Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
"good-faith views"........"kept out of the matter" That is political cowardice.
At the very least the Libertarians would stop all government funded abortion. They want the government out of the matter completely. The only alternative is government by force.
Ultimately one must decide if the government should rightly exist only to both defend and litigate matters of property rights (wherein all rights are defined to be property rights, and all rights are inherently and inalienably possessed by each sovereign individual, with there existing no such thing as a collective right), or if government should exist to legislate and enforce literally everything, ultimately including morality itself. And if a person has a right to their own property, that must include their very being and existence (life itself), since if stripped of everything else one at least possesses ownership of the living and breathing self.
It is up to the individual alone to selectively sacrifice rights, and if ones morality leads them to make such a sacrifice, that is their free and rightful choice. To this end one must be very careful as to the morality they exhibit in the presence of their children. Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6). This is a responsibility and sacrifice for the individual to decide, and not the government.
A proper government also has no power to grant privileges, as each and every privilege granted must be to the benefit of one's property while simultaneously being to the detriment of another's property. The privilege of granting an abortion at taxpayer expense (just as for granting medical care, retirement care, food assistance, living assistance, etc...) is a clear violation of property rights.
Once we agree to give up property rights in return for mere privileges, we start down a slippery slope toward totalitarianism, either from the right or from the left (this part matters little to not at all), with the ultimate end result of totalitarianism being the same no mater which side of the descending left/right slope we permit the government to follow. This is a reflection of, as well as a consequence of cowardice. One of the Founders recognized as much and stated that "Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither". This statement did not say 'those from the left who are willing ...' or 'those from the right who are willing...'.
The ultimate choice we have as sovereign individuals is to have government respect property rights, or to have it not respect them (and instead grant privileges). As a nation we are very far down the road of having abrogated away our sovereignty and our inalienable rights in return for granted privileges. This all reminds me of the Biblical case of the Hebrews demanding that they be given a King to rule over them as for all of the other nations they witnessed, and suffering from that point forward the full consequences of their demand.
Perhaps the most primary visible witness to the fact of our abrogation of rights to privileges is the social security card.
And to bring this into the focus of the thread, it is my opinion that the fear that Ron Paul might speak to some of the matters which I have discussed above is the reason why the Republicans abjectly fear and despise him, and why you will not hear him speak at the convention.