First the good news: His truly "maverick" (makes John McCain look darn establishment) campaign is now outraising Giuliani (already passed Romney.) But somehow his name will probably continue to be mentioned only in passing in most of the press coverage. And when it comes down to it, the ballots may back up the mainstream news outlets' decision to snub the Internet's favorite son. Still, it would be nice to find out what would have happened if Paul had gotten truly fair and balanced coverage from the outset.
Now, the bad news. Paul doesn't merely tolerate the pro-life vision, harbor a private revulsion to abortion based on his own personal faith or career in obstetrics, or object on principle to federal funding (in line with his general hardline stance against federal funding.)
He sponsored this bill, defining all fertilized zygotes as "persons" under the law. And this proactive step to define a key term in the abortion debate seems all the more glaring to me because of his laissez-faire attitude toward government putting its inflated two cents in.
This seems to be where Paul and many of his Libertarian supporters part ways -- no huge surprise, since he is, after all, a Republican congressman running for the Republican nomination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In fairness, the bill defines the term for Federal purposes as a preamble to kicking the issue back down to the states.
The more important thing to notice is that this bill has a grand total of four cosponsors and has not gone anywhere since its introduction.
Kind of like Hillary Clinton's support of video game censorship, it's not a plus, but it's also not a real threat.
Post a Comment