Ron Paul Says Privacy Rights and Freedoms Don't Include Abortion

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.lifenews.com/nat3222.html

Ron Paul Says Privacy Rights and Freedoms Don't Include Abortion
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
July 4, 2007

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is little known outside his Texas congressional district or to libertarians who backed his quixotic third party bid for the presidency in 1988. But to those who know him, the obstetrician combines his views on freedom and liberty with a pro-life perspective.
Paul told attendees at the National Right to Life convention recently that his views on abortion were solidified as a young doctor in training.

It was then that he saw a colleague leave a newborn infant to die rather than providing emergency medical treatment because he believed the baby had no chance at living more than a few hours.

For some libertarians, the view that government should be limited means that it shouldn't prohibit abortions or put any limits on them. Paul disagrees.

Asked by the Spartanburg Herald-Journal newspaper in South Carolina to spell out his abortion views vis-a-vis his views on the right to privacy, Paul says they go hand in hand.

"You have a right to privacy in your home - I don't want any cameras or any invasion in the home. Your home is your castle in a free society," Paul explained.

At the same time, "That doesn't give you the right to kill a baby in the bed."

"If there is another life involved, and that crib happens to be the uterus, the issue is not telling the woman what to do. The issue is whether there's another life," Paul told the newspaper.

"I tell my libertarian friends that if you have a live fetus, and it's 4, 5, 6, 7 pounds, and it has a heartbeat, and brainwaves, moves and sucks its thumb, and you kill him, you're committing an act of violence," Paul explained about his reconciliation of the two principles.

"So, it's a little more complicated than saying a woman can do what she wants with her body, and that's why it's been difficult for a lot of people to sort this out," Paul added.

Ultimately, Paul said he wants to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade and make it a state issue again, where state legislatures are free to pass abortion bans.

[shrugged0106]

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. paul on this

[maiki]

Good summary. Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life (until Fred declares, at least), it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers.

ETA: Ok, So I'm changing that to "Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life, it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers." Since it has been duly noted I was wrong.

[ThePieSwindler]

Good summary. Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life (until Fred declares, at least), it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers.

Fred has supported first trimester abortion rights before. I'm not sure if thats his current position, but it nullifies the word "consistently" in your response here.

[torchbearer]

Good summary. Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life (until Fred declares, at least), it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers.

I thought Fred lobbied for a pro-choice, family planning group? Doesn't sound consistent to me. He traded human life for money in my opinion.

[maiki]

Really, wow, I did not know that. I'll look into it so I have something to tell some pro-lifers I know who support Fred.

[torchbearer]

Really, wow, I did not know that. I'll look into it so I have something to tell some pro-lifers I know who support Fred.

That is exactly the reason Fred hasn't joined the race yet. Once he does... he will be shredded to pieces. Also- put in there, a spy for the nixon white house... and you've got just another government paid merc for hire.

[Bradley in DC]

Good summary. Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life (until Fred declares, at least), it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers.

Fred lobbied for a pro-abortion position.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/f...-abortion.html

[Moneychanger]

Good summary. Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life (until Fred declares, at least), it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers.

I wouldn't be to sure on that!

The sound of silence tells an interesting tale when it comes to Fred Thompson. A week after reports emerged suggesting that the former Tennessee senator once lobbied for an abortion rights group, few leaders of the GOP's conservative wing have expressed concern.

[cujothekitten]

On a side note he also showed some support for plan b and the morning after pill. I’m pro-choice and I’m comfortable with his stance on the issue.

[torchbearer]

On a side note he also showed some support for plan b and the morning after pill. I’m pro-choice and I’m comfortable with his stance on the issue.

I agree with you, i was pointing out he isn't consistent which makes him unpredictable and a panderer.

[JasonM]

Yes. I quite agree. There is no way to ever fully resolve the abortion issue until the states or the federal government have the right to ban or regulate abortion as they would. It's a shame, but abortion might have been resolved on a federal level (for better or for worse depending where you stand) if the courts haven't intervened.

