"Jane Roe" Endorses Ron Paul
David Weigel | January 22, 2008, 11:52am
About an hour ago Norma McCorvey, a.k.a "Jane Roe" from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, formally endorsed Ron Paul at the Phoenix Park hotel in Washington. Why didn't she endorse a frontrunner like Mike Huckabee? Thank the grassroots: She saw a newspaper ad in Nevada, bought by Paul supporters, using the
analogy of the frog and the pot of boiling water to demonstrate what was happening to America. "It touched my heart." That was three weeks ago, and McCorvey keynoted a pro-life Paul rally in Nevada on
January 12th, but the campaign made the official announcement today before Paul spoke at the March for Life. McCorvey:
I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul’s action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.
Paul took questions from a tiny audience of press and local supporters after elucidating his abortion views. Roe was wrongly decided; federal courts need to be taken out of the loop on abortion law to let states make their own laws. A constitutional amendment would be "a tedious solution; it takes a long time." Pro-lifers need to make this possible, in public opinion, before lawmakers move. "The ultimate test of the right to life movement is how we change attitudes on this."
McCorvey was frustrated at the lack of attention her original Reno endorsement got, but she was lighthearted today. "When you're president," she asked Paul, "can I stay over at the White House?"
"Anytime," Paul said. The supporters in the back of the room cracked up.
"I'll take the Lincoln Bedroom," said McCorvey.
UPDATE: Paul said that he found McCorvey compelling because she changed her mind on abortion in 1995, so he was asked what he thought of Mitt Romney's evolution on the issue. He generally praised Romney, but I want to listen to the tape before I run what he said.
Heidi | January 22, 2008, 12:27pm | #
I heard that Ron Paul doesn't mind if black women get abortions.
This is blatantly wrong. Ron Paul is one of the only people who actually understands that civil liberties are God-given, not given by the government. That means civil liberties for white, black, brown, gay, straight, born and
unborn. His message is purely non-prejudiced.
The chairman of the NAACP has known him for 20 years, coincidentally, and has said that Ron Paul isn't racist.
The pro life people could care less about life, they just want to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized, multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.
Wow, I thought Ron Paul people were supposed to have cornered the tin foil hat market. You couldn't be farther from the truth. I am a woman and pro life, and I do believe the issue of abortion is very complicated and needs discussion. It's not a matter of just a woman's body... it's a matter of the fetus as well.
The law states that if a person beats a pregnant woman, and that woman miscarries, you can be charged with murder. The law also states that it's alright to snap the neck of a child coming out of the birth canal as long as the mother wants it so.
This arbitrary law is very dangerous because it's literally based on the whim of the mother at that moment, even when the child could survive outside the womb.
Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who's delivered over 4,000 babies, has seen an abortion performed where the child came out very much alive, kicking, and screaming. The doctors put the living baby in a bucket until the cries stopped.
If there's any conspiracy here, Amanda, it's the conspiracy of population control. Every unborn child is less money the government would have to spend finding that child loving parents. It's quite literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.
whit | January 22, 2008, 2:40pm | #
"I was raised in the Wisconsin Evangilecal Lutheran Synod, a fairly conserative org.
Most serious pro-life orgs, church's or not, have very similar lines between attitude towards abortion as towards birth control."
i know (and knew back in the day) plenty of pro-choice and pro-life christians. both sides.
very few pro-lifers were against birth control (the pill, rubbers, etc.)
"Easily confirmed by google."
pr monty python...
"the difference between us and them papists is we can use little rubber things on our john-thomases if we want to " (from memory as best i could).
"Pro-choice, usually means pro-contractption, pro-life, usually means "abstinence" or anti-contraception (not unlike the Catholic Church)."
no, it doesn't.
"It's been a fairly consistent line over the past forty years"
not really. it is true that most who are against contraception are ALSO pro-life.
it is hardly true that the latter = the former, whether among christian pro-lifers, or atheist pro-lifers, or jewish pro-lifers, or whatever.
but the specific reference was to christian ones
whit | January 22, 2008, 2:49pm | #
"No longer believing in sky-faeries as my parents did, I need science."
so do i
"And the science for me, just can't make a bundle of cells a person, or even seperate."
i don't want to get all semantical, but the issue is not necessarily personhood.
it comes down to this (for me at least). does the "right" of a fetus to live supersede the right of a carrier to abort it. i think, generally yes.
you don't have to believe it's a person. frankly, some have made the argument that a newborn baby is not a person in the self-actualized sense. i don't think that gives us the right to kill it.
it's a balancing test.
