Is Ron Paul inconsistent on abortion?

[Alex45ACP]

Is Ron Paul inconsistent on abortion? I know he wants Roe V Wade overturned which I agree with on purely Constitutional grounds. I am neutral on the abortion issue, but it makes sense to me that since it's not mentioned in the Constitution it's a state issue not a federal one.

So people say "Well, he wants to overturn Roe V Wade and leave it up to the states". However, he authored a bill defining life as beginning at conception, and he also voted for the partial birth abortion ban. Are these inconsistencies in his record? Even if they are, I will still support him; everyone makes mistakes and he's still a hell of a lot better than any of the other candidates, but I think it may be dishonest to tell people that his voting record is 100% consistent.

This isn't a thread on whether or not abortion is morally right, etc. (It makes sense to me that if you're pro-choice you'd want it to be a state issue anyway since it makes it a lot harder for the federal government to enact a nationwide ban on abortion). I only care about the Constitutional aspect of the issue and whether Paul's position is inconsistent or not.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Goldwater Conservative]

Do you mean because he's a libertarian? If that's your issue, I don't think so. Check out this site by the Libertarians for Life organization: http://www.l4l.org/. Basically, abortion is a conflict between a child's right to life and a mother's right to control her body. Paul and other pro-life libertarians side with the child's interest as being overriding.

If you mean from a constitutional perspective, I believe his position has always been to leave it to the states. Don't quote me on this, but I would guess his votes on federal legislation of abortion might owe to the Supreme Court making it a federal issue.

[kylejack]

He admitted that his vote on partial birth abortion was not Constitutional. His explanation is that it would save some lives. I don't like it, but hey, there it is. Isn't it fantastic, though, that Ron Paul only has one or two of these inconsistences and all other candidates have a whole career full of them?

[AggieforPaul]

My understanding is that the reason he wants it decided at the state level, is that he doesnt trust the feds. Im guessing he'd support a federal ban if it weren't for the fact that giving the feds the authority on that issue is a bad idea period.

[Mckarnin]

Dr. Paul, as I'm sure you know is an OBGYN and I think he has seen enough sonograms and helped enough women deliver babies, or helped women who are miscarrying enough to know how human babies look..even when just a couple months old. On a more scientific level, a human emryo has all of the DNA it needs to become a person at the moment of conception and is not capable of growing into any species other than a human. As such, I think it makes logical sense to define human life as beginning at conception. The important thing about defining the beginning of human life is that the constitution enumerates certain rights that humans have. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist and takes those rights seriously so he needs to make sure that the definition of humanity is clear.

I know he is quoted as saying that in all his years as an OBGYN he has never heard of a single instance in which partial-birth abortion was needed to save the life of the mother (which was the pretext under which people were trying to get it to remain legal). In order to perform partial-birth abortion the physical stress of cervical effacement and dialation have to occur as do contractions. The head of the baby also has to be delivered. After the baby is killed the placenta has to be delivered as well. So basically every part of pregnancy and labor that is dangerous for a woman who has a physical/mental illness has to happen in order to perform a partial-birth abortion. Thus, the only "justification" provided for its remaining legal (life of the mother) is complete nonsense.

It is a very tricky issue. Ron Paul seems to object most to logical contradictions like being charged with double homicide if you kill a pregnant woman and her fetus but abortionists kill fetuses with the mother's consent all day long and no ramifications there. Is it not murder because of the mother's consent? Is a baby only a human if it is wanted? Does the human life of the baby belong to the mother to do whatever she pleases with? If so, when does the mother's right to do as she pleases with the baby's life end? When it emerges from her womb? After the umbillical cord that transfers blood from mother to baby is cut? When the child is self-sufficient enough to feed itself and move around? These things must be legally defined.

It is clear that Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion but -as with every piece of legislation that he does not believe to be a constitutionally "federal government" issue- wants to leave the decision to individual states. That way the women, abortionists, OBGYN's, pro-lifers, fathers, parents, etc... in each state can lobby and try to get a decision that most closely represents the state consensus on the issue.

Ultimately I think abortion is a hearts and minds issue and making abortion illegal will not prevent it but will make it more difficult and may help people to think of sex a little less casually. Most abortions are performed on women who feel that they have no support and no other choice if they want to keep their boyfriend, career, continue their education, etc... Hopefully one day we, as a society will support pregnant women and their partners well enough that no one gets abortions because of desperation or the feeling that it is their only option.

[Corydoras]

Yes, the partial birth ban was an inconsistency he supported in order to save lives.

As for the bill about life beginning at conception, I believe that such a bill would effectually overturn Roe v Wade, and that's why he supported it.

