Ron Paul touts 'pro-life' credentials in new TV commercial
October 14th, 2011
11:02 AM ET
3 years ago

Ron Paul touts 'pro-life' credentials in new TV commercial

Washington (CNN) - Rep. Ron Paul is once again doing what the other Republican presidential campaigns apparently are not doing: Spending big bucks to run commercials on broadcast and cable television.

This time the longtime congressman from Texas is going up with an ad titled "Life" in which the narrator says "Dr. Ron Paul: More than four thousand babies delivered. A man of faith committed to protecting life."

"This whole notion of life not being valuable, just was something I was never able to accept," says Paul in the 60 second spot.

The campaign says the ad will begin airing Friday on broadcast and cable television in Iowa, and on radio in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, the four states that vote first in the primary and caucus calendar. The campaign says the ad buy is around a million dollars and that the spots will run for weeks.

Paul's campaign recently went up with a sixty second ad that touted Paul's work supporting military veterans

Paul's new ad buys stands in contrast with the lack of paid commercials being put up on the airwaves or cable by the other campaigns, including those of Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the fundraising leaders among the GOP candidates.

This appears to be the fifth time the Paul campaign has gone up with a paid ad buy. In July, Paul ran a commercial in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada highlighting his opposition to raising the nation's debt ceiling.

In mid August, just three days after nearly winning a crucial Republican presidential straw poll in Ames, Iowa, Rep. Paul went up with a television commercial in Iowa and New Hampshire that grouped Perry, Romney, and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota with President Barack Obama and the top two Democrats in Congress.

In early September, the Paul campaign said they spent six figures to go up with an ad in Iowa and New Hampshire that contrasted Paul's support for Ronald Reagan in 1980 to Perry's support of Al Gore's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination eight years later. Perry was a conservative Democrat at the time.

- Follow Paul Steinhauser on Twitter: @PSteinhauserCNN


Filed under: 2012 • Abortion • Ron Paul
soundoff (48 Responses)
  1. Funksta

    @Rudy, from 11:19 am.

    Ron Paul was NOT AGAINST the civil rights act... only ONE portion of the bill that took away PRIVATE property rights. The Jim Crow LAWS (implying enacted by GOVERNMENT) enforced segregation. If anything the Jim Crow laws prevented PRIVATE individuals from ALLOWING the same facilities for blacks and whites. It was THE PORTION of the civil rights act that REPEALED the Jim Crow laws that was GOOD. I'm sure most people wanted to let blacks into their stores but were prevented by LAW. Now, the government can tell you who can, and who cannot come into your private home or business because of their skin color? Racism cannot survive in our society... we should enforce the law equally. If a store were to prevent blacks from shopping there, I, as well as most of society, would BOYCOTT them and they would go out of business. You can vote with your wallet to enact societal change when the government doesn't take away your vote.

    October 14, 2011 12:09 pm at 12:09 pm |
  2. Thinker

    Hey everyone, he actually said we shouldn't let the uninsured die. Thanks!

    October 14, 2011 12:11 pm at 12:11 pm |
  3. Alex

    You guys are missing the point. Ron Paul would still leave the decision on abortion up to the states! He would not interfer with states rights on this issue, he has said this countless times.

    Also unlike Obama he wont interfer with states rights on medical marijuana, do you guys see what is going on in California right now? Obama's administration is shutting down dispensaries and trying people in court to go to jail for years because they worked in the medical marijuana industry. This is an outrage and Ron Paul would stop this.

    Also Ron Paul never said he would let the person without insurance die, he just said it would be better if the states helped out when someone didn't have insurance as opposed to the Government which makes the health care costs go way up. Have you ever seen a bill from the emergency room nowdays, it is insanely high. Getting Government out of the health care industry may just help ramp the prices down for all of us if someone makes the choice not to have insurance.

