-124 votes

Can no longer support Ron Paul: morning-after pill

I can no longer support Ron Paul. I've discovered that in his book Liberty Defined, Ron Paul advocates the morning-after pill:

So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.

I had previously understood that Ron Paul would nullify Roe v. Wade, allowing the states to make their own laws, while using the bully pulpit to encourage them to outlaw abortion. The problem is he is using his current bully pulpit to encourage the morning after pill.

I will be removing my Ron Paul bumper sticker and be sitting out the 2012 presidential election.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The morning after pill

Dr. Paul believes that life begins at conception. The morning after pill works to prevent conception by preventing ovulation and by attacking the sperm, but the morning after pill is also designed to prevent the fertilized ovum (the immediate product of conception) from implanting in the womb. Since there is no certain way to know whether or not conception has taken place, the user of this pill is willing to abort the person conceived. Dr. Paul has to decide where he stands.

Occam's Razor

I think this statement is open to a wide range of interpretations including the one you present and that is disturbing considering that Ron Paul is so outspoken in favor of the pro-life cause. However, in keeping with the law of Occam’s razor and choosing an interpretation with the least number of assumptions, I would argue that Ron Paul’s above statement remains consistent with his other views. While life begins at conception, a fact Ron Paul readily recognizes, it is impossible to prove that pregnancy has occurred until implantation and therefore impossible to enforce a law banning abortions that take place prior to implantation. A law that can never be enforced is a bad law and, keeping with Ron Paul’s minimal approach to government, should not exist.

Also, note that the US Catholic Conference of Bishops allows contraceptive use in an emergency room setting for rape victims:

“A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum”.

This includes contraceptives with a possible abortifacient effect as long as contraception and not abortion is its intent and moral certitude that ovulation has not occurred is established.

In summary, I think Ron Paul’s intent is to avoid federal intervention on an issue that cannot be feasibly policed not to endorse the morning-after-pill. Although regrettably his statements on this issue are poorly worded and therefore ambiguous and open to misinterpretation.

a longer, full response can

a longer, full response can be found here: http://ohnimus.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/contraception-the-us...

1 issue voters?

This country has a lot bigger problems than the daym morning after pill. Get a grip. The debt is 16.2 trillion, WWIII is around the corner and the collapse of the dollar is not to far behind the war. Please, don't be narrow minded and vote according to a single issue. If you are looking for a candidate that you agree with 100% run for office yourself, otherwise you'll never find that candidate.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

1-issue non voters

If I really was a 1-issue voter, any of these fellows (Mitt, Newt, or Rick) would do, because they all say that they are pro-life. I think that folks that are Ron Paul supporters that leave over this issue have a bit more depth than this one issue, or they would vote for a more mainstream candidate. For my part, I think that pro-life is about a lot more than the lives of unborn infants, like the lives of born in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Iran. There are a lot of things that trouble me. But I was starting to have real reservations when I mistakenly understood that he was pro-choice.

In the same way that many Ron Paul voters won't likely vote for another Republican when Ron Paul doesn't make the cut, I won't just vote for him because he is the best of the bad. I want to vote for him because he is good. There is a reason that we (Ron Paul supporters) are vocal proponents, when Mitt and Newt get shills for supporters. It's because we really believe in him. But the people that really get behind folks in this way have really strong opinions.

It's not unreasonable that someone would withdraw a vote over an issue like this.

But let me be clear, I think that this is an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of @michaelmalak.


(Please consider reading this whole reply before drawing your conclusion.)

I heard that passage (to which @michaelmalak referred), as I was listening to Dr. Paul’s book (Liberty Defined) only yesterday. I was taken aback. I immediately looked out across the web to see if there was anything more explanatory anywhere: something that might explain this seeming disparity in Paul’s thought.