If abortion is a "right", then it is one that has to be won the same way that the women's right to vote was won: Through massive demonstration and massive pressure on the legislatures. Not through a rather questionable reinterpretation of the Constitution in a way that it was never intended.

[JasonM]

I mean why do you think abortion is such a "deal breaker" issue in the US, but not anywhere else in the world? It's because the Supreme Court decided the issue for us, not "we the people".

[DeadheadForPaul]

Question: Is Dr. Paul pushing his pro-life stance in order to appear more Republican for the primaries? I ask because Dr. Paul believes states should decide...therefore, why does it matter what he thinks about the issue since his presidential authority would not include banning or allowing abortion.

[Bradley in DC]

Good summary. Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life (until Fred declares, at least), it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers.

ETA: Ok, So I'm changing that to "Plus, given none of the republican front-runners are consistently pro-life, it is a good opportunity to recruit pro-lifers." Since it has been duly noted I was wrong.

More on Fred being, um, "inconsistent" on abortion:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289422,00.html

[ThePieSwindler]

More on Fred being, um, "inconsistent" on abortion:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289422,00.html

So you're saying he hasn't been inconsistent? He has lobbied for pro-choice groups, whcih while to you or I might not be a huge deal, to pro-lifers it would be.

[Bradley in DC]

So you're saying he hasn't been inconsistent? He has lobbied for pro-choice groups, whcih while to you or I might not be a huge deal, to pro-lifers it would be.

Read the article: Fred is all over the map on abortion.

[ThePieSwindler]

Read the article: Fred is all over the map on abortion.

No i did read it haha. Thats why i was questioning why you put inconsistent in quotations, as if it weren't actually true.

[SeanEdwards]

Sean Edwards
Professor Richard Compean
English 100D
July 10, 2006

Sweet Brutality
Thoughts on the Abortion Debate in Modern America

“It is a sweet brutality we practice here, a stark and loving dispassion”, claims Sallie Tisdale in her essay “We Do Abortions here: A Nurses Story” (714). I find myself dwelling upon this sentence frequently when contemplating the abortion debate in modern America. It seems to sum up well all the moral ambiguity that is inherent in legal abortion.

Coming from a liberal upbringing, I suppose my own feelings towards abortion were naturally biased towards a pro-choice view of the matter. Growing up, the debate was always framed as an argument between religious ideologues trying to force their god given doctrine on the rest of us, and liberated women standing up for control of their own bodies. I’ve never been one to put any stock in religion, and that made it easy for me to dismiss theological justification for anti-abortion arguments. Lately though, I must admit feelings of doubt about legal abortion, doubts that have nothing to do with religious conversion, and everything to do with questions about right and wrong.

When is brutality sweet? When is killing good? What value does our society place on human life if it allows the deliberate destruction of the most vulnerable amongst us, those humans who are so immature they can not defend or speak for themselves? This is the ethical dilemma I struggle with when thinking about the abortion debate.

Yes, I believe that abortion is killing. How else could it be described? To describe abortion as anything else seems nothing more than moral cowardice, an effort to evade responsibility for one’s choices. I believe that recognizing this truth is unavoidable for any reasonable person who contemplates the reality of the abortion procedure. Consider the description of so called “partial birth” abortion contained in Justice Kennedy’s dissenting opinion in Stenberg V. Carhart:

[T]he abortionist initiates the woman's natural delivery process by
causing the cervix of the woman to be dilated.... The fetus' arms
and legs are delivered outside the uterus while the fetus is alive;
witnesses to the procedure report seeing the body of the fetus
moving outside the woman's body.... With only the head of the
fetus remaining in utero, the abortionist tears open the skull
[with a pair of scissors].... The abortionist then inserts a
suction tube and vacuums out the developing brain and other matter
found within the skull.... Brain death does not occur until after
the skull invasion, and ... the heart of the fetus may continue to
beat for minutes after the contents of the skull are vacuumed out.
The abortionist next completes the delivery of a dead fetus, intact
except for the damage to the head and the missing contents of the
skull. (Harvard law Review 119.2 (Dec 2005): p685(8))

How can any reasonable person contemplate such a procedure with an emotion other than revulsion? How can this procedure be described as anything other than killing? Doesn’t that instinctive horror say something about the moral goodness of abortion itself?

