. Politicians who call themselves libertarian fit more into #2 or #3, and give the rest of us a bad name.
"Libertarians" vote Republican for the most part, it seems like only a few actually vote for the Gary Johnsons. I say it's easier to identify and quantify based on what they are against rather than what they are for, since they will always cry "freedom". All are against Obamacare, even though it will give actual "freedom" to people to move from job to job for example.
While I agree, somewhat with DC Sessions 1-3 ideas of Libertarians, I could agree with the first one, leaving citizens alone so they can live happily ever after. The only problem with that is that citizens need protection from corporate greed and zeal. Corporations do not care much at all for the benefit of the citizen. They want what they want, and to hell with the rights of citizens. Most politicians are way down the line from #1.
It doesn't matter what strain of libertarianism you espouse. Libertarianism as a philosophy of government is primarily focused on economics and "just government" (relation of the individual to the government). It is extremely important to note that libertarianism addresses this relationship for full moral agents ONLY. It is not a complete moral theory in any regard. It's not even really a complete theory of justice because to my knowledge, no libertarian has defined the priori theories of just ownership, transfer and reconciliation (fixing past injustices). Take your pick of 1,2 or 3, but if you are talking about abortion, you are bound to run into conflicts and problems because libertarianism isn't capable of dealing with them.
its only women they don't to be free and have rights. IT's The man rule thing
I have invented a new "strain" of Rand and Ron Paul "Libertarian", it reflects the Dr's freaky position that freedom applies to men only. The Pauls are "Libidotarians" dedicated to the freedom of their man parts...
The government still holds a man responsible for the children they father.
Rand Paul 2016
The Republicans in the House spend an enourmous amount of time creating and passing these Person Hood Bills, becasue they care so much about an egg and fetus. Where are the hours spent passing The American Jobs Act or an Infrastructure Bill, you know things that would bennefit actual living beings? Where is your concern for the children who are homeless, starving, being abused and in some cases killed by a parent who did not want them? Where is your concern for the elderly, disabled and our Vets -- I know you only care about an EGG or a FETUS.
This about "shiny" objects to distort and distract giving the GOP/Corporations time to finish their "work" in the States...Or have the Koch boys and ALEC given up?
Lorr, they only care about the egg and fetus. They couldn't give a ratz azz about them after their born because they are only "those" people. You know, the 47% that mooch off the government, such as vets, elderly, disabled, unemployed, etc.
Phenner, I could not agree with you more. Please GOP leave our bodies alone, we are capable of making decisions that benefit us women.
Sister Simone from "Nuns on the Bus", says (and I agree completely) that the GOP is not pro life, they are only pro birth. When you see how much Ryan's budget cuts programs that help children, you realize how terrible Ryan thinks helping children is. They cut WIC, USDA lunch programs, early childhood education, day care assistance, PELL Grants, etc. Pretty soon, after birth, those free loading babies better get out and get ajob. They can throw a paper from their tricycle, slackers.
Isn't it funny that pro life men stop at a zygote? Why not just make every sperm sacred?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
If men had babies, ALL abortions would be legal, as well as ALL birth control, starting with the first time they got pregnant and it interfered with their job, their ability to make money, their sex life, their sleep, their ball game, their car, their guns, etc, etc, etc.
Sounds like it would instead be "if women ran the world." I wish that all these restrictions that old white men place on everyone else would indeed go away.
Not only would abortions be legal, but there would be an abortion clinic on every corner.
"...give fertilized eggs all the legal protections afforded to American citizens…"
So would a fertilized egg with a Y chromosome be able to marry another fertilized egg with a Y, or not? Depends on the state they're "preborn" in, I suppose.
If we just keep their beating heart beating, I'm sure the rest can be established on their 18th birthday.
So, all these pre-borns are valid children? We can harvest my wife's eggs, fertilize them before this is enacted, and store them in cryo?
"Yes, I'm claiming 20 children on my taxes. All of them are less than 9 months old and will be forever. Thanks for all the government assistance!"
Brilliant. Freaking BRILLIANT.
I mentioned this to $HERSELF and she's cleaning up the coffee right now.
Time was, that was the belief. Every sperm was supposed to be a complete miniature man and if you wasted any of it, you were committing mass murder. If the woman did something wrong during pregnancy, she would give birth to a girl. Many of these beliefs are still pretty close to the surface of some on the religious right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preformationism
So if an embryo is considered a person, I guess they can be considered a dependent on federal tax returns. That's great!
