Stanek weekend question: Does Ron Paul’s position that abortion is a state (not federal) issue matter?
I’ve asked a question similar to this before.
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul believes the abortion issue should be settled at the state level. From his campaign site:
Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
I call this the Steven Douglas position on abortion. Douglas, who ran against Abraham Lincoln for president, believed individual states should determine the legality of slavery. Lincoln, of course, believed it was a federal issue.
But there is no question Ron Paul is solidly pro-life and would promote the sanctity of human life if elected president.
Paul has released a compelling and commendable ad entitled, “Life,” that Politico reports “has several hundred thousand dollars behind it and a radio version will air in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada“…
I agree with Tina Korbe’s analysis at Hot Air:
With the exception of the very initial cheesy narration, this ad doesn’t feel like a campaign spot. It comes across instead as a public service announcement – and an utterly important one….
Paul comes across as so poignantly sincere when he speaks on the subject of life that it’s hard for me to believe this video is just a ploy for votes. Frankly, I wish more campaign ads were like this one – quiet encapsulations of important convictions.
Paul’s ad will help uphold life and denigrate abortion to the American public, as will he if elected president.
So does Paul’s position on abortion really matter? As president, he could not hamper a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution other than criticize it, although it is doubtful one is forthcoming in the foreseeable future.
Or perhaps you agree with Paul’s position….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Just a quick analysis:
Although we currently say abortion is a federal issue, it is actually an individual issue, where every woman makes a choice. For all practical purposes, this has completely removed the state’s interest in the newly conceived child. If you move it back to a state’s issue, then individual states can elect to create laws banning abortion, and ultimately you have a market of states. Individuals can then choose to move to, and highly influence states to ban abortion, or make abortion legal.
The future problem with states that have legal abortion is they undermine the very population that they govern. In effect, they commit suicide – this is known as auto-genocide. Pro-choicers then must promote/maintain a highly parasitical nature to keep what they consider to be constitutional rights, because they’re advocating population control at their own cultural risk (convince children to be pro-choice vs pro-life). We see the results of such activity in Europe where native populations are being culturally decimated because they support abortion, while Muslims and other Mid-Eastern cultures outlaw abortion. In such cases, it’s not in the incoming culture’s interest to stop the auto-genecide, as there is no benefit to letting your own cultural be infected with such irrationality. Such cultures merely have to act individually to overcome other cultures who auto-genocide. Go study history to see the results.
I think Ron Paul comes at it from that angle. While federal rights may sound good, it doesn’t really express the underlying cultural impacts. If you look at Detroit and other metro areas where abortion has been prevalent, you can see it’s had a devastating impact on population and economic output, and has decidedly transformed their culture.
It’s a start! Presently a state cannot prohibit abortion though many have tried (even leaving in the standard exceptions-rape, incest & mother’s life). Roe v Wade has been in place almost 40 years and people are conditioned to live with abortion. PP, NARAL & the like have successfully run scare campaigns to instill fear into the uninformed when states try to make a change. If we take out the national tolerance factor and make each state consider this issue individually, Pro-Life groups stand a better chance to catch the attention (not mention the hearts & minds) of each state’s citizenry. It empowers the people of each State to decide for themselves regarding such a divisive and personal issue. There’s a long road ahead, but returning this issue to the States is a very good first step.
First, Ron Paul is not likely to be elected. That being said his position is consistent with his libertarian bent. If he is a pro-lifer how does he square his pro-life conscience with a public policy that would permit abortion? This seems to be headed to that murky territory where Kennedy adopted his “personally opposed” position on abortion. Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows.
Second, if one state declares abortion is murder and their neighboring state says it is not….who is right? Can both be right in a major issue such as this? If one state decides it can no longer afford medicaid payments for the indigent elderly…what then? Under the states’ rights scenario that Paul envisions where does euthanasia stand?
No. We have a better chance of eradicating abortion by making it a state matter rather than a federal matter. I am more concerned with the fact that Ron Paul supports Plan B! He thinks children conceived in rape shouldn’t be allowed to implant in their mother’s wombs. If you think human life begins at conception and that children are innocent then how does support for Plan B follow? Kooky.
I believe in states rights – for certain things. HUMAN RIGHTS, however, are not one of those things. What if a state decided to make murder of born people legal? “Well, that’s the states right.” No!