I wrote to a couple of Christians that are of a similar mind to mine on the issue of abortion. (As an aside, my wife and I decided to stop using Ortho-Tri-Cyclen when we learned that it—along with many other BCP’s—could be an abortifacent. We have had three children since, and have lost two between our second and third. And while we—my wife particularly—are hurt by the loss of those two, we are very happy for the children that we have.) Anyway, we really take this issue seriously.

This did not seem like what I thought I knew of Ron Paul and his thought on abortion, but this was “straight from the horse’s mouth”. … I was quite reluctant, but quite ready to consider withdrawing my support.

I listened to the passage again, starting earlier in the chapter, and listening on past that portion. I heard it differently the second time. The first time, he seemed to say prescriptively, for those of you that must have an abortion, you can still get it this way: increased dose shortly after intercourse. The second time, I heard something else (something more in keeping with everything else that I have heard him say) it was descriptive with an appropriate follow-up question: how would you enforce abortion/murder laws on this particular category?

For the Christian who has given thought to the Ten Commandments, I put it in this category (almost like thought crimes): how would you enforce the commandment not to covet? How could you know (when someone was coveting)? What would you do? Likewise for the conscientious parent (which I would hope all parents would be), how do you keep your children from ever lying? If you have a really strong hunch but can’t prove that they are lying, I hope you would refrain from punishing them in the name of exemplifying justice: namely the notion of being innocent until proven guilty, since you don’t have sufficient evidence.

I think that this second view (the second reading for me) is the correct understanding of his intent, and is in keeping with the whole of his campaign and thought as I have heard it.

But I think I understand very well where @michaelmalak could have understood it the way he did, given my first hearing.

And for the record, I am increasingly a Jeffersonian Federalist, who looks for decreased federal intervention, in keeping with our federal compact. Pragmatically, Ron Paul would still be appealing even after the first interpretation. I hope I am not misreading @michaelmalak, when I say for him and for me, we are not looking at this pragmatically. We want someone we really believe in. That is the appeal of a Ron Paul for someone like me. I would never vote for anyone else in the Republican field. I don’t want to vote for the lesser of two evils. I want to vote for something good. But I was having real problems with endorsing him—knowing that he holds that view—even though I think returning this issue to the states would be better, and would very likely happen under his presidency.

I hope this is helpful, especially for @michaelmalak and @tmarsha4, whom I believe think largely similarly to me on this. (I hope I have not misunderstood/misrepresented either of your views.)

Needs Clarification

I have practically maxed out on donations to Ron Paul, and donated to Adam, Schiff, and more to Rand. I was so sad to hear how it seems he would himself prescribe the morning after pill for rape victims. Why just rape victims? I don't understand. Why not anyone? This is what makes me so sad.

I'm sorry, but "if you cannot defend life, how can you defend liberty?" A government that rejects the protection of those lives that need it the most, that are being attacked from another person, I am sorry...

I really hope Ron Paul comes out with some clarification and says how it does cause an abortion BUT that you cannot legislate it because you cannot prove a murder took place.

Helping to Restore the Republic.

Accidental post…

Check out the Constitution Party

I am with you MichaelMalak. I too revoked my support of Ron Paul after I heard what he said about the morning after pill during the 9/22 debate. However, we need not sit out this election. I have begun researching the Constitution Party. With them, you get what is good about Dr. Paul along with a strong pro life stance. They do not promote the use or distribution of abortifacient drugs. If their nominee really does give his or her full support to the party platform, s/he will get my vote.

jaseed's picture

Charity begins at home, morality at church...

and in your neighborhood, local enforcements of local laws, but:

"Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner."

It does bother me that he said this, I know Michael Malak somewhat from the Constitutionalists...offshoot of Constitution Party. I personally know someone of that mindset who is as strongly opposed to any easing of rules against homosexuals. My preference would be someone in The White House who would be absolutely 100% pro-LIFE and 100% anti-homosexual, sincerely from his bully pulpit. This all said, i do believe we need Ron Paul in that Oval Office with levers to that huge wrecking ball to the federal government and refer back to my subject line.