[Alex45ACP]

As for the bill about life beginning at conception, I believe that such a bill would effectually overturn Roe v Wade, and that's why he supported it.

Well even if the effect would have been to overturn Roe V Wade, the manner in which it would be done would not be Constitutional. So isn't this another inconsistency?

Also, I just want to repeat:

This isn't a thread on whether or not abortion is morally right, etc... I only care about the Constitutional aspect of the issue and whether Paul's position is inconsistent or not.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Mckarnin, great points. I forgot to mention how defining life at conception would extend certain civil rights to the unborn.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Paul's bill that would in effect overturn Roe v. Wade is Constitutional. Congress has the power to make new laws.

If you can't protect life, you can't protect liberty.

Ron Paul is the most consistent candidate in the race and follows the Constitution more than any other person alive today.

[jblosser]

Well even if the effect would have been to overturn Roe V Wade, the manner in which it would be done would not be Constitutional. So isn't this another inconsistency?

It's not Constitutional for the national government to get involved in matters of criminal law (beyond interstate commerce and a few other things that extend beyond state jurisdictions).

However, the national government does have some legit interests in "life", including when it begins. For example, the fifth amendment.

[warmth of the sun]

He believes the federal government's role is to protect it's citizens rights, one of them being the pursuit of life. Because he believes the fetus' right to life is greater than the mother's right to choose, it is a federal issue.

[hyoomen]

At this time I am not entirely certain that Paul is 'inconsistent' on abortion (in context of Federal law), but I am admittedly cautious about the subjects relating to his sponsored "We the People Act". For those unfamiliar with the act, read Paul's introduction here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2&position=all [pdf]

Also of concern is his "Sanctity of Life" bill.

While I understand the arguments against an activist judicial system and in favor of state's rights, the notion of the federal government making specific claims regarding the definition of life easily threatens the separation of Church and State. Furthermore, Paul's would-be legislation sought to restrict courts from ruling on cases involving state/local laws on a number of subjects including abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation, school prayer, public display of religious symbols, etc. While I agree that such laws should remain within local jurisdiction where they are not directly correlated to the federal government (ie state capitols vs. national capitol), the fact that -- as our system works at present -- the federal government allocates money derived from taxes to the state and local governments, thus there is a tenuous bond to the policies enacted in the midst of such funds. Obviously Paul is opposed to many of the abuses of fund allocation such as this, but without focusing first on ending the system that allows federal monies (by way of allocation to states), restricting such issues to state's rights significantly increases the likelihood that states will pass legislation which erodes constitutional liberties.

Conveniently, Paul's far-reaching legislation would go beyond simply restoring state's rights and would ultimately eliminate citizens' ability to seek the protections of the federal government through appeals to the Supreme Court.

I'm still in Paul's corner up to this point, but reading this legislation has just given me a lot to think about. He claims he is more concerned about state's rights and constitutionality than fighting abortion or the homosexuality, but does anybody else see this legislation as perhaps a bit hypocritical? I've argued to many people concerned with his stance on abortion and same-sex marriage that he thinks the federal government has no business legislating such issues, but the argument is far more difficult to stand behind in light of his support of a federal definition for "human life" and "person" as beginning from conception. He even makes a remark in one bill introduction to the 'slippery slope' that is leading us to 'euthanasia'. I support euthanasia...are there libertarians who do not?

Please help me in understanding these issues, as I think any future success of Paul's campaign could hinge on being able to respond to similar criticisms. I personally believe all of the other issues far outweigh these "minor" concerns, but if elections weren't potentially won/lost on such issues they wouldn't be issues we discuss.

-Rob

[fsk]

He believes the federal government's role is to protect it's citizens rights, one of them being the pursuit of life. Because he believes the fetus' right to life is greater than the mother's right to choose, it is a federal issue.

I believe that Ron Paul said that he personally opposes abortion. If he was representing people in a state government, he would work to outlaw abortion in that state.

However, Ron Paul says that abortion is an issue for states and not for the Federal government. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. The power to regulate abortion is not specifically enumerated as a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, it is a state issue.

[hyoomen]

Yet you feel the Constitution does present Congress with the power to -- while on the payroll of the citizens of the USA -- enact legislation which specifically defines human life as beginning at conception?

I have further concerns that this kind of legislation could ultimately end up granting the federal government powers to enforce legislation that was not previously within its purview, but that is a different topic.

[Fyretrohl]

I believe that Ron Paul's Constitutional authority is steady. The authority, power, and reach of ALL 3 branches of the Government are limited and defined by the Constitution. If the Constitution does not grant the Congress the right to create a law, it does not grant the Supreme Court the power to overturn State laws and rulings. It is a package deal.

