mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Abortion in America
Is Rand Paul Staking Out a Middle Ground in the Abortion Wars?

This week Senator and presidential hopeful Rand Paul sat down with David Axerold at the University of Chicago to discuss his positions on various political issues. The segment on abortion (clip above) has generated a lot of controversy, because it seemed to indicate that a President Paul would be reluctant to push pro-life legislation. He spoke of “two extremes” dominating the abortion conversation and the possibilities of “in between solutions.” Then he closed with a suggestion that most regulation would be inappropriate until public opinion moves decisively in one direction or the other.

The American people largely reside in the mushy middle on the abortion wars—they are okay with some regulations and restrictions, but not with a total ban. Neither party represents this moderate view very well. Democrats oppose any and all restrictions, including informed consent laws, third trimester bans, parental notification, and even clinic safety measures. Many social conservatives, on the other hand, continue to push the GOP to maintain a strong pro-ban line.

There is room for a politician to capture that middle ground, making a principled stand for the restrictions a majority currently supports while not pushing federal law past the consensus on this issue. It’s not clear yet if Paul intends to stake out that space—this clip seems to put him to the Left of it while earlier remarks he’s given seemed to put him to the Right. Either way, the American electorate would probably welcome a presidential nominee who speaks for the middle ground on this issue.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    It’s time somebody did! Neither extreme seems to understand that they can’t win the war that’s been going on since the Supreme’s terrible mistake of making it a Federal case. Let the States decide.

    • Breif2

      But some of them might make the wrong decision!


  • charlesrwilliams

    The middle ground is to put this issue back in the hands of state legislatures.

  • Charles Hurst

    The problem is Roe vs Wade shouldn’t have ever passed to begin with. Roe vs Wade was the first bout of anti reason that took this country. Illegal immigrant propagation, rampant
    divorce, gay marriage and descent from responsibility for anything followed in
    the decades following. Why not? We decided it was fine to stop a heartbeat.

    Think carefully—we decided to stop a heartbeat. Regardless of all of the arguments the scientific fact is it is a heartbeat. This is not a Christian perspective. It is a scientific one. We have no right to stop it. It is not just a woman’s body any longer unless her very
    life is in danger. And then and only then is it her choice. The rest is just a
    flee from responsibility.

    That’s what Roe vs Wade was about. It had nothing to do with reason any more than gay marriage or illegal immigration has anything to do with reason. It was a cheap way to avoid responsibility, largely cheered by men as well, and angry feminists who felt jaded that they were dealt with the body that was capable of motherhood.

    The ultimate anti reason. Abortion. And look how nicely the nation has fared since. We are falling much like Rome. Because that is the end result of immorality. So go ahead Mr. Progressive, keep celebrating your victories. My fiction states what will happen. We will finally
    collapse. Prophecy based on this inconvenient professor known as History. Who
    tends to repeat himself from his podium.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

    • Corlyss

      Not only was it wrongly decided, it was decided on the basis of an egregious violation of the long-standing tradition of what one is allowed to take judicial notice of.

  • Anthony

    Here is a middle ground solution. Keep abortion legal, but mount a massive campaign to convince people who aren’t completely sure they want to have children to use two forms of contraception. Such a campaign has the potential to drastically reduce the number of abortions in America.

    • Jim__L

      If you’re rational enough to remember a condom every time, you’re not doing it right.

  • gabrielsyme

    Ah, the incoherent “middle ground”. It may be where most voters are, but since when has the electorate been coherent?

  • Fred

    What middle ground could there possibly be? The fetus either is a human being or it is not. The law of the excluded middle (no pun intended) applies here. If it is a human being, then abortion is murder. Period. If it is not, then a woman has the right to do with it whatever she pleases. Period. All the evidence, of course, is that the fetus is, in fact, a human being. What is the middle ground on murder?

  • Bonnie-Clyde Barrow

    Religious conservatives..PLEASE tell us us all how forcing millions of low income, welfare sucking, gun hating democrats to have even more babies, instead of abortions, helps our families or our way of life. In a very short time the democrats will have a super majority everywhere….

    This will cost millions of us our 2A rights along with our way of life…..Please explain it to me so I can tell my kids why we did this to them

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service