Last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced “The Life at Conception Act,” a personhood measure that would outlaw abortions by declaring that “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward.” “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” Paul said in a statement. Anti-abortion activists have tried to advance similar measures across the nation.

But on Tuesday, during an appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room, Paul — who is said to be eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — seemed to waver from his belief that all abortion is tantamount to killing human life and should be illegal. Asked if the measure offers exceptions for rape or incest victims, the Tea Party star admitted that it includes “thousands of exceptions” and explained that medical decisions “in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family” — free of government interference:

BLITZER: Just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother is that right?

PAUL: I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different. Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother…. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to, but I think it is important we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family and physician. [...]

BLITZER: It sounds like you believe in some exceptions.

PAUL: Well, there is going to be like I say thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved so I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law let’s say people came more to my way of thinking there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.

Watch it:

Paul describes himself as pro-life and has called on Congress to “end abortion on demand once and for all” and overturn Roe v. Wade. But in the answer above, he almost seems to adopt a pro-choice frame, inadvertently making the case for why the right wing’s efforts to declare a fetus a person (and outlaw abortion) undermines women’s health care and well being and invades the doctor/patient relationship.

Two more states are considering bills that would prevent whistleblowers from exposing cruel or unsafe practices in factory farms, joining five other states with similar “ag gag” bills. If passed, the pending legislation in Tennessee and California would require that evidence of animal abuse be turned over to law enforcement authorities within 24 to 48 hours.

Such bills are touted — and, in some cases, sponsored — by agriculture industry officials as a lawful attempt to stop animal cruelty in farming operations. But they actually undermine advocates’ work to develop animal cruelty or food safety cases against the agricultural industry.

And it turns out the real basis for the bills has its origins in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative think tank that has been behind such legislative pushes as “stand your ground” gun laws, voter ID laws and laws mandating states teach climate change denial in schools. Several of the lawmakers who are pushing ag gag laws have agriculture industry ties and ties to ALEC — nearly one in four Iowa lawmakers who voted for Iowa’s ag gag law, for example, are members of ALEC.

In 2002, ALEC introduced a piece of mock legislation titled the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act, which labels people who interfere with any animal operations “terrorists” and made it illegal for anyone to enter “an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner.” ALEC began pushing the legislation in 2004, and several of the bills currently being considered borrow language from AETA — Indiana’s bill aims to keep farming operations “free from the threat of terrorism and interference from unauthorized third persons,” for instance. And ALEC continues to support these bills, as an ALEC spokesman told the AP:

“At the end of the day it’s about personal property rights or the individual right to privacy,” said spokesman Bill Meierling. “You wouldn’t want me coming into your home with a hidden camera.“

In fact, these proposed laws aren’t about personal property or privacy rights: they’re about consumers’ rights to know where their food comes from versus the agriculture industry’s desire to protect itself from negative press. Undercover videos have played a key role in exposing cruelty in some of the nation’s most well-known agriculture companies, and videos of sows crammed in gestation crates helped garner enough public outcry that McDonald’s announced it would phase-out gestation crates from its supply chain. But ag gag laws that require videos and photos to be immediately turned over to law enforcement, instead of delivered to the press, makes it doubtful that the public — the people who are consuming the meat, eggs and milk from these factory farms — will ever see them.

Six states already have ag gag laws on the books, and these laws have led to a chilling effect on advocacy groups’ investigations. If these new bills are passed, they would further close off the agriculture industry from the public eye — and we’ll have ALEC to partially thank for that.

On Election Day 2012, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure B, an ordinance “requiring producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit” and for “adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts.” Porn producers, who have consistently opposed the measure, vowed to fight it tooth and nail. But as it turns out, one group is ready to fight back.

On Monday, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) — an advocacy and lobbying outfit that has pushed for cheaper HIV medications and greater public health protections for HIV-positive Americans — became the first group to call out the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health over its allegedly lax enforcement of Measure B since its passage. The foundation lodged an official complaint with the County “after receiving an anonymous letter with an accompanying videotape filmed by someone on an Immoral Productions set” depicting unsafe sex practices and reviewing material on the production company’s website that also depicted intercourse without a condom.

For the well-funded advocacy group, this is just the latest skirmish in a decade-long battle. AHF president Michael Weinstein has spearheaded efforts to instill the same workplace safety and public health standards on straight porn sets as are already enforced in most gay pornography productions. Under his leadership, the AHF filed suit — to no avail — to make Los Angeles-produced pornography a “condom-only” enterprise; pushed for a citywide L.A. ordinance to the same effect; and spent over $1.6 million in its ultimately successful 2012 campaign to pass the more expansive, countywide Measure B. As he told L.A. Weekly in 2010, “AHF doesn’t give up on an issue, and we’re not going to give up on this.”

It appears that Weinstein and his group plan to follow through on that promise in the face of a combative Los Angeles adult entertainment industry and concerns over the Public Health Department’s enforcement prowess. “We’re putting them to the test,” Weinstein told the Los Angeles Times. “If democracy means something in L.A. County — if porn producers and county supervisors are not above the law — then they will enforce it.”

AHF and fellow public health advocacy organizations certainly have their work cut out for them. Trade groups associated with the multibillion dollar L.A. porn industry have promised to litigate the measure, citing freedom of speech concerns. This argument could potentially stand up in court — but only if the industry’s claims that it sufficiently tests all of its performers for sexually transmitted infections are true. An independent study by AHF that was published in the December Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases presents plenty of evidence to suggest that they are not, as “roughly a third of the 168 adult film actors who participated in the research project were found to have a previously undiagnosed STD.”