This is a continuing discussion on TruthTalkLive.com (go here to see the entire thread) with talk show host Bob Enyart...
Bob Enyart Says:
October 15th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Troy, Ron Paul states explicitly that he is pro-choice state by state (see his answer below, to a question asked by a KGOV listener, and his answer transcribed by a KGOV staffer). By Paul’s his principles (actually, a lack thereof) and legislation, states would be allowed to permit child killing (and even fund abortion with tax dollars). Libertarians, as godless policy makers, are sexually immoral and tolerate murder.
Ron Paul’s YouTube Interview July 14, 2007:
Question: Austin Hines from Tulsa, OK: You say that abortion legislation should be decided on the state level rather than on the federal level. Does this mean that you believe the morality of the issue is not absolute…? [and that each state should define what they believe on their own? If the constitution defines a right to life, do we not have the right to define when life begins at the federal level?]
Answer from Ron Paul: I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence. I see the fetus as a human being that has legal rights, has legal inheritance rights from the day of conception. I as a physician if I injure the fetus, I have liabilities; if you are in a car accident or someone commits a violent act, and kills fetus, they are liable and responsible. But all acts of violence under our constitution are dealt with at the local level, murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter; all these things and are done locally, and they are not always easy to sort out, and that is the magnificence of our system, and our constitution, is that the more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues. So, I would say yes, the states have the right, and the authority, to write the rules, and regulations, and punishments, for acts of violence. I believe strongly that this should be at the local level. Therefore, I would not support Roe vs. Wade, but I certainly am absolutely opposed to the federal government funding abortion. But I cannot protect and fight for personal liberty if I don’t fight for the right to life; and if you endorse abortion moments before delivery, or in the third trimester, which is now legal, I as a physician could be paid for [aborting that child], at the same time, we have devised a system here today that if the baby is born, and the teenager or whomever throws the baby away, they’re charged with murder. But if you are careless with this attitude, it’s more than just a privacy issue; and [if you] say, well, the privacy of the mother is the only concern, but no, it’s whether or not a living being is involved. If it were only the privacy issue, I believe our homes are our castles, and that government shouldn’t have cameras there; they should never intrude. But I do not say that because our homes are our castles, that we have the right to murder our children. Nobody really endorses that. So, it’s very hard intellectually, to distinguish between the killing of an infant a minute before birth, and a minute afterwards. And I think it deserves a lot of attention, but I also recognize that it’s difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. That’s why we really want the states to sort it out, and not have one answer at the federal level. Because if you depend on the federal level to decide these issues, you end up saying, well, it’s in the courts, the Supreme Court should rule; and they legislated through that Roe vs. Wade incident, and they actually got very involved in details of the medical process of when and what abortions could be done. So, I think our system is, that you reject that notion, honor the commitment to the Constitution, and try to solve these difficult problems at the local level. And I am quite sure it will not be solved, and the solutions will not be perfect. We don’t live in a perfect world, and we have to accept the political process that gives us the best answers.
Bob, frankly, your inclusion of the above interview with Ron Paul shows his understanding of the issue but more importantly his undeniable Pro-life stance. You are visibly putting words in Ron Paul’s mouth to say he is “pro-choice state by state”. The very first sentence in the transcript you posted is that he treats abortion like other “acts of violence”. I guess he means the legal kinds of acts of violence? Your view is overtly skewed by your distaste for Libertarianism. Ron Paul, although long associated with that political view and party, does not ascribe to all that the Libertarian party and many Libertarians promotes. Let’s remember that he has been a Republican Congressman for many years and is in fact running as the Republican nomination. To disqualify Ron Paul because of his association with the Libertarian party and speaking at their convention is ludicrous. If anything can be said about Libertarians it’s that they have a very broad spectrum of beliefs, some extreme some very conservative, like Paul’s. Let’s see, he spoke at the National Right to Life convention as well so following this logic, that proves he is Pro-life, right? Come on.
In the transcript you cite above, he is more than clear that the federal government has proven what the founders knew. The states are where “all acts of violence are dealt with” and he clearly lumps abortion in with “murder, secondary, third-degree manslaughter” for a reason, he clearly sees them as the same thing. In other words, abortion to him is already a crime to be dealt with at the state level.
Ron Paul is for State’s Rights, as were the authors of our Constitution. But for you to imply that the Federal Government is more qualified at or has more authority from God to protect life than does the states is to deny the original intent and wisdom of the founding documents, despite their flaws. This is faulty policy as seen in the current position of the court. Abortion is “legal” now precisely because of the federal courts over stepping their authority. What in the world makes you think that this will change by giving the federal courts more power? If the federal court can give a right or authority, it can take it away. The founders knew the tendency of the federal government to merely increase in power and trample State’s as well as human rights, rights given to us by God, not man as acknowledged in the founding documents. Remember Roe v. Wade is a Supreme Court ruling. Restricting the court’s power is the antidote since men tend to ignore constitutional restraints altogether, particularly the tenth amendment.
