Ron Paul Pro-Abortion?

Ron Paul has been staunchly pro-life for five decades, somewhat of a rarity amongst self-described ‘libertarians’. While in medical school, he was required to witness an abortion, and at that moment decided that he believed that a fetus was a human being and fully deserved the earthly life and liberty all other human beings are entitled to as creatures made in God’s image.

In my opinion, a consistent libertarian HAS to be pro-life if they respect the LIFE and liberty of ALL. Unfortunately, people of all political persuasions have their hard-hearted inconsistencies, especially pro-abortion libertarians.

I have heard Ron Paul accused of being pro-abortion or ‘pro-choice’ before. The basis for this accusation is his rating of 56% by the National Right to Life Committee. But what is often left out is that he has a 0% rating from the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

So while the NRLC rating indicates that he is only moderately pro-life (i.e., partially pro-abortion), the NARAL rating indicates that he is staunchly pro-life and anti-abortion.

There seems to be a conflict in the numbers, and here is how that is resolved:

Ron Paul NEVER votes for an unconstitutional piece of legislation, even if it happens to have a few small pro-life measures. His duty as a Congressman (he took a solemn oath*) is to support and defend the Constitution. There are THREE Constitutional ways government can act to curb or end abortion. The first way is to refuse to fund and grant special privileges Planned Parenthood. The second way is a new amendment. The third way is to enforce the Tenth Amendment**.

Paul does not explicitly support a new amendment because it would be nearly impossible to get through, would distract from more readily plausible ways to curb abortion, and might cause the pro-abortion groups to push for an amendment of their own that would support their side. However, if a pro-life amendment was passed, and were to become part of the Constitution, he would be sworn to uphold it, so it can not be said he explicitly opposes such an amendment.

He does support the method that is already in place, but has not been enforced for a very long time. The Tenth Amendment perhaps would not save all lives the nation throughout, but in many entire states, it would end ALL abortion. Conceivably, Planned Parenthood and NARAL would lose much of their lobbying and propaganda power in the process, which could lead to the criminalization of abortion in other states that were previously bombarded by the abortion lobby. The best way to start enforcing the Tenth Amendment again is by reigning in the Supreme Court (one, by heavily critiquing the sitting justices, two, by appointing new justices that would uphold the Constitution, and three, by keeping the other two branches of the Federal government from continuing to usurp existing state sovereignty).

The Tenth Amendment could also be used to end the federal supremacy (for which their is no Constitutional authority) over public schools, returning that authority to either the states or to local communities. One of the abortion lobby’s biggest propaganda tools is the public school system. If the federal government were to be put in its place, they would no longer be able to pressure or mandate the states into carrying curriculum which instills in children a moral relativism, a hatred for God, and a lack of responsibility and character, all of which are direct components in the support or use of abortion.

Paul also opposes laws that would make the morning after pills illegal. First of all, because such a law would be nearly impossible to enforce and would lead to a black market for more readily available pills that not only kill the child the day after conception, but could potentially kill, maim, or make infertile the mother. Second, because no such law on a Federal level is authorized by the Constitution. If individual states chose to make the pill illegal, it would be their prerogative, and such decision would go unopposed by Ron Paul.

Understandably, his approach would not be 100% satisfactory to all pro-life groups and people, many of who would prefer all lives to be saved everywhere at once to many lives in some places being saved across a span of time.

*Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

**Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


5 thoughts on “Ron Paul Pro-Abortion?

  1. Pingback: Articles « keimh3regpeh2umeg

    • I wrote this originally in an email to a church friend, who did not know where Ron Paul stood on this issue, probably as a result of an oversimplification of his position. I think he and his family favored Santorum, but now that Santorum is out, they may take another look at Ron Paul. This friend will be just old enough to vote in a few months.

  2. Pingback: The Neocon And I, Part Two « keimh3regpeh2umeg

  3. Pingback: One Year Later at PTPOL « Propagating the Philosophy of Liberty

Any thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s