Candidate Positions

Original source: http://tancredo.house.gov/issues/issue_righttolife.shtml

Throughout my public career I have always maintained a deeply held conviction that abortion compromises the sanctity of human life. Tragically, our nation has ignored our founding principle that all individuals have a right to life and in doing so has failed to protect the most vulnerable among us, unborn boys and girls. I do not support federal funds going to Planned Parenthood or any other organization that promotes abortion. I will continue to do everything in my power to protect the defenseless, and to end the practice of abortion.

Original source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

Original source: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/27/94535.shtml

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney pledged not to change the state’s abortion laws, despite his personal opposition. But his veto Monday of an emergency contraceptives bill and his comments in recent months have fueled speculation among critics that Romney is hardening his opposition to abortion and other sensitive social issues to gain support from GOP conservatives.

Romney says his anti-abortion views have “evolved and deepened” since he took office, colored in part by the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

“In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead - to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited,” Romney wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday’s Boston Globe.

He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the “one size fits all” precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

Original source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aUJWyGkt_ZAg

Abortion

Huckabee, a Baptist minister, spoke with more certainty on an issue that has defined him as a social conservative, his opposition to abortion.

He said he would be willing to sign a bill like the one passed by the South Dakota legislature that outlawed abortion except when a mother’s life is at stake to create a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Huckabee said the abortion argument gets too heated at times.

“I’ve been guilty of overcharging the rhetoric when it comes to that issue,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean my convictions have changed.”

Original source: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070419a.html

Another Democratic 2008 hopeful and former U.S. senator, Mike Gravel of Alaska, declared himself “disappointed in today’s ruling or any ruling that places restrictions on reproductive freedom.”

 Original source: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/4/18/12734/6449

“I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman’s right to choose.”

 Original source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/vagov/ads/ad15.htm

As governor, I won’t ask taxpayers to pay for abortions. I won’t support late-term abortion. And I’ll make sure parents are involved whenever a minor child needs to face the terrible decision that abortion involves.”

 Original Source - http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/richardson_calls_supreme_court_decision_on_abortion_ban_a_dangerous_step_ba

SANTA FE, NM- New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s today joined with Americans across the country in criticizing the US Supreme Court decision in the Federal Abortion Ban cases.

“Today the Supreme Court took a dangerous step backward in regard to Americans’ rights to personal choice and privacy,” said Governor Richardson.  “In doing so, the Court disregarded the opinion of experienced and respected medical professionals who oppose the ban because there are no exceptions protecting women’s health.  While not unexpected, I believe this unfortunate decision is a clear signal that the Supreme Court is opening the door to further challenges to personal medical decisions between patients and doctors that should not involve the government.”

Governor Richardson has consistently opposed any attempt to limit women’s reproductive rights, and as a Congressman voted against similar proposed bans and restrictions on a number of occasions.

“I am concerned, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated so clearly in her dissenting opinion, that this vote could be the beginning of ‘an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court’,” added the Governor.  I sincerely hope that is not the case.”