Ron Paul’s legislation which I directly referred to, H.R. 2597 has the wording to restrict the federal courts from “Roe v. Wade” style legislating.
“(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.”
“ To protect lives”. It is not permission for states to legalize abortion, although lawyer types will undoubtedly argue this both ways, hence the need to “argue” the handling of the crime of abortion, closer to the people – at the state level. Paul’s point in your example above is clearly that abortion is illegal under the Constitution already and that the manner in which it is dealt with currently is inconsistent with the handling of other crimes, due to the Supreme Court’s meddling.
This and the other wording in the actual bill text returns the power to the states to legally ignore Roe v. Wade along with any further federal judicial mandates that might come from the bench in regard to unborn humans, or anything else the Court wishes to “interpret” in the “spirit” of the Constitution rather than the strict construction of it.
Again, why would legislation be needed to allow states to legalize something already viewed as legal across the country via the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling? The federal courts have already overruled human rights by assuming powers not vested them in the Constitution.
Ron Paul is one of few politicians who understands that the Constitution is a limit on federal powers, period. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The authors’ main concern was a central government with too much power. They definitely were not for federal power to legislate morality or to form a Theocracy. Only God could justly rule by that means. The founders knew all too well the end result of excessive centralized power and thus were focused on limiting it. For you to imply that a federal Judiciary would remain in favor of protecting life better than the states, you have to ignore the last several decades of pro-abortion rulings from the very courts you seem to want to trust… courts controlled by “conservative” as well as liberal judges. You must be consistent with much of what you have spoke out against in regard to the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” which I agreed with you on almost completely. Federal regulation of most issues usually compounds the problems that already existed and solves nothing, ex. The “War on Drugs”, “War on Crime”, etc, and only results in money being wasted and stolen “in the name of” those programs. This is undeniable.
The Supreme Court is a part of the problem, not the solution. In Federalist 45, James Madison states the constitutional principle that Ron Paul understands and that is clearly stated in our Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.” [Italics added]
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 81, makes it clear that the Supreme Court, under the Constitution, is not a completely separate and independent body else it would have the ability to “write” law and thus be more powerful than any branch.
“The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous.”
He goes on…
“In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”
Reading the entire paper gives you the insight that is needed and the justification for limiting the Supreme Court greatly. Abortion is no different than any other form of murder which is dealt with at the state level. It belongs there, like the death penalty, according to the Constitution.
The real problem in understanding here is that many conservatives now follow a neo-conservative mindset that has been brought on gradually. That the solutions to our country’s wrongs are to be found and implemented by the federal government. This way of thinking has snuck into the GOP as well as the Church and looks as much like liberalism or socialism as it does anything. The idea that the federal government can solve any social problems, provide any benefit effectively and handle controversial interpretations is absurd and fails miserably in the test of time. The suggestion that the federal government can be trusted with matters of protecting individual life is equally illogical. If it can define life, it can most certainly declassify it.
The only resolution given to us by our founding documents for the punishment for abortion is the same as punishing capital crimes, which the Constitution permits and is delegated to the states. I must qualify that with the premise that murder is already illegal and that life is already endowed by the Creator and guaranteed us by the Constitution (except in matters where the Supreme Court has “interpreted” it away.) And for us to return to the constitutional protection of life to be carried out and prosecuted by the states, the abortion “debate” must be removed from the Supreme Court, which decided it oligarchically by fiat ruling already. This is the purpose of Ron Paul’s H.R. 2597 “the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007”.
Please consider having Ron Paul, the Libertarian, on your show for an interview/debate. I think that would be great, don't you?
Troy Says:
October 16th, 2007 at 11:52 am
And let me add this in light the insistent point of Paul’s libertarian leanings:
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul - 1981
Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the “right” to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes merely another ideology whose policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.
We expect most people to be inconsistent, because their beliefs are founded on false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated and understood. They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.
A libertarian’s support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.
Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of an argument, rather than question their premises.
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the “right” of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.
Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.
I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without consistent defenders, may depend on them.
Originally published as a 1981 article in LFL Reports: #1.
Ron Paul, M.D., was born in 1935. He is a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University, and served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard.
Congressman Paul (R-TX) and his wife Carol have five children. They make their home in Lake Jackson, Texas, where the Congressman practiced obstetrics and gynecology.
Convinced that the size, power, and cost of the Federal government had to be cut for our free society to survive, Dr. Paul ran for Congress and won a special election in April 1976. He was sworn in for his first full term in January 1979, representing the 22nd District until 1984. He was the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for President. In 1996, he returned to the Republican Party and again won election to Congress.
Troy Says:
October 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
And the pertinent portion again, just to be clear, in case someone missed it, in light of Mr. Enyart’s above accusations concerning Dr. Paul…
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the “right” of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the “property rights” of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