Despite this brutal reality, there remain sound moral arguments in favor of legal abortion. Surely a greater good is provided to society by not forcing unprepared women to become mothers of unwanted children. I certainly can’t say that I would want to live in a society where women are forced to complete pregnancy and childbirth against their will. The implementation of such a public policy seems likely to be just as dehumanizing and evil as the most extreme abortion procedure it sought to prevent.

Even as I acknowledge the truth in this argument, I find myself disturbed by my easy acceptance of expediency in what ought to be a purely moral judgment. This practical attitude towards the morality of abortion is echoed by Tisdale, when she writes, “...I imagine a world where this won’t be necessary, and then return to the world where it is” (720). Or, as my uncle explained when I argued with him about the subject, “You’ve got a right to all the morality you can afford.”

What disturbs me about this easy acceptance of a sort of morality of practicality is that it seems to open the door to a logical acceptance of all kinds of atrocities, as long as they are deemed expedient for the situation. I have no doubt that many ardent Nazis supported the extermination of the Jews out of a practical belief that society would be better off without them around. These ardent supporters of genocide would probably have recoiled from the reality of what their policy meant in the same way that Tisdale lies a little to her patients when describing “the tissue” that will be aborted (716).

For if we accept that it is a matter of practicality that determines whether it is moral to end a human life, then why stop at the unborn? The same argument that says we should permit legal abortion in order to prevent a financial or undue life burden on an unprepared girl seems just as valid to support legal infanticide. What has changed in the equation? As much as I wrack my brain trying to see the difference all I can come up with is that it easier to deny the reality when we don’t have to look at the face of the life being destroyed.

If economic hardship is our yardstick, then why isn’t it ethical and right to kill all the Arabs and steal their oil? Or for me to shoot my neighbor, and claim I was only prematurely aborting his future unwanted babies?

While I may have gut feelings about what is right and wrong, I also hope that I can logically support my beliefs through reasoned argument. Accepting abortion as good for society seems to reveal a logical inconsistency in my worldview that I must confess causes me to feel uneasy.

My uncle looks at me as if horns have grown out of my head when I start spouting off about the moral equivalence of genocide to abortion, or why killing Arabs is morally right. I can’t blame him at all. I think my reasoning has led me down a very dark path indeed. Of course I don’t really believe these outrageous ideas would be good, or do I? If I’m content with ripping apart a little proto-human in order to preserve my economic liberty, then why should I feel any qualms about ripping apart a fully grown human who may stand in the way of my freedom to enjoy driving a gas guzzling SUV? Certainly I have more justification to commit violence against adult humans who can potentially cause me economic harm than I do against some helpless bit of tissue that can’t even stand on its own, don’t I? At least one can imagine a kind of moral righteousness in picking fights only with those who have some chance of defending themselves.

My own doubts about the morality of legal abortion have led me, paradoxically, to one area of certainty; I now believe that the Roe V. Wade decision represents poor public policy and should be overturned. I have come to this conclusion, not because I think making abortion unavailable, or illegal, would be a good thing, but because I believe that in a democracy, deciding a matter of such moral ambiguity is better left in the hands of the people through their right to vote than by an unelected group consisting of 9 people.

I find Justice Scalia’s arguments in opposition to the interpretation that there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion extremely compelling. Scalia’s quotation of Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural address in his dissent of Planned Parenthood V. Casey is especially apt:

"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

The Supreme Court’s decision to interpret a constitutionally protected right to abortion is quite correctly described by Justice Scalia as nothing more than a value judgment, a decision arrived at by, “...a democratic vote by nine lawyers, not on the question whether the text of the Constitution has anything to say about this subject (it obviously does not); nor even on the question (also appropriate for lawyers) whether the legal traditions of the American people would have sustained such a limitation upon abortion (they obviously would); but upon the pure policy question whether this limitation upon abortion is “undue”–i.e., goes too far.” (Stenberg V. Carhart)

