Ah, but Roe v. Wade already denies that 'right' in the last trimester!

The libertarian stance hinges entirely upon the point in time at which you want to grant the right to life to the tissue/fetus/baby. As soon as you recognize it as a human, the right to life and the non-agression principle kicks-in.

Dr. Paul is an Ob/Gyn, meaning you have to grant him full medical expertise on the subject. As a protestant christian, he personally opposes abortion, but as a constitutional scholar, he realizes that the constitution does not clearly define the point at which life begins.

Because of this, he argues that the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to determine where the mother's right to privacy and self-determination ends and where the rights of the offspring begins. Seen in this light, Roe vs. Wade overstepped the constitutional authority of the SCOTUS.

Far from being a dogmatist or a fringe candidate on the abortion issue, his position is actually the pragmatic one; namely that because there is no national consensus on where life begins and because the constitution does not explicitly define that point, or grant that decision-making power to the Federal Government, it is a matter to be left to the States, as per the 10th Amendment! (All powers not granted to the Federal Government are left to states and individuals)

I am not aware of Dr. Paul advocating that the Federal Government outlaw this. Can you cite legislation or quotes? Even if he did, it would not come close to being a deal-breaker for me, because his Big Issues are so much, much more important.

The Constitution does not authorize Federal taxes to be spent on religious institutions or initiatives. What evidence is there that Dr. Paul has supported this?

Dr. Paul *has* promoted tax credits as a way to allow individuals to reduce their Federal Income Tax burden in some cases. His reasoning here is that the FIT on wages is of debatable legality. He has also proposed bills to grant tax breaks to donors of embryonic stem cells from placentas or spontaneous abortions. You can look at this as a subsidy if you want, but he sees it as a way to give people a choice to retain some of the money they rightfully should be able to keep anyway.

Agree 100% I do wish to clear up misunderstandings though. Ron Paul is moving beyond the stage where they ignore him and moving into the stage where they begin to ridicule him. Insofar as I can help to clear up distortions or misconceptions, I'm all too happy to do-so.

Cheers,