Paul is pro-life, he received most recently an 80% pro-life voting record from National Right to Life. I have heard about how pro-life Ron Paul was and never gave it much thought. Then I decided to do my own research. I noticed that in the 2005-2006 session of Congress he received a 55% pro-life voting record, which confused me. So I dug into his actual votes.
As a congressman Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, as well as a parental notification law, and voted to amend this parental notification law - a tactic designed by Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) to kill the bill. He also voted against the total ban on human cloning and only begrudgingly voted to ban partial birth abortion. The list of anti-life votes goes on (see a complete list here) . He also opposes the Human Life Amendment! So how or why does a staunch pro-lifer vote with the pro-abortion side on these issues important issues?
I assume his seemingly anti-life votes are all based on the belief that the federal government should not be protecting life in this way. I suspect that he believes it is properly decided by each state. If he believes abortion should be decided by state legislatures, why is he in Congress? And if elected to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government what will change on the issue of life? I am not sure, but we can tell from his voting record he will not support something that is pro-life unless it meet his standard of separation of state versus federal legislation. It seems to me that he is willing to sacrifice unborn lives on the altar of state's rights.
Judges - He says all the right things with regards to judges but again so have the others.
Pro-life leadership - He is an OB and can tell the great story of life as a doctor. But what does that translate to? What will he do for life? Again politics must be based on right principles but there must be a practical reality. He will continue the ban on overseas funding of abortion and with the federal military and, minus Giuliani, I think all the GOP candidates will continue this policy. He is adamant that the federal government should never over step states rights and according to him abortion ought to be solely decided by the states. So as president he would tie his own hands and may even veto pro-life legislation that he thinks the fed shouldn't legislate on. I do not understand how this would make him a pro-life president, if he would not use the force of his office to protect innocent human life.
When speaking of abortion and judicial appointments on his campaign site he states,
"The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution." (Federalizing Social Policy)Conclusion- I agree with Ron Paul that the federal government has overstepped its bounds in many areas, but the most basic right, the right to life, deserves the full protection of the federal government.
- You can view all of Paul's key pro-life votes from National Right to Life
4 comments:
Mike,
These are some excellent points about Ron Paul. Thanks for the great blog!
I think Paul's position is a very reasonable pro-life position to take. It is based on his commitment to federalist and subsidiarity principles, especially in light of the absolute mess we currently face where we have grown accustomed to look to the federal government to answer every ill.
There is no federal law against murder, either, but I hope you wouldn't castigate someone who opposed such a measure as being anti-life, just because they had respect for federalist principles. Failure to respect these principles has arguably contributed to the difficulty we've been facing for 30+ years now, as we try to change something that didn't belong in the national venue to begin with.
It is because of his respect for principles, and NOT expediency, that I think Ron Paul is the most likely of all the candidates to actually appoint judges who respect the Constitution and its division of powers. Every other candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, accepts the bloated, all-encompassing federal government that we have created by abrogating much of our Constitution. They may differ on what goals that government should pursue, but they all take it for granted. Only Ron Paul is articulating the principles we were founded upon and only he is suggesting a solution to something I thought conservatives saw as a problem.
Of course, seen through the (dare I say myopic) lens of the pro-life movement, nothing will satisfy except for support of every measure that comes forward, no matter how ill-conceived, short-sighted or unprincipled, so long as it will save a baby. I don't buy into that logic, and neither does Congressman Paul.
I do not know why he opposed the Human Life Amendment, unless he saw that, too, as an end-run around the principles he holds dear. I'll hafta look into that one.
Congressman Paul has one of the worst voting records of any supposedly pro-life Republican in Congress, yet he has some supporters at this year's March for Life misrepresenting him as "the only 100% pro-life candidate." He's going to have find a new definition for a "pro-life" candidate with principles so strong they compel him to vote against pro-life legislation.
the Ron Paul / pro-life issue is a good articulation as to why I have a problem with him as a presidential candidate. To be brief: no issue is as important to Congressman Paul as the Constitution. That sounds fine in theory - who doesn't want to be for the Constitution? But there are some principles that are even more important - like doing everything possible to prevent the brutal murder of unborn infants. If the Constition were to endorse abortion - which it doesn't, by the way- the moral action would be to oppose the Constitution.
Of course, I'm not advocating any such thing - but I am using it as an example on how we have to get our priorities straight.
Post a Comment