[allyinoh]

Can we remember, morality aside, that Roe Vs. Wade was a SCOTUS ruling? Since when did SCOTUS make laws?

So, overturning something that is not constititional cannot be unconstitutional.

[hyoomen]

At first I thought your replies were meant to respond to my queries, but then I recalled I hadn't originated the thread. Are you responding to me or the thread? Regardless, please answer how the US Constitution grants the federal government the right to officiate definitions of 'human life' or 'person'. Why is Congress even considering such options? Paul's sponsored bill specifically states that a majority of scientific evidence supports the notion of human life as beginning at conception. Is the federal government now the National Academy of Science? What gives?

[fsk]

The Supreme Court, in its Roe vs. Wade decision, effectively passed a law that said "states may not ban abortion". They do this all the time.

Most notably, the Supreme Court once passed a law that said "corporations have the same right to own property and enforce contracts as individuals".

Just because a group of nine people say something, doesn't mean it doesn't contradict the US Constitution.

[hyoomen]

FSK: since I'm on a tea-minded kick these days (Tea Party '07, anyone), I ask you what that has to do with the price of tea in China?

Ron Paul (and moreso his supporters) claim he is against the federal government enacting legislation outside of its constitutionally-allowed jurisdiction. Regardless of the need to "put the courts" back in their place, do you think the Constitution allows Congress to pass legislation that defines human life as beginning at conception? Do you think this is what the founding fathers intended?

I'm not interested in flaming or trolling or whatever it is people accuse dissenters of on discussion forums. I do, however, want to seriously understand whether my perception of Paul's inconsistency in his sponsored legislation is accurate.

[BigFatRock]

Think about it this way: the bill that he introduced to define life as beginning at conception does nothing more than state the finding of Congress that this is so.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

But here's the kicker, the bill goes on to take the abortion issue away from federal courts, meaning it has to stay on a purely state level. The finding applies to the federal level, but they don't have the power to make abortion law anyways if this bill passes! So, Congress can declare for itself that life begins at conception, but it can't change state laws because it has no federal jurisdiction in the matter.

As for the partial-birth abortion ban, it has already been said on this thread that Ron has stated that that vote was probably one of his weakest. He only did it because Roe v. Wade made the issue federal. He still railed against the bill in his statement about it, though. I'm not sure, hindsight being 20/20, that he would vote for the bill today.

[fsk]

Regardless of the need to "put the courts" back in their place, do you think the Constitution allows Congress to pass legislation that defines human life as beginning at conception? Do you think this is what the founding fathers intended?

The founding fathers intended that powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government were left to the states.

Typically, issues of morality are left to individual states to decide. Abortion falls under that category.

Ron Paul's position, as someone running for president, is "Personally, I think abortion is wrong, but this issue is none of the Federal government's business. Each state should make its own decision."

The Supreme Court usually makes rulings that expand the Federal government's power. The Supreme Court has made many bad decisions in the past. Are we obligated to follow those decisions forever?

[hyoomen]

Thanks, BigFatRock, for answering beyond the rather tedious script of "the Supreme Court needs to be reigned in and that's what Ron Paul wants to do". Nevertheless, I understand the basics of the bill. My concern is with the fact that the wording of his bill makes very specific proclamations regarding human life. Regardless of whether he would have the states oversee the moral ramifications of abortion's legality, he was asking Congress to make a specific statement on an issue that seemingly overextends their powers. All of this without me even getting started on the issue of his suggestion that 'present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception' -- really...what?!

Would he also support legislation that, while remanding the decision of same-sex marriage to state/local legislature, has Congress defining marriage as a bond between a man and a woman? Sure there's not much scientific evidence suggesting this is the case (it's a religious issue, not a scientific one), but he seems to be open to the same sort of far-reaching and EXTREMELY objectionable claims. At least for same-sex marriage we could argue about the validity of traditions...it seems incredible folly, on the other hand, to conflate scientific findings regarding the sanctity of life.

If somebody happens to talk to him in person at some point (he's of the people, right?), please ask him how Congress can constitutionally make such definitions and why it needs to be meddling in such matters in the first place. I'm curious.

[Nicketas]

,.,.

[JesseCRX]

I found myself surrounded by feminists at work last night.

They like almost all of Paul's ideas except abortion. They want a definite clear cut answer on where he stands, and I froze(yeah, i know i suck). But then I realized something....

All of these ladies claim to be followers of the Christian faith.... they said "If a woman decides to get an abortion then that's her sin to bare" and I said "Ok, so let me get this straight. You can choose to get an abortion and be guilt free because you now have Jesus?" They went on and on about how sins are forgive blah blah blah...you know how it goes.

