Monday, June 11th, 2007...3:14 pm
Ron Paul on abortion
stmachiavelli wrote:
Roe v. Wade is a terrible decision. It goes beyond bad.
But nothing Ron has done has worked towards changing that. Nothing. We know from another commenter that Ron doesn’t support, vote for, or sponsor legislation that he doesn’t actively support or write for. From this we can infer that his stance on abortion vs. states rights is pretty clear.
His belief in the wrongness of abortion outweighs his belief in the right for the states to decide.
To which I replied:
I think you and Paul are in agreement on abortion. Yes, he’s pro-life, but he doesn’t think it should be a matter decided at the Federal level:
http://yellowisthecolor.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/my-problem-with-ron-paul/
“Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Euthanasia/pro-life_politics-ron_paul.htm
“The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Yet modern America seeks a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.”
Its all well and good to say such things. It is, and I’ve found and read half a dozen quotes attributed to Ron Paul claiming much the same thing…
But then I have to go and reconcile those quotes with his voting recording.
And I can’t.
He’s voted in support of outlawing partial birth abortions (2000 and 2005)
He’s voted to provide Federal funds for health providers that do not provide abortion information (2002)
He’s voted against funding health providers that do provide abortions or abortion information (2000)Not once, anywhere in his record do I see him proposing legislation to change that.
Me, because I ran out of room in the comments:
He’s voted in support of outlawing partial birth abortions (2000 and 2005)
I agree, he’s inconsistent here. Here’s what he wrote about it:
“Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and the Child Custody Protection Act. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights.
Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends.
The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists! This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law. By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists – showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone.
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property.
Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government. ”
So he voted for a ban against a practice that he believes involves the systematic torture and murder of children, at the expense of federalism. I think he was wrong to do so, but I find it hard to judge him too harshly for it.
That said, he had many other opportunities to help expand Federal restrictions on abortion, but did not take them. Paul…
…voted against “Human Cloning Prohibition Act”
…voted against the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act”
” Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.”
..and against the “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act”:
“The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing, Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.”
He’s voted to provide Federal funds for health providers that do not provide abortion information (2002)
Not exactly. The bill prohibits government agencies (Federal, state, or local) that accept Federal funding from discriminating against healthcare providers that refuse to provide abortions. That’s not the same as voting for additional funds.
He’s voted against funding health providers that do provide abortions or abortion information (2000)
And? I don’t see how this is inconsistent with his position. The government should not be in the position of providing any health care funding.
Not once, anywhere in his record do I see him proposing legislation to change that.
He introduced the We the People Act
“The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or “privacy,” including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.