Yes it does. It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties. He could build a much stronger coalition among civil libertarians if he were more consistent in his beliefs about the extent to which the government can monitor and control the people who give it power.

>> It calls into question his motivations when it comes to civil liberties.

Only if you accept a priori an answer to the core issue which is debated in the abortion issue: whether an unborn baby should be protected as a human life.

Nobody argues that government is invasive if it forbids stabbing a toddler to death behind closed doors. People do argue that one may stab a fetus to death behind closed doors.

The point of contention is not privacy, but the definition of human life. Pretending that the issue is already settled even as you argue for a particular policy is either naive or disingenuous.

If you honestly believe life begins at conception and should be protected, you believe the civil rights issue at hand is the right to life of the unborn, which may, in your moral estimation, supersede a woman's reproductive rights.

A person acting against that belief in order to satisfy your own personal beliefs would be a hypocrite, no?

My overall point is there is no conflict in accepting his good faith position that you agree with while rejecting his other good faith position you don't agree with.

Exactly!