Rebuttal of Attacks on Paul Ryan

1. Paul Ryan did vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Bill.  Republicans opposed the first version of the bill citing flaws in the language which would

  • Allow businesses to continue to discriminate against women by stalling .
  • Allow women to file frivolous law suits.
  • Allow  the prosecution of  business executives who had nothing to do with past discriminatory policies that were no longer in place.

The law was a direct answer to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck, as a lower court had ruled.

The bill was reintroduced and passed with cloture. That is without debate.It passed with the loop holes in the law still there.

Read the factual history of Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

2. “If the unborn are live humans with unalienable rights, then they don’t automatically become something else just because of a pregnancy’s circumstances or the specific technique that endangers them. “- Paul Ryan.  He opposes the scare tactic used by the “Pro-Choice” lobby of “If you don’t kill your baby, you’ll die”.  The Pro Choice stance leaves only one choice, abortion. How ironic.  Ryan’s stance focuses on the Real Choice of Life OR Death of the unborn child. Women should have Real Choice on what they do with their own body.  Ryan’s position offers that. Even in the cases of rape and incest the mother to be should be informed on the ramifications of allowing the birth of her child, even if she doesn’t want to keep it.

3. Paul Ryan does oppose federal funding of  Planned Parenthood. Under Obamacare, religion based health care organization MUST provide abortion even in cases that violate religious doctrine. Is the Left in the pool or not. It’s wrong to have religion involved in government but government can dictate  what religions can or cannot do. Ryan’s  position supports the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion. In addition, defunding Planned Parenthood allows for the private sector to assume that role limiting government intrusion into private life and saving tax dollars to boot.

4. Democrats IMPLY that Ryan’s support of the “Personhood” definition would make abortion homicide and therefore illegal. Wow. Isn’t that parsing words?

“In philosophy, the word “person” may refer to various concepts. According to the “naturalist” epistemological tradition, from Descartes through Locke and Hume, the term may designate any human (or non-human) agent which: (1) possesses continuous consciousness over time; and (2) who is therefore capable of framing representations about the world, formulating plans and acting on them.[7]

This allows fetuses to be determined as “Non-People”. It also allows certain machines (like Curiosity on Mars) be defined as “People”.

Conversely, it allows for humans who lack the ability to think rationally (by disability or age, both too young or too old) to be labeled “non-human” and be deposed of like an unwanted fetus. Once again, democrats are for something unless they’re against something. Ryan’s position is all or nothing. Either you’re human from conception until death or your not. Ryan sides with Life and Human Rights. By insisting that Human Life begins at conception he is affirming Human Rights. By the Left insisting that Life does not begin at conception, the door to Euthanasia is left wide open. Please refer to the Death Option in Obamacare. Yes it’s still in there.

5.  Ryan co sponsored the Sanctity of Life Act.

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7] [8] “without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency.”[9] By contrast, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 amended 1 U.S.C. § 8 to provide that legal personhood includes all Homo sapiens who are “born alive”.[10]

Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. [11] Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.[12][13]

The Act does not exclude in vitro fertilization but protects the fetus produced in such manner. This does  prevents creation of disposable “people” for use in medical research.


When you look at why Ryan has these positions you find a passion for Human Rights and Life. The attacks from the Left simplify and distort these positions in order to instill fear in the uninformed voting public.  They would rather Demonize rather than Debate.

Furthermore, I find it disturbing that Google search results present only the Leftist position on Ryan’s statements. While I hope this is because of the shrill response in the media opposing the Romney/Ryan ticket, I hope it’s not Google censuring it’s search results.

As the election nears we can be assured that the Left with continue attacks. Whether on tax returns or women’s rights. The tactic is clear. Demonize rather than debate because in a fair debate the Left would lose every time.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.