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson


"My preference would be someone in The White House who would be absolutely 100% pro-LIFE and 100% anti-homosexual..."

You've got a lot to learn about life, pal.

jaseed's picture

Feel Fine Where I Am, Velveeta


“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Sooooo....... you do realize you're insane right?

You're argument against voting for him is not his actual policy position, but on his own personal feelings on the issue?

I'm just curious, but did you honestly think that having a President who said 'Hey guys abortion is super super wrong even in cases of rape and incest' instead of 'Hey guys abortion is super super wrong,' would really make a difference in, oh... I dunno lets say a State like: California?

Letting states deal with abortion, means defacto legalization for everyone who can scrape up the bus fair to make it to a coastal city before they hit their 3rd trimester.

GREAT discussion but give it up, guys

Michael is gone, and based on his posting record, we won't be hearing from him again for months. Last topic posted was from February... and last post from August. He seems to pop in about twice a month, often with zingers. He hasn't participated in this excellent conversation at all.

Makes me wonder.........

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!

Don't let the door hit ya on

Don't let the door hit ya on the ass..

I wonder how much conviction

I wonder how much conviction people like this would show if it was their wife who was raped and they were faced with raising that child?

You want a straight libertarian interpretation? No other human being has the right to live off of another and that includes a fetus. As soon as you believe one is obligated to support another, well, you're a socialist.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Ron Paul is right you, can't regulate it...

I'm a woman. I'm Pro-LIFE and I do not believe
in abortion at all... but Ron Paul is correct
1) Get the Federal Government out of it
2) It should be a state issue
3) You can't regulate Morality... especially on the day after pill
4) He DOES NOT advocate Abortion; he's a baby doctor.
5) He's THE ONLY congressman or politician that goes to the Right To Life Rally EVERY year in DC.

I'd rather have Ron Paul then the other FAKES that are a bunch of liars on this issue; THEY can not do anything Federally about it... the best way is to get more congressmen and women to over turn it as a State issue and not a Federal issue and he WILL put constitutional Judges on the Supreme court - THAT is ALL you can ask from a President on this issue. Most IMPORTANTLY Ron Paul doesn't LIE!

"Many of us agree that you and I have no right to use coercion against people who don't owe us anything. The same prohibition applies to groups of people who constitute the government. The reason is simple: unjust acts do not become just when legalized. "

Can we stop commenting on this thread and let it die?

I know I'm defeating the purpose. but come on, i'm tired of seeing this.

If not here, where will you

If not here, where will you go? There is no other group that supports life and liberty such as us. I suggest you listen to Ron's explanation of this.

You'll never take me pot o' gold... or my freedoms! Ron Paul 2012!

Angry Santorum Contributor?

Every Liberty Supporter I've ever talked to or read comments from has some degree of real world knowledge and common sense. It is not the government's business to intervene and tell a rape victim that she can't make her own decision the morning after some ordeal with a scum bag. No one is more pro life than me, however, this is real life and out of the millions of adults, there will always be personal decisions that should not be interfered with by the government or some lone busy body with a personal morality problem. It's really no different than a typical Paul supporter's stance on policing the world. We say: stop sticking our fat nose into everyone's business! That is across the board, not on cherry picked issues. We are individualists whose very nature screams out to the world that we want to make our own decisions. It is obvious that the person who wrote the anti-support rant is both ignorant of reality, irrational and not a typical supporter of Liberty. Angry Santorum Contributor?
Perhaps. It's nothing, but it was so ridiculous that I had to put in my two cents.

So let me see if I get this straight

You are willing to throw the country under the bus for
one issue that will not even be an issue.

Ron Paul is Pro life but not the purist you hoped for...So just who are you planning on voting for ??
Jesus Christ..guess what he is not running !!
But if you want someone that comes the closest when it comes to honesty and integrity ..that man is Ron Paul.