I believe we already have two bans at the federal level: the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. How many prosecutions have been brought under these acts (including pro-life Republican Presidents)? Let’s not overestimate the willingness of the federal government to do anything to protect the rights of the unborn, or even of infants born alive. So much time and resources go to bailing out big Wall Street banks or other big-time campaign contributors, there’s no time or resources left over to protect the unborn & infants.
Even if arguably the federal government cannot directly make abortion illegal without a constitutional amendment, still, the federal government could do an awful lot to discourage or event stop abortion that would be perfectly consistent with the Constitution as it stands. For example, it is unquestionably Constitutional for the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. Why not pass a federal law which prohibits any goods or services used in connection with an abortion, to the extent that such goods or services might have an effect upon interstate commerce? This would effectively make virtually every abortion illegal. It is the federal government’s right to regulate interstate commerce that is the foundation of the federal civil rights laws; is it really too much to ask that unborn children & infants also enjoy the same federal protection?
No state has the right to violate the God-given, inalienable right to life of its posterity
“If you look at Detroit and other metro areas where abortion has been prevalent, you can see it’s had a devastating impact on population and economic output, and has decidedly transformed their culture.”
Oh, right, it’s abortion, not the decimation of domestic manufacturing as a result of trade globalization, that is to blame for the economic devastation of Detroit and other former major hubs of manufacturing in the Rust Belt. (Curiously, abortion does not seem to have had much of an impact on metro areas that were not completely reliant on manufacturing sectors for generating economic activity, such as New York, with its 40% abortion rate, which is doing just fine, thanks.)
“Why not pass a federal law which prohibits any goods or services used in connection with an abortion, to the extent that such goods or services might have an effect upon interstate commerce? This would effectively make virtually every abortion illegal.”
You don’t seem to understand how the Commerce Clause works. It doesn’t empower the federal government to crush a constitutional right by effectively making it illegal to furnish the things guaranteed by that right.
Ron Paul is exact and consistent. If it’s not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states.
Now, that doesn’t mean there aren’t weighty issues, like slavery, that call for amending the Constitution. However, Ron Paul believes, rightly, that in today’s social/political climate, a Constitutional Amendment to end abortion would not pass. But as Ron Paul long ago suggested, and the Personhood movement is now trying to implement, legally defining personhood as beginning at conception (fertilization) would grant the preborn full protection under the Constitution.
Then it would go back to the states to institute laws to safeguard those rights through law enforcement and the judiciary, as they do for other murder cases. So abortion, like other violent crimes, really is a states’ rights issue.
Ron Paul makes sense. Unfortunately, he does not communicate his ideas very well at times. I think he assumes everyone can reason as he does. You have to be able to connect the dots. He doesn’t say abortion, homosexual “marriage”, drugs, prostitution SHOULD be legal. He says the FEDERAL government has no business in those matters, but STATE government could if it wishes. It’s the principle of subsidiarity that the Catholic Church also subscribes to: matters should be handled at the lowest possible level.
If California wants to legalize drugs, Ron Paul’s arguments say, it should be allowed to. But other states must not be forced to accommodate California’s decision, and if a Californian brings drugs into Texas, that Californian can be arrested and prosecuted under Texas law. If homosexuals can “marry” in Massachusetts, don’t expect them to receive benefits in Wisconsin. Even if personhood is granted by federal law to the preborn, forcing action against abortion, states will be allowed to set up their own penalties for abortionists (and mothers who hire the hit men?).
Ron Paul’s ideas have merit. When it gets right down to it, look at how many states’ citizens, through their states’ redress processes, have overturned homosexual “marriage” laws. How many states would legalize drugs? If the people of California decide to legalize drugs, would other states want to emulate their certain collapse? We have to hope that there are enough moral Christians left that would turn our country around if only the federal government would stop being Big Brother.
So my answer is that I would accept Ron Paul’s states’ rights position, especially in conjunction with federal personhood legislation for the preborn.
And while we’re on the topic of lists, what would say about a list of all priests who have been accused of sexual abuse? Inasmuch as I loathe the Catholic church, I find it problematic that the names of these men are published in newspapers before any charges are filed
Thanks for that much anyway, CC. The persecution of priests, including innocent priests on these charges, is turning into a witch hunt.
The states’ rights argument as it relates to the enforcement of laws re slavery and capital offenses makes sense. But how far do we go with it? Homosex “marriage” is now weaving its way through various states. Ditto euthanasia. Proponents of states’ rights when it comes to abortion must accept the others as well.