"Back to the traditional christian (before Buckley? BB?), I can believe that there may be a point between conception and birth that we are actually dealing with a two humans rather than one. But it sure is only one by science, in the first trimester. And prolly a chunk of the second. Now the third, that I can easily entertain."
it's hard for science OR law to draw bright lines in many cases. but we do. see: age of consent for example.
almost (not all) everybody believes you don't have the right to kill a newborn baby.
most believe you do have the right to abort a fetus 3 weeks after conception.
the relative status at various interim stages is difficult, and opinions vary.
"But, where are the pro-life orgs that are for contraception?"
to my knowledge, few pro-life orgs ADDRESS contraception. the issue they see is abortion.
" Without them it is hard to believe this is about little humans."
i know WAY too many pro-lifers to think anything else.
some of the strongest, most "pro-women" and moral people i have ever met are pro-life. they do NOT want to subjugate women. they DO NOT want to see fetuses aborted.
i am sure there are SOME who are pro-life, who are for it at least in part to subjugate women. just like im sure that there are some who are against racial quotas because they are racist. doesn't change my mind about racial quotas.
" If the pro-lifers are defending human life rather than EXCLUSIVELY attempting to extend government control, why aren't more pro-contraception?"
i really don't know where you get this? what %age of pro-lifers are against contraception ?
Sean W. Malone | January 22, 2008, 3:26pm | #
I'm quite sure I have never understood why people spend so much time back and forth on whether or not abortion is murder.
Ultimately the argument just comes down to semantics anyway doesn't it?
A. We all agree that taking a human life is the definition of murder... check.
B. We all seem to generally agree murder is something bad and accept the societally/governmentally enforced tradeoff that we won't murder anyone in exchange for not being murdered... check.
B. We all agree that an infant child can rightly be considered a life and thus falls under the category of bad, even worse than other types of murder as children are so cute and innocent... check.
The question isn't whether or not Pro-life people just want to control women, generalities aside, I'm quite convinced that's not really what it's about. Nor is it that Pro-choice people support murdering babies...
So the issue as I've always seen it simply comes down to what you define as a "human life".
Not that anyone is ever going to agree on that exactly, but why do we have to sit here and read all of this back and forth nonsense about various ideologies when the basic terms of discussion haven't been agreed upon?!
Isn't that kind of a major step everyone's glossing over?
We all agree murdering humans is wrong. We all agree rape is wrong. We all (should) agree that women (and men) should have the right make their own decisions about their bodies.
We DON'T all agree at what point a fetus becomes a human. Since that's kinda the first thing we need to establish, why again aren't we discussing that?
hale | January 22, 2008, 6:31pm | #
Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is meant to oppress womyn.
I realize that Amanda is trolling, so understand that I'm not replying to this with the intention of convincing "her" otherwise. I am replying to this because this shit don't wash and there's a point to be made here.
One often hears the claim made that logic is a male invention, that science is a white construct, and that reason is a tool of oppression. I call these claims "identity epistemology" - the notion that knowledge and indeed truth are of a fundamentally different character if you're of this ethnicity or that one, of this sex or that one, of this class or that one, and so forth.
Now, understand that I'm not equating logic with knowledge; it's widely understood that logic is merely a tool for parsing and that the truth of its conclusions are dependent on its premises. I'm also not disagreeing that there exist other non-linear, propositional forms of knowledge-manufacture (for example, I would argue that art and aesthetic communication is one of these and is legitimate as such, though that topic in full is a subject for another dsicussion). What I'm taking aim at is the idea - quite patriarchal when you think about it - that
logic is the sole domain of men and was created by men to dominate women.
Do any of those trafficking in this notion realize how insulting it is to women who
do use logic, perhaps pride themselves on their logical talents, or who participate in science or analytic philosophy? It not only dismisses any logical or scientific claims made by a woman, if carried to its conclusion it would seek to incriminate those women as traitors. If that be the case, then Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, Ada Lovelace,Émilie du Châtelet, Lisa Meitner - these are all traitors and abettors of the patriarchy. Likewise are Hannah Arendt, Emma Goldman and doubtless many, many of the early feminists.
I understand the desire of the humanities disciplines to detach themselves from implicitly-accepted constructs. However, this race to the bottom for authenticity, and for identity-appropriate approaches to fundamental disciplines is philosophically ludicrous, scientifically unfounded, prejudicial toward women and minorities, and serves nobody.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
