Starchild wrote:
SC) Apparently Ron Paul didn't just voice support for abstinence funding at
this forum, he actually voted in favor of it in 2001:
http://capwiz.com/zpg/e4/cinfo/?id=153130 (SC
First, that vote was in 2007, not 2001.
Second, that was a vote against a bill that extended Title V abstinence
education funding for another two years. However, evangelicalnews.org said
<http://www.evangelicalnews.org/indiv_pr.php?pr_id=9146> at the time:
EN) Part of the children's health legislation passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives Aug. 1 extends Title V abstinence education funding for
another two years but expands the funding to include "comprehensive
sex-education" programs, which already are heavily funded and too often
promote premarital sex.
The bill, passed by the House 225-204, greatly increases federal funding for
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, although issues of concern to
conservatives -- such as promoting sexual abstinence among youth and
defending unborn children -- are not protected in the legislation.
The Title V language of the bill includes "medical accuracy" requirements
that the pro-family National Abstinence Education Association says are
hostile to present abstinence education programs. The new language also will
grant funding only to those programs that have measurable success in
reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates. (EN
I doubt you can find a single instance of Paul ever voting for a bill that
funds abstinence education, because he's widely known for never voting for
federal expenditures that are not authorized by the Constitution.
Brian Miller wrote:
BM) Our libertarian Republican hero pledged to significantly increase
federal spending on "abstinence education." (BM
Challenged to provide "a quote and context", Miller merely quoted media
reports (always known for their accuracy in characterizing the libertarian
perspective):
BM) <http://tinyurl.com/3btet8> http://tinyurl.com/3btet8: "Self-described
"values voters" gathered here Monday to grill Republican presidential
candidates, but the forum was most notable for its empty lecterns and its
unanswered questions. [...] They all vowed to increase funding for
abstinence education, to veto hate crimes legislation and to oppose
embryonic stem cell research. " (BM
I went to track down this alleged "vow" by Paul, and the first thing I found
was 20 minutes' worth of YouTube videos that are apparently every word that
Paul spoke during the debate:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DiWSK6sDAy8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fh9obU0HJts
Very early into my viewing, I started to transcribe some of the defiantly
libertarian things Paul said to this "values voter" audience, but I quickly
realized I'd be transcribing almost every word he said. I defy Mr. Miller
or anybody else to watch these two videos in their entirety and then say
Paul is not libertarian.
So to find this bit about abstinence education funding, I started working my
way through the entire 3-hour debate video at http://www.afa.net/debate/.
The abstinence topic comes at about 109 tedious minutes in, where the
question is: "In the interest of fairness and effectiveness, will you bring
abstinence education funding onto equal ground with contraceptive-based
education?" "Yes" is a perfectly acceptable answer for a libertarian like
Paul who would surely eliminate both kinds of education funding.
Thus yet another smear aimed at Ron Paul is wiped away by the facts. I'm
sure Starchild will immediately apologize for doubting Paul here, but I'm
not holding my breath for Miller to do likewise.
P.S. By the way, stupidest moment I saw in the debate goes to Duncan Hunter
at about 92 minutes in. He cited the prayers at the 1787 Constitutional
convention to prove that the Founders did not think the Constitution
prevents government officials from doing things like displaying the Ten
Commandments in government offices. Hunter apparently thinks the Founders
had a time machine, because the First Amendment was not passed until 1791.