Scalia goes on to state:
“As long as we are debating this issue of necessity for a health-of-the-mother exception on the basis of Casey, it is really quite impossible for us dissenters to contend that the majority is wrong on the law–any more than it could be said that one is wrong in law to support or oppose the death penalty, or to support or oppose mandatory minimum sentences. The most that we can honestly say is that we disagree with the majority on their policy-judgment-couched-as-law. And those who believe that a 5-to-4 vote on a policy matter by unelected lawyers should not overcome the judgment of 30 state legislatures have a problem, not with the application of Casey, but with its existence. (Stenberg V. Carhart)”

That really sums up my objection to Roe V. Wade. The court’s justification for legal abortion is based upon personal political viewpoint, instead of a strict observance of our constitutional system of government. As much as I may disagree with the idea of a nation where pregnancy and childbirth is mandated by law, I find I can not regard that opposition as anything more than my own personal value judgment. And I can see no logical justification for why my value judgment should automatically override another person’s value judgment of the same issue. The only reasonable way for our supposedly democratic society to form the best possible public policy on the matter of abortion is to let the people decide.

Works Cited

"Constitutional law - abortion rights - Fourth Circuit declares Virginia partial birth infanticide statute unconstitutional per se." Harvard Law Review 119.2 (Dec 2005): 685(8). Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. San Mateo County Library.
Tisdale, Sally. “We Do Abortions Here: A Nurses Story.” The Norton Reader. Ed. Linda H. Peterson, John C. Brereton. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. 713-720.
United States Supreme Court, Kennedy, J., “STENBERG V. CARHART (99-830) 530 U.S. 914 (2000) 192 F.3d 1142.”
United States Supreme Court, Scalia, J., “STENBERG V. CARHART (99-830) 530 U.S. 914 (2000) 192 F.3d 1142.”
United States Supreme Court, Scalia, J., “PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. V. CASEY (91-744), 505 U.S. 833 (1992)”

[beerista]

Question: Is Dr. Paul pushing his pro-life stance in order to appear more Republican for the primaries? I ask because Dr. Paul believes states should decide...therefore, why does it matter what he thinks about the issue since his presidential authority would not include banning or allowing abortion.

I agree with Dr. Paul and you that this should not be a federal government issue, pro or con, and thus should be irrelevant.
Two reasons it is relevant anyway:
-Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices and this issue largely hinges upon a Supreme Court case.
-Presidents wield veto power. President Paul could decide to veto federal legislation funding and protecting or banning abortion.

As to whether he's pushing his pro-lifeness, so long as he's forthcoming that he thinks it should be handled at the state level, I hope he is using it to full advantage. By the way, as a couple of comments in this thread have demonstrated, I think his view may play pretty well to pro-choicers as well (though, to many, probably not so well as Roe v Wade).

[1000-points-of-fright]

I think it's good that he saying he's pro-life but wants no federal law one way or the other. It shows that he will not allow his personal beliefs to over rule the constitution.

[guntherg16]

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. paul on this

Me too.

[thuja]

i am in agreement with Paul also, but after many years of being on the pro abortion side. i did not REALLY consider this properly. it is a very complicated issue, and in any event, should not be controlled by federal gvt.

i did not consider the environment properly, either, but the idea of improving and protecting it through private property ownership is perfect.

as i reexamine all his ideas, i am still in full support, and am looking forward to us getting all our freedoms back. in the past i did not properly study the constitution, and now see it must be protected. this IS our country's last chance.

[angelatc]

The thing is though, is that making abortion illegal didn't work any better than prohibition did. Women still ended unwanted pregnancies. Rich women flew overseas, but poor women settled for substandard medical care.

[amdajo]

Actually, I don't find this stance consistent with the priciples of individual liberty, but I'm not going to let this one issue keep me from working for, and voting for, Dr. Paul.