I can't believe that a genuine RP supporter would become a turncoat over such a petty issue. If by chance someone really would, I'd think they'd just leave this forum quietly, not make a big show of it. Anyway, your post isn't going to change the minds of any true supporters.

Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

This is what I hate, people who claim to be for liberty, but they really aren't. When it comes to their issues, they are all for the biggest most massive government possible as long as that means whatever they want gets done. These people are complete hypocrites.

Even murder is only outlawed at the state level. Every state handles it differently. So why should abortion be any different? What people like Michael can't comprehend is that states rights is a far better liberty position than central control at the Federal Level ala Roe vs Wade! How can you see the tyranny of Roe vs Wade and not understand how that is where the real tyranny lies? How can you not understand that letting 50 states make their own choice is far better than a Federal mandate?

As far as the morning after pill, Paul explains it cannot be policed. Guys like Michael want a massive Federal expenditure for something which cannot be policed. At that point, as Dr. Paul explains, it's an individual moral choice and god will be the final arbiter. Michael doesn't understand that no amount of Federal expenditure will make a difference when there is such a demand combined with such difficulty in policing the matter just like the war on drugs.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

The Bible says life is in the blood

There is no blood at conception there is no life

Besides Ron Paul will help stop most abortions.
Ron Paul would push congress to define life, they would define life as beginning at conception


"Better than watching Geller bending silver spoons.
Better than witnessing new born nebulas in bloom.
She who sees from 'up high' smiles and surely sings.
Perspective pries her once weighty eyes and it
Gives you wings.

I haven't felt the way I feel today
In so long it's hard for me to specify.
I'm beginning to notice how much this feels
Like a waking limb... in pins and needles,
Nice to know you, good-bye"

"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"

I prayed for patience and.......

"Rape is a horrible thing - but still not the child's fault - life sometimes sucks - but that fact should not affect innocent life."

This is exactly why everyone thinks "Christian Republican Conservatives" are out of their minds. This position is just completely INSANE. A woman, being forcefully RAPED by some criminal, and then being FORCED into giving birth to something that was forced into her in complete and utter violation of her individual liberty is NOT ok.

I don't care where anyone stands on the issue of abortion, including Dr.Paul. If you can't agree that it's WRONG to force a rape or incest victim to have to give birth to the rapist's baby then something is wrong in your head. I don't even want to live on the same planet with people that hold that view honestly, much less in the same country or state or city.

I hope the Seasteading thing actually works so all the rapists and nutbags that support them raping females and forcing them to have the rapist/molestors babies can all go live together and start some sort of cult.

I am pro life

But see nothing wrong with the morning after pill. Those that say life begins at conception, we are talking about two cells at that point. By the time the fertilized ovum makes its way down the fallopian tube it has now become a total of 16 cells. This is not even a embryo let alone a fetus.

Many fertilized eggs never fully attach to the endometrium for a variety of reasons and are shed during menstruation. That is what this pill does. This is not an abortion since by preventing it from attaching the ovum never makes it to the embryo stage let alone a fetus.



Well michael, in a way its

Well michael, in a way its like "just war" from your bible.

If you choose not to stand behind the only man with unprecedented moral virtues, then you are thus casting your vote for all the other candidates. Whats worse in your christian eyes, eating a pill that may or may not stop a pregnancy? Or having your troops murdering men, women and children throughout the globe?

Grow up.

amen brother

These types of folks that have absolutely NO qualms with tossing members of my family into no-win wars while they drive around with Support our Troops stickers on their gas guzzling SUV's on the way to church really piss me off.

"I can't support Ron Paul because he thinks women should be able to prevent a rapist from getting the satisfaction of having their victim forced into having his baby." Really? REALLY??? How completely immoral, cruel and lacking of compassion can one person be??? If Jesus were here, He'd turn you into wine, and not the good stuff. He'd turn you into a bottle of mad dog 20/20 and pour you out on the curb in remembrance of all the rape victims of the world.