WASHINGTON — When GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul says that he is pro-life, it’s personal.
As a medical student, Paul walked in on a late-term abortion in progress. The Texas Congressman and former obstetrician-gynecologist has recalled many times the shock of seeing a baby placed in a bucket that was put in a corner and ignored until the child died.
“I walked down the hallway and [another] baby was born early — slightly bigger than the baby they put in the bucket, and they wanted to save this baby,” he recalled in a campaign ad. “So they might have had 10 doctors in there doing everything conceivable [to save that baby’s life].
“Who are we to decide that we pick and throw one away and pick up and struggle to save the other ones?” Paul continued. “Unless we resolve this and understand that life is precious and we must protect life, we can’t protect liberty.”
Although Paul has not only declared his pro-life views but has also delivered more than 4,000 babies, his relationship with the pro-life movement is nevertheless often strained.
A libertarian with a strong Tea Party following, Paul believes that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional limits. He sees abortion as an issue that should be dealt with only on the state level, a stance that has led him to vote against legislation supported by the pro-life movement.
“It isn’t his libertarianism that keeps him from voting for (some) federal pro-life legislation. It’s his constitutionalism,” said economist Thomas Woods, a senior fellow at the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute, which supports free markets.
For example, Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act that requires out-of-state abortionists to notify parents of a minor about an abortion, and the Child Custody Protection Act, which would have made it a federal crime to take a minor across a state border to obtain abortion.
Also on the basis of federalism, Paul cast a vote against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that would have treated a child in the womb as a murder victim if he died while a federal crime was being committed.
“While Dr. Paul is a solid, pro-life obstetrician who has delivered thousands of babies, his belief that the issue of abortion should be solely addressed on the state level should give all pro-lifers grave concern,” said James Graham, executive director of Texas Right to Life.
“Abortion — like polygamy or slavery — is not an issue that needs to be or can be exclusively addressed on the state level,” Graham continued. “Furthermore, the last time that view was embraced about a major social issue our nation was plunged into the Civil War. If the right to life is not a federal issue, what is?”
Paul has signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s Pro-Life Leadership Pledge, however, which is considered an important indication of pro-life bona fides.
“Rep. Paul has made his pro-life position one of prominence in his race for the White House, and we trust that, if elected president, Mr. Paul would continue the fight at a federal level by appointing strict constructionist judges to the Supreme Court, working to defund Planned Parenthood and advancing a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List.
“As a physician,” Dannenfelser added, “few know better than Ron Paul the horrors of abortion: that is, the taking of innocent life. This experience gives him firsthand knowledge of why this election is a must-win for the pro-life movement and that President Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in history, must be defeated.”
Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
Paul, 76, was brought up a Lutheran but raised his children in the Episcopal Church. Paul and his wife, Carol, however, decided to leave the Episcopal Church in large part over the issue of abortion. (The Episcopal Church says that it is acceptable for a woman to terminate a pregnancy under certain circumstances.) The Pauls now attend the First Baptist Church in Lake Jackson, Texas.
Paul’s libertarian philosophy also informs his views on same-sex “marriage” and human embryonic stem-cell research.
He said on the floor of Congress that “questions relating to ethical dilemmas” of embryonic stem-cell research should be resolved at the state level, but he opposes federal funding for both embryonic- and adult stem-cell research.
While Paul has written that he opposes “federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman,” he does not believe the issue should be decided on a federal level. Paul does not support a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual “marriage.”
Paul pushes the envelope on the issue of marriage as a whole: He thinks that, ideally, it should not be a matter for state or federal government. He believes marriage is a religious issue that should not be licensed by the state. He believes, however, that homosexual couples should be allowed to “marry,” as long as one state isn’t required to recognize unions recognized in other states.
“It makes no sense to talk about getting government out of the marriage business,” said Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and immediate past chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, “which is the main way we protect and nurture children.”
“When marriage declines, children suffer, and so do taxpayers — to the tune of $112 billion a year. I wish more of our candidates would think more seriously about marriage and the supporting role government should play in reducing divorce and unmarried childbearing,” Gallagher said.
Economics
While Rick Perry was dealing with a mental block during the recent CNBC debate for the name of the third cabinet-level federal agency he would get rid of as president, Paul, standing next to the Texas governor, urged Perry that five — not three — federal agencies need to go.
Paul has put forward the most far-reaching economic program of all the GOP candidates. His “Plan to Restore America” argues that the United States is “in crisis” because the country has “drifted far from our founding principles” of individual liberty, free markets and constitutional government.
Paul aims to balance the budget and return the country to 2006 levels of federal spending in the first year of a Paul presidency. To achieve this, Paul proposes to cut $1 trillion in federal spending immediately through eliminating the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, the Interior, and Education. He would return Medicare and Medicaid to the states in the form of block grants, thus removing them from federal purview.
Woods believes that the Paul plan is the best hope of restoring economic opportunity. Woods jokes that he longs to see Paul grab the microphone in a GOP debate and say he has a “ ‘1-1-1 plan’ — one trillion dollars cut in one year, yielding one restored economy.’”
As GOP debate watchers know, Paul is a relentless critic of the Federal Reserve, and, though he would not be able to eliminate it as president, he would conduct a thorough audit of it. The plan calls for sound monetary policy but does not mention the gold standard, though Paul has written articles supportive of it.