As to homosex “marriage” belated kudos are due to Dubya for his efforts (though stymied by the libs) to advance a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. His critics lambasted him at the time saying that DOMA offered basically the same protections.
Of course we now know how fragile a law is when the POTUS who is sworn to uphold the laws directs his AG, who is also duty sworn to uphold and defend those same laws, to defy them when and whereever possible. And when the AG who is supposed to offer counsel and reject those kinds of overtures from the POTUS and he fails to do so it raises the specter of just how effective any law is. Laws against abortion would be only as effective as the governing philosophy of the POTUS.
Just got back from my first day outside the clinic. IT WAS GREAT!!!!!
Es mi placer a encontrarlo, Xalisae! Esta una mujer pro-vida con la fuerza dura!
El placer es todos mia, gracias! ;P
Very sorry – I had go go away for a while, and only just now realized the above comment on priests is out of place. It belongs on the Quote of the Day thread. I was definitely on that thread when I started, but what can I say, the demon-possessed touch-pad mouse has struck again. . .
Speaking from a civics viewpoint, there is one document that takes precedence over the United States Constitution, and that is the Declaration of Independence. The key line from that is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..” Ladies and gentlemen, would that not include the federal government, as well as the state level? The federal government has a duty to protect its citizens from unjust agression, as I read this.
I remember having a similar argument with another so-called “constitutionalist”. He stated that if one didn’t approve of liberalized abortion in one state, he could move to another. I replied that the one who has most at stake, the babe about to be murdered vis-a-vis abortion, lacked the means to just “move to another state”.
This “states-rights” stuff from Ron Paul is a cop-out. I did not know of his approval of Plan B. If that is so, Ron Paul, protestations notwithstanding, is not pro-life. He disqualified himself long ago in my eyes. He has an equally laissez-faire stance with gay marriage too, I understand. It is a colossal waste of time and energy to even bother with him.
Janet Baker: Speaking from a civics viewpoint, there is one document that takes precedence over the United States Constitution, and that is the Declaration of Independence. The key line from that is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..” Ladies and gentlemen, would that not include the federal government, as well as the state level? The federal government has a duty to protect its citizens from unjust aggression, as I read this.
Well, the Declaration has no force of law, but the Constitution itself is primarily for keeping the government – at all levels but most definitely the Federal gov’t – from being too aggressive, yes.
Abortion is not consistent with America as the founders imagined it should be. So, while it would be ideal to have the United States unified in declaring abortion to be wrong, turning the decision back to the states might be the fastest way to stop the practice.
Before Roe V Wade, if I remember correctly, only three states had generally legalized abortion.
Abortion has a negative effect on medical innovation and the quality of health care overall. It would be good for the country as a whole to have 47 states, (or even a majority) able to return to making abortion illegal. People are moving out of states with unfavorable economic regulations. Health care practitioners would be able to do the same, to get away from the abortion practices. That could influence abortion laws in those states.
I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, nor am I the type who will oppose every effort which falls short of bringing the entire desired result all at once.
I’m not sure that Paul would criticize a Human Life Amendment. His position that abortion is a state issue may be more a criticism of Roe than an ideal situation. The Constitution doesn’t speak to abortion one way or the other, by and large, so the R. Paul argument would be right in criticizing Roe, but not promoting it’s pro-life counter, which is that the federal government may ban the procedure. If an HLA were up in the air, then that question is moot, because it is in fact a means to MAKE IT a federal issue.
The FED can only regulate that which it is given authority for. If not an issue of due process, or equal protection, for example, it would have to be an issue of interstate commerce, or some other authority granted to Congress.
Pharmer: Abortion is not consistent with America as the founders imagined it should be.
Wrong. Abortion was not only legal before and during the writing of the Constitution, but afterward as well. The Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to restrict the government from interfering with the people, unless there was a good enough reason, and that is what the Roe decision affirmed – that to a point in gestation, (just like abortion was legal to quickening in the 1700s and early 1800s), the gov’t does not have a good enough reason to impact the liberty of pregnant women.
“unless there is good enough reason”
What, murder isn’t good enough reason for you Doug?
Jill. I have to disagree with you on this one. This is not “a compelling and commendable ad”. This is the Ron Paul campaign’s equivalent of the “Yes we can” ad from pro-abort Obama. It is a very slick piece of PR which is all things to all people. Like Obama’s 2008 Hope-Change theme, the message of this Ron Paul ad is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Pro-Life people will see it (as you did) as an uncompromising endorsement of their position — not knowing about Ron Paul’s position that the federal government has no business getting into the abortion debate.