    October 14, 2011 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm |
  4. James

    Wow, look at all the hard core democrats coming to bash Ron Paul. Do you unimformed know that if a pregnant woman gets killed in a car accident caused by someone else then that person would be charged with two homicides? Make sense of that one. Ron Paul is for protecting all life, even the unborn. Stop with the goofy talk of controlling a woman's body. If a woman doesn't want kids then use birth control. They even have a morning-after pill for those women that are too stupid to use birth control. Too many use abortion as a form of birth control. If woman do not want the government to have any control of their bodies then how about they start controlling them themselves.

    October 14, 2011 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  5. Friend

    Haha Dave, he's not impregnating them and forcing them to give birth. He's not forcing anyone to do anything. He's saying he believes that abortion is wrong, but it's not the federal government to outlaw it.

    Cf, He is pro-life and pro-liberty. This means he has an opinion but will not make a federal law against state's rights. It's really not a complicated idea.

    Also, this idea that he wants uninsured people to die is just wrong. He said that people should WILLINGLY help these people. He does not want the government forcing people to take care of each other. There are billions of people uninsured around the entire world. Should the government pay for their insurance or let them die?

    October 14, 2011 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  6. Lynn

    People need to actually READ the article. He personally does not believe in abortion, and he wants to stop late term abortions where the fetus is at the stage where it can feel pain! He is NOT against a woman's right to chose, you just have to chose before you have a baby and not just a little clumping of cells. I don't see what's wrong with that. Can someone please explain?

    October 14, 2011 12:17 pm at 12:17 pm |
  7. Brian

    I love how you people say he wants freedom so he's a hypocrite for being pro-life. It's NOT about taking a choice away from the woman. It's about giving the unborn child the right to live. What happened to their rights? What gives a woman the right to decide if that baby lives or dies? The woman has the right to give up the baby once it is born. The child deserves the right to be born.

    October 14, 2011 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  8. David Rairigh

    It is my guess that Dr. Paul has done far more charity work than many of those posting here about how he must be cruel and selfish. Yes, he is pro-life but does not believe that the federal government has the power to declare abortion legal or illegal. He believes, as many people do, that the decision should be up to the states. No, he doesn't support letting someone die. He simply prefers people to help other people through private charity, the way it was done all the way up to the 60's. He's not racist but does believe that private property, even if its a business, is private. This means that if the owner wants to be stupid so be it, let the owner be stupid. He fights to end the "war on drugs", a war that has been disproportionately targeting minorities for 40 years. The sad thing is that it is the American public that has strayed from the path of liberty and freedom and all he has been trying to do for 30 years is get us back on that path. For this he is ridiculed and harangued by both the ignorant and the people who prey on them. The same people who are perpetuating the destruction of our currency and proselytizing the nanny state.
    The truth is this: the American people will most likely get the government that they so richly deserve.

    October 14, 2011 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm |
  9. B

    Continuing the war on Women’s health to the detriment of Legislation that will produce JOBS..

    Republicans endless Divisive politics to muddy the waters of – real National Priorities for Americans.

    October 14, 2011 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |
  10. elKirko

    Yes, Ron Paul would get the FED off the states back and let the people decide in each state. However, Ron does not support abortion. It is more of a Constituion stand.... To obey and protect the Constitution at all costs, if you will...

    Don't forget October 19th... Black This Out money BOMB . Donate on this day.

    October 14, 2011 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm |
  11. Tony in Maine

    I'm assuming that he checked their insurance policies to make sure birth was covered. We can't have charity. these people have to learn personal responsibility.

    October 14, 2011 12:25 pm at 12:25 pm |
  12. jeb

    @Funksta

    But how will i know racism is wrong if the government doesn't tell me it is??.... As with every social paradigm shift, the private sector and its citizens were miles ahead of the government when it came to desegregation. The government just jumped on the band wagon

    October 14, 2011 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  13. Canuck

    Rupublicans only care about you when you're still in the womb.... Once you're born they're quite happy to send you off to fight in one of their pointless wars, deny you healthcare and social security and so on.