This is so absurd. OMG
The whole concept is absurd, that's exactly the point.
I think George Carlin said it best when he said, "they're not pro-life. They're anti-woman."
What will Randy come up with next? Men ca'nt masterbate because their sperm may fertilize an egg. Of course he would'nt do that, there are to many republican "jackoffs".
I believe a female State Rep. somewhere (can't remember where) added an amendment to a personhood bill that would - essentially - outlaw masturbation.
Classic.
#17.1: Couple no contraception with no masterbation (no pun intended) and just think of all the increased production of future low-wage, no-benefit, no-union USA workers.
Then the corporate elite could have their own Asian sweat-shops right here at home.
And Rand Paul gets paid to put this kind of garbage legislation forward. What a gig. Will Kentucky please do something about this so we don't all have to suffer his idiocy, mediocrity and ego.
I've been trying to get rid of MItch. What else can I do they, sneak in behind my back or how about this I'm only one person. I NEED HELP!
And they want to change the 14th Amendment so that there will not be any more "Anchor babies." If a zygote is a person with full rights of a citizen, the baby does not have to be born in the U.S. to be a U.S. citizen; it only has to be conceived here. What is to keep some tourist from a foreign country from claiming that her baby was conceived here and therefore is a "person" i.e. a citizen with all the rights and protections attendant thereto? Just another minor point that these "person hood" advocates have not thought of. How many of them are for a "path to citizenship?"
Birth certificates are obsolete. We're going to need conception certificates.
Somebody notify Orly. And Donald.
And when are we going to know exactly when conception occurs? Is it when the sperm and egg merge or when the egg implants in the placenta?
The more you consider the complexities of the biology the more absurd it becomes.
Conservatism usually means keeping with traditional ways of thinking and doing. There is nothing conservative about this personhood nonsense. The conservative definition of personhood comes from Plato: the soul is immortal and before birth it resides with God. The soul enters the body at birth; at death it rejoins God. (from the Phaedo) Platonism was a significant part of Christian doctrine for at least a thousand years.
And under this bill women who miscarry will be convicted of murder. Indeed, some states already investigate miscarriages to see if it was really an abortion. Nice manners.
I wonder if it means you can claim them on your taxes???? I will never understand a party that wants to eliminate the medicaid, food stamps and such but force a person to have more kids. So lets see you can't get abortion, you cant have help with housing, insurance, food, lets get rid of WIC in which some mothers use to feed their children but lets have more babies that women cant afford, not to mention if you were raped, oh wait I forgot I have a super hero reproductive system that can figure out if the sperm from rape or if its consensual. I keep forgetting that I must remember that!!!
There was a letter to our local newspaper the other day by someone who had obviously been listening to too much Rush. He said that "liberals" were control freaks who wanted to control everything. We do want to control how many bullets a gunman can shoot in 30 seconds, and we want to control carbon emissions from power plants and other activities that are detrimental to society. But there are not many of us who want to control every woman's womb or who has sex with whom.
Rand figures AquaBuda will tell him what the limits and exceptions are. After the bill has been signed into law of course, not a moment before.
If life really does begin at conception, then one could argue that any child conceived in the US would be a US citizen, right?
Should be great for our tourism industry.
and cigarette makers...
Uh oh, I could be in trouble as an American citizen. My Dad always used to tell me that I was conceived when they were on a fishing trip to Canada and it rained the whole time, ie, nothing to do but hang around the tent. I never knew it, but I could be a Canadian!
Goodbye anchor babies. Hello anchor-boning!
Labels like conservative or liberal have validity when the ascribed members act relatively within the boundaries of the party platform. Libertarianism according to wiki is all over the map, with a seemingly wide margin of acceptance.
It appears Rand may pick and choose any philosophy elements he wishes to ascribe to, and creating a new thread of libertarianism better suited to his purposes.
Most fertilized eggs do not implant. The woman would not realize that an egg was fertilized.
Damn women! Let's burn 'em all as witches! Them and their magical uteri......
:)
"Every sperm is sacred"
people are forgetting the meaning of "Absurd"
Love me Monty Python!
Ah, when you've seen fifty billion of them, they all look alike.