A mainstream pro-”choice” person who is against late term abortion hears the same ad and comes to the conclusion that Ron Paul supports his position. There is nothing in this ad about life beginning at conception, which would cause this person from opposing Ron Paul.
Ron Paul’s core supporters of course are aware that he would do nothing at the federal level to oppose abortion, so whether they are pro-”choice” or pro-Life, they will be comfortable with this ad.
The whole concept of this ad revolves around the definition of the word “LIFE”. Does Life begin at the moment of conception? The subliminal message of this Ron Paul ad is not “I am 100% pro-Life”. It is that I am against abortion when there is a VIABLE fetus! It reduces the abortion issue to one of infanticide.
The key words in this ad are “LIFE” and “BABY”. It equates those two words in the mind of the viewer. And it connects Ron Paul, the doctor, with those two key words. It further defines a baby as being able to “cry” and “breathe”. The message is that Ron Paul is against procedures like partial-birth abortion, which is a very safe political position to take.
There are much better pro-Life candidates like Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Why would you settle for Ron Paul, unless electing a pro-Life President is not your main objective?
“unless there is good enough reason”
Amber Currie: What, murder isn’t good enough reason for you Doug?
Amber, you not liking something does not make it “murder.”
For the record, Ron Paul has attempted, written, and been the main sponsor of MANY Human Life Amendment-type acts. He has tried to get support for these Constitutional amendments which would define Personhood from conception! Obviously, he has found that it hasn’t worked thus far. He believes that you cannot defend liberty without first defending life, but I believe he is doing his best to make abortion outlawed — because the federal level is much, much more complex and difficult.
I believe that, given the opportunity, he would certainly push for and write into law a Human Personhood Amendment (defining life from conception), considering that he has, as a Senator, written and supported such bills/amendments. I also think that the ronpaul.com site is a FAN SITE and is not HIS OWN SITE. Check out RonPaul2012.com for the REAL Ron Paul authorized site. Thanks.
Very well put, Amiee. And yes, RonPaul2012.com is his site.
The more I hear, read, and watch about him – the more I think he is the best option for everyone. I’m realy starting to like him.
“unless there is good enough reason”
Amber Currie: What, murder isn’t good enough reason for you Doug?
Amber, you not liking something does not make it “murder.”
Doug,
The fact that we do not like the taking of innocent human life does not change what the act of doing so is. The only thing that prevents abortion from being murder as it stands is the fact that it is legal currently. That is the ONLY thing.
Right Doug, I don’t like the killing of born people either – guess that doesn’t make it murder.
Ronpaul.com is NOT Ron Paul’s campaign web site. It is a FAN site. His official site is http://www.ronpaul2012.com and his official position on the abortion issue is listed there at:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
The Declaration, not the Constitution, claims that life is an inalienable right. The Constitution does not deny that life is an inalienable right, but the methods the Constitution provides must be followed when securing a right to the people. It is true that the Constitution mentions the rights of people to be secure in their persons, but this is only against unwarrantable searches and seizures and was not intended to prohibit murder or the taking of human life, but rather was intended to protect the people against the police, not citizens from citizens. Abortion, like many other issues, was not foreseen by the Founders. Although life scientifically begins at conception, the Constitution, and not science, is the basis of our laws; when you have different “sciences” differing as to when life begins, how is this to be resolved by the government? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and not science. The only way to take care of this issue is through the Tenth Amendment and leaving it to the States. Different issues concerning life are already left to the States, which is why physician assisted suicide and capital punishment are legal in some states and not in others. The methods given by the Constitution should be followed when solving an issue; the only way to resolve this issue at the federal level would be through a Constitutional amendment.
As for foreign policy, Paul’s is mistakenly characterized as isolationist when it is in fact non-interventionist. If a nation is involved in economic trade there is no way that it could be truly isolationist, and Paul is obviously not opposed to trade with foreign countries. Of course economic entanglements can lead to war, as they did in World War I. Wilson was actually very non-interventionist, and only made his drastic swing towards globalist, League of Nation-style, and interventionist policy after entering WWI for a time. So Paul recognizes that economic entanglements can lead to war, but it is better to enter a war this way than through involving ourselves in other nations rebellions and propping up dictators who later turn on us. I have heard Paul say that he believes in the Catholic policy for just war, which, at least in the case of WWI, was followed by Wilson when he was still a non-interventionist like the majority of American presidents before him.