I have to say that it really bothers me every time I hear Dr. Paul defer to "State's rights." I don't quite see what good it does me to live in a constitutional republic with supposed protection of my individual unalienable rights, if those rights can then be taken away by a state, or local government. For example, on the question of prayer in schools, Dr. Paul defers to state and local governments. What happened to seperation of church and state. The proper response (consistent with the principles of liberty) should be that the government should not be in the business of public education in the first place, but if they are going to be, then they certainly should not be advocating any particular religion. Separation of church and state can't only apply to the federal government, otherwise, what's the point. We all have to live under state and local governments too. The states all ratified the constitution, right?

Anyway, like I said, while this inconsistency bothers me a bit, I still really admire Dr. Paul a great deal. No worries!

[d'anconia]

The right to privacy is probably the weakest "right" of all IMO. It's more like a guideline than anything.

[jblosser]

Actually, I don't find this stance consistent with the priciples of individual liberty, but I'm not going to let this one issue keep me from working for, and voting for, Dr. Paul.

I have to say that it really bothers me every time I hear Dr. Paul defer to "State's rights." I don't quite see what good it does me to live in a constitutional republic with supposed protection of my individual unalienable rights, if those rights can then be taken away by a state, or local government. For example, on the question of prayer in schools, Dr. Paul defers to state and local governments. What happened to seperation of church and state. The proper response (consistent with the principles of liberty) should be that the government should not be in the business of public education in the first place, but if they are going to be, then they certainly should not be advocating any particular religion. Separation of church and state can't only apply to the federal government, otherwise, what's the point. We all have to live under state and local governments too. The states all ratified the constitution, right?

Anyway, like I said, while this inconsistency bothers me a bit, I still really admire Dr. Paul a great deal. No worries!

The states ratified the constitution as the document defining what powers they were ceding to the national government of the union they were creating. They retained the rest for themselves. They were afraid of this government becoming authoritarian, so they wrote an explicit bill of rights listing things it could never do, and for good measure stated a few times they reserved all non-enumerated powers for themselves.

The "constitutional federal republic" approach to preserving liberty is based on the notion that if you give one group too much power, they will become corrupt and abuse it. While one might assume that things like freedom of speech should "obviously" be guaranteed at the national level once for all, history teaches that denying a central government most of the authority does a better job actually preserving liberty. Keeping the central government weak means that despots are less attracted to it, and even if they get there the damage they can do is minimalized. The same is true of the individual state governments, since there are plenty of states for people to move between. This is similar to the way that competition in the market is a better guarantee of low prices and other consumer protections than a centrally-mandated set of protections.

The old saw about communism applies to *all* centralized government schemes. It is a great idea on paper, but the realities of human nature mean that in reality you only get totalitarianism.

[1000-points-of-fright]

The constitution only refers to the federal government. There are certain rules states have to follow in order to be in the union but they also have their own constitutions.

The Bill of Rights has no effect on how a state treats its churches. The Bill of Rights applies only to the rules and laws of the federal government. The states are still free to establish churches, to direct church taxes be paid, and to even require attendance in church, all within the bounds of the state's own constitution. Many states tried in the early days of the nation. Although with all the different sects involved it eventually was deemed easier not to do so. While the "free exercise" clause is undoubtedly referring to an individual right, the "establishment" clause refers to a state power. This clause not only prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion, it prevented the federal government from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion.

And that's the beauty of it. If you're a gay evolutionist atheist junkie who wants an abortion and you live in a Pro-life Creationist Christian Prohibitionist state, you can just hop the state line for your abortion or just move altogether to a state that suits you better.

[amdajo]

The right to privacy is probably the weakest "right" of all IMO. It's more like a guideline than anything.

There's no such thing as a weak right; you either have it, or you don't. The problem with privacy is the word itself. When the constitution was written the word privacy was not in use with the meaning that it has today. Privacy would have referred to something like a bathroom in the 1780's. But, if you don't think that we have a right to privacy and that it's just as important as any right, then you might as well just give-in to all the governments intrusions, because you're basically saying that they can intrude on any part of your life that they want. A great deal of the abuse that we are fighting against, and passionately supporting Dr. Paul for, are for government intrusions into our "private" lives.

[amdajo]

So if the states have all the jurisdiction over our rights, then why would any rights case go to the U.S. Supreme Court?