Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul was an OGBYN for many decades and has delivered over 4000 babies. On his campaign website is the following strong statement:
"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."
Dr. Paul has been an outspoken supporter of the right to life. Immediately after the 2nd GOP debate on May 15th, Dr. Paul defended the pre-born on national TV to Alan Colmes by rhetorically asking, "If you can't protect life, how can you protect liberty?" He also stated, "A fetus is alive, it's human, it has legal rights. If you kill it, you have comitted an act of agresssion."
Dr. Paul has authored and sponsered several pieces of legislation over the years to advance the pro-life cause. But to understand what is unique about Dr. Paul in this regard requires some perspective.
First, it is important to realize that most GOP politicians have no desire or incentive to advance the pro-life agenda beyond mere rhetoric. It is just too useful of a political device.
Ask yourself, "When has any GOP leader gone to the mat and risked significant political capital over this issue?" They mostly utter poll-tested pabulum to the faithful and move on.
A famous trick is when they claim to support a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. Don't fall for this ruse. Politicians often support constitutional amendments knowing full well that they have no chance of passing. Thus they get to posture without risk.
If these guys really were concerned over the issue, they would actually make it a priority regardless of political risk. For an example of how determined political action might look, recall the indecent eagerness with which President Bush and Congressional leaders twisted arms and doled-out bribes to pass CAFTA and massively expand Medicare. Even right now, note how Bush is willingly alienating his rapidly shrinking base by his repeated efforts to grant amnesty for illegals and to subordinate America into a North American Union.
The contrast in effort makes it abundantly clear: The GOP leadership USES pro-lifers. And like a battered mate, social conservatives keep coming back for more.
Contrast this with Dr. Paul's record. Instead of playing political games, he has repeatedly introduced legislation that would abolish Roe v. Wade by using the powers granted to Congress under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove the issue from the jurisdiction of activist federal courts. For a recent example, see "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007".
The beautiful aspect of this approach is that it can achieve significant results with only a majority vote in the Congress and a signature by the President. This is politically possible, unlike a Constitutional amendment.
Another benefit to this approach is that it uses a tool already contained in the Constitution to address the issue. But to say that the Constitution must be amended in order to address the issue suggests that the Constitution is flawed or to blame, which is obviously not true.
Most suiters of the religious right vote will say they are against Roe v. Wade, but Ron Paul has done something about it -- something concrete that actually has a chance of suceeding. Yes, that means some states could still choose to allow abortion. But many more will choose to outlaw it. For information on why this trade-off is the best alternative for the pro-life movement (the principle of federalism), see this statement from Dr. Paul.