One of the leading pro-life members of the United States Senate has won re-relection tonight. Senator Rand Paul easier cruised to victory over his Democrat opponent.
Pauldefeated Democrat Charles Booker and with 20% of the precincts reporting, Paul had 54% of the vote, while Booker had 46%.
Paul of Kentucky says the morality of abortion is very clear: it’s wrong to kill an unborn baby because the child is a living human being.
“I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being,” he told CNS News when asked.
The conservative web site asked the senator: “The Women’s Health Protection Act would legalize abortion nationwide. Is killing an unborn child moral?”
Paul referred CNS News to his statement, which is headlined, “Advocating for Sanctity of Life”
Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!
It states, “I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
“It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I have stated many times that I will always support legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. There are many ways we can work toward this ultimate goal and items we can hope to accomplish in the near term.”
After days of being a one-man thorn in the Democrats’ side, the Kentucky Republican pulled out an impressive win this year on a bill that could have had major consequences for the unborn. While everyone was in a rush to get more Russian sanctions out the door, Paul’s decision to slow things down may have saved lives in a lot more places than Ukraine.
“I’ve let my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I’ll stand up, even if it’s unpopular,” Paul explained on “Washington Watch.” And in this instance, it wasn’t so much that his objections were unpopular, it’s that too many senators were in a hurry to make a statement on Ukraine — without reading the fine print. “Most people [want to do] something to show our objection to [Vladimir] Putin’s aggression,” he agreed, but as part of this new wave of sanctions, Democrats wanted to overhaul the tool they’d use: the Global Magnitsky Act. Instead of just reauthorizing that popular piece of legislation, Joe Biden’s party wanted to water down the definitions for “human rights abuses.”
At first blush, Paul pointed out, maybe that doesn’t sound like a big deal. After all, they were only going to change the term from “gross” human rights abuses to “serious” human rights abuses. “You’d read that and say, ‘Well, yeah, we’re all against serious human rights abuses. We should punish people who do that.’” The problem is, he went on, that Democrats didn’t want to define what “serious human rights abuses” actually mean. And, as we all know from listening to the far-Left, they have all kinds of outrageous ideas about what constitutes a human right: free abortions, free college tuition, free housing, free health care, or transgender treatments.
Most Americans would be wildly opposed to their interpretations. And yet, under this new language that Democrats were promoting, a very liberal president of the United States could say, “We’re going to sanction pro-life countries for the ‘serious human rights violation’ of not allowing full-term abortions.” It was going to pass, giving radical administrations a new and powerful ideological weapon, “because of the emotions of the day,” Paul said. “And nobody was willing to stand up.”