    October 14, 2011 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  14. sunpacific

    Protector of life? Right. Paul's Libertarian utopia is one of environmental destruction, no checks & balances, and zero regulation: if you think the money-grabbing banksters were wild before, just wait till Paul sets them free! Paul's former campaign manager, Kent Snyder, died from pneumonia as a result of not having medical insurance coverage. No, he didn't choose to not have medical insurance: he was turned down because of a pre-existing condition. This is what medical insurance companies get away with and, with Paul's vision, all regulations including the FDA will be eliminated. "Let them die" should be his campaign strategy. So, if this is the kind of "utopia" you care to partake in, vote for Ron Paul in 2012! Protector of life indeed.

    October 14, 2011 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  15. Old School

    @ The Real Tom Paine – You're an idiot. Ron Paul never said to let those who are uninsured die. Did you even see the video? It was the people in the audience who made that comment. He believes everyone should be cared for and healed. However, those who make poor choices should be responsible for their choices by paying their own bills and not dumping it on the tax payers.

    October 14, 2011 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  16. Brian

    Canuck – you clearly don't know Ron Paul at all. He has been against the wars since day one, and unlike our current liar-in-chief, Ron Paul would bring all of the troops home, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but South Korea, Japan, Germany and other countries where we have troops stationed for no reason.

    October 14, 2011 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  17. Pyrometman

    @Canuck, You said: "Rupublicans only care about you when you're still in the womb.... Once you're born they're quite happy to send you off to fight in one of their pointless wars, deny you healthcare and social security and so on."

    Then you should take a closer look at Ron Paul as he is against these senseless wars. He would never deny anyone healthcare, he just doesn't want the federal government involved. People can get healthcare even if they don't get it from government. I am really disappointed in so many of my fellow citizens getting caught in this trap that government has to provide everything in their lives.

    October 14, 2011 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  18. cf

    The excuses presented here by his defenders are laughable.

    "Dr Paul is against abortion, but he does not believe the federal government should outlaw it. That's a matter for the states."

    So, it's wrong if the federal government takes a way a woman's liberty and rights, but it's okay if the state government does? What "Dr" Paul and his supporters fail to realize is, NOBODY should be able to take away our liberties and rights! Not the federal government OR the state, either!

    How can you say your stand for liberty when you support the states' ability to TAKE AWAY people's liberties?

    October 14, 2011 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  19. Old School

    @ Brian RE: Ron Paul on abortion. Right on!

    October 14, 2011 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  20. Dave

    Ron Paul does not want to force women to do anything. he wants to get the federal government out of that decision making and leave it to states and local government which can be better controlled by the PEOPLE. plus his views are pro life and he doesn't want sick people to die because of insurance. He does want the government out of healthcare because it drives the cost of treatments up, causing much more harm to many more people. we need to fire most of the government and thats how to cut spending, then you dont have to worry about taxes being raised. no one understands the economy or the constitution better than Ron Paul.
    MSM is a joke, think for youself, question authority.

    October 14, 2011 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  21. Pyrometman

    @ThinkAgain, You said:

    "This is the same guy who said that if an uninsured person gets cancer, we should let him die, because life is about taking chances and sometimes you lose.

    How he can be "pro-life" is beyond me...."

    What you said simply isn't true. Ron Paul never said "let him die". You are parroting a lie made up by the liberal crowd/media. Please show us all, with a real reference that Ron Paul said this.

    October 14, 2011 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  22. Pyrometman

    @cf, You said:

    "So where are all the Ron Paul fanatics who always run to his defense and say "No, he's not pro-life! Dr Paul believes everyone should have the choice to do what they want! That's liberty!"

    With ads like this, "Dr" Paul is either a flipflopper, a liar, or pro-life. Take your pick."

    Ron Paul is Pro-Life. If never heard him say or read anything to the contrary.

    October 14, 2011 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  23. Pyrometman

    @Dave, You said:

    "Ron Paul is a hyprocrite like the other Republicans. Forcing women to bear children against their will is the worst government intrusion possible, and any REAL libertarian is pro-choice for that reason."

    Not a hypocrite, he has always held a Pro-Life position. Have you ever asked yourself why a woman (and her male partner) decide to have sex without taking the precautions to avoid pregnancy when they don't want a child? I've never understood why people think that life can just be thrown away.

    October 14, 2011 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
1 2