They pretty much said yes, and I was floored by that response. I mean, a wrong is a wrong in my book. Choosing to do wrong when you know something right can be done is a tragedy in my book.

Anyway, I wanna have another crack at this opportunity because I think I can win them over. R.Paul has done most of the work already, but I just need a little help on this one.

[Tenbatsu]

Kylejack: He admitted that his vote on partial birth abortion was not Constitutional. His explanation is that it would save some lives. I don't like it, but hey, there it is. Isn't it fantastic, though, that Ron Paul only has one or two of these inconsistences and all other candidates have a whole career full of them?

All of your questions were answered on the first page of this thread.

The majority of the politicians in our Federal Government do not follow the Constitution. Sometimes you have to join the system to beat it.

[paragonconcept]

Think about it this way: the bill that he introduced to define life as beginning at conception does nothing more than state the finding of Congress that this is so.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

But here's the kicker, the bill goes on to take the abortion issue away from federal courts, meaning it has to stay on a purely state level. The finding applies to the federal level, but they don't have the power to make abortion law anyways if this bill passes! So, Congress can declare for itself that life begins at conception, but it can't change state laws because it has no federal jurisdiction in the matter.

As for the partial-birth abortion ban, it has already been said on this thread that Ron has stated that that vote was probably one of his weakest. He only did it because Roe v. Wade made the issue federal. He still railed against the bill in his statement about it, though. I'm not sure, hindsight being 20/20, that he would vote for the bill today.

How exactly does it go back and " take the abortion issue away from federal courts, meaning it has to stay on a purely state level."

The bill says the states have the right to protect unborn children, if children are to be categorized by the term "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" that would mean any attempt to terminate human life, even in the womb, would be an aggression against that persons liberties... aka its life.

If someone can explain this better, or better yet prove me wrong, it would make me very happy.

[Corydoras]

Well even if the effect would have been to overturn Roe V Wade, the manner in which it would be done would not be Constitutional.

Of course it is constitutional for congress to make laws that supercede decisions of the Supreme Court.

[Furis]

Congress also has the power to limit what cases can and can not be heard by federal courts (Including SCOTUS).


Edit>>>> Just rewording what he(^) said.

[antboy]

He admitted that his vote on partial birth abortion was not Constitutional. His explanation is that it would save some lives. I don't like it, but hey, there it is. Isn't it fantastic, though, that Ron Paul only has one or two of these inconsistences and all other candidates have a whole career full of them?

First, let me be clear that I disagree with Dr. Paul on abortion. That said, his vote on the partial birth abortion ban was not inconsistent with his position on federalism, and I don't believe he said his vote was wrong constitutionally, although he certainly has expressed some uncertainty over what was the correct vote on that flawed bill.

There was no Constitutional position on that vote: Yes meant Congress decides, and No meant the Federal judiciary decides. There was no way to vote on that bill that would have resulted in state law applying, as the Federal judiciary had already prevented the states from legislating on the matter. Given that he had no way of deciding on the vote based on Constitutional principles, he chose to vote based on what law he would have liked to see at the state level.

There is nothing unconstitutional about amending the Constitution, and the part of the sanctity of life amendment that returns the matter to the states makes perfect sense to me, but I see no reason that the US constitution needs to be amended to settle a matter of science, and the states are perfectly capable of having their laws against killing define it, if they have proper jurisidiction. Again, though, I don't think Dr. Paul is being inconsistent with his constitutionalism to propose an amendment to the constitution (although the chance of the amendment being approved by 38 state legislatures is nil as written, and would be higher if the amendment had simply returned jurisdiction to the states and left out the definition of life).

I should point out, however, that defining life as beginning at conception does NOT automatically ban abortion: the libertarian position is that nobody has the right to live at the expense of someone else, and a woman could still be determined to have the right to remove an unwanted human from her bodily support. Prior to viability, this means pro-choice. After viability, the methods of abortion would require a reasonable effort to remove the baby without causing death, but in the real world, even most people who are pro-choice are sickened by the idea of abortions in the final trimester that don't involve the health of the mother. I think the mainstream libertarian (how's THAT for an oxymoron?) position is surprisingly much closer to the consensus than the loudest pro-life and pro-choice voices (I also found it interesting that the Libertarian Party was pro-choice from the start, but has nominated pro-life candidates several times, while the R & D parties haven't nominated anyone dissenting from the party line since the renomination of Ford by the Republicans in 1976).

[garyallen59]

this whole thing is ridiculous! it doesn't matter what Ron Paul thinks or feels about abortion. he is not the deciding factor, he would leave it up to the states.

just be glad your only arguing about one bill. it's hard to tell how many we would be arguing about if it were another candidate