“We are living through a world historic moment,” Woods said. “Sovereign debt crises are exploding around the world. Debt and spending are choking off prosperity. The world’s central banks, supposedly a source of stability, have given the world repeated cycles of boom and bust. Gimmicky tax-reform plans and a few repealed regulations simply do not cut it at a time like this.”
“We need major reforms,” said Martin Neil Baily, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, “but I don’t think anybody, including Ron Paul, has explained how to do it in a way acceptable to the American people.”
Excessive Regulation
In another example of boldness, Paul would cut the defense budget, end foreign aid and close the Transportation Security Administration, returning airport to security to private property owners.
Although Paul has said he would like to end the federal income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service, he doesn’t go that far in the plan. He would extend the Bush tax cuts, end the estate tax and taxes on personal savings.
The plan only calls for a reduction of corporate taxes (to 15%) and would allow companies that have been doing business abroad to bring their money back into the U.S. without additional taxation.
Paul believes that excessive regulation is strangling the economy, and he would cancel “onerous regulations” through an executive order and work to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (widely dubbed Obamacare) and Dodd-Frank, which added a new layer of regulations to the financial industry.
Many people concerned about the poor might question cutting entitlements and returning Medicare and Medicaid to the states, where, ultimately, libertarians like Paul believe they should be replaced by private charity. “I admire Ron Paul’s courage,” said Baily of the Brookings Institution, “but I don’t think he has a plan that would reform care for the elderly and bring costs down to a lower level.”
Woods disagrees. A convert to Catholicism who wrote an “open letter” to Catholics in support of Paul during the 2008 presidential campaign, Woods noted that when Paul was a physician it was a rule in his practice that the poor were treated free of charge and that Paul believes more physicians would do this in the absence of giant federal programs.
“Ron Paul believes in subsidiarity,” Woods said, “which is a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible instead of by the dehumanizing alternative of distant bureaucratic structures.”
“As a physician who has seen firsthand how the doctor-patient relationship has been compromised and diminished by government and bureaucracy, he is in a good position to oversee a transition to a freer and more affordable system,” Woods said. He said that Paul believes that without the encumbrances of government regulations physicians would be “more willing to do pro bono work, as they once did as a matter of routine.”
But economist Ed Lotterman, who writes the “Real-World Economics” column that appears in The St. Paul Pioneer-Press and three other newspapers, is skeptical.
“You have doctors saying that: ‘Medicare reimbursements are not high enough, so we aren’t going to treat Medicare patients.’ I don’t see doctors doing things for free,” he said. “When I was a kid, there were people with serious diseases, and you’d hear the phrase ‘They just can’t afford an operation.’ This was a reality, and it could be a reality again.”
A former regional economist at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, Lotterman also is wary of Paul’s antagonism towards the Federal Reserve. Lotterman says a modern economy needs a lender of last resort.
And Baily, of Brookings, worries that Paul isn’t pragmatic enough to be president. “If you contrast him with Ronald Reagan, who came to prominence with an ideological stance, but when he came to office was relatively pragmatic, you wonder if Ron Paul would be willing to compromise. Reagan was successful because he was willing to compromise. I don’t see that in Ron Paul, who seems to be ideologically driven.”
Baily also says that going on the gold standard would “put U.S. monetary policy in the hands of a global commodity over which we have no control.”
Woods says Paul is not calling for a return to the gold standard — though they both believe that would be a vast improvement over the current system — but, rather, a genuine free-market system in which the dollar would not enjoy the various privileges it does now. Precious metals and the paper dollar could coexist on a level playing field, thereby maximizing people’s choices and protecting people from the consequences of a sharp fall in the dollar.
However, in Woods’ opinion, Paul’s boldness could be a solution to our current economic woes. “You have to rip the band-aid off instead of picking at it for 20 years,” he said. “Let’s just do what needs to be done now.”
Register correspondent Charlotte Hays writes from Washington.
The Register has been profiling candidates who are vying for the White House in 2012:
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Tom Hoopes: Why Catholics Are Grateful to George W. Bush
Comments
Post a Comment
I don’t see how Paul can believe that life is the foundation of liberty, and not be willing to protect it at the federal level.
In reference to some of the critical comments, though:
-
I think what Paul probably believes is that marriage *wouldn’t* necessarily be in such decline if it were a more serious spiritual affair. Many people see it as a piece of paper the state gives them to affirm their relationship, and as such, find it unnecessary or easily dissolved. I believe it was agents of the state that brought us the “innovations” of no-fault divorce and SSm, am I wrong?
-
‘Medicare reimbursements are not high enough, so we aren’t going to treat Medicare patients.’ I think the whole reason we see this behavior is because Medicare exists - it encourages people to think that way. Much in the same way our tax system encourages people to look at things in terms of the very least they can get away with.
-
Finally - Did Reagan compromise on the Berlin Wall?
not Saint Michael the Archangel
not Saint Margaret of Scotland
just Ronald Ernest Paul MD
It’s worth noting that Ron Paul three times introduced the Sanctity of Life Act to the House.
Ron Paul authored the Sanctity of Life Act, which holds that life begins at conception. That makes abortion illegal on a federal level while allowing states to decide how to handle penalties. People need to start doing just a tiny bit of research on the candidates so they can learn where they really stand instead of relying on journalists who are either too incompetent or too lazy to do the research themselves.
A more accurate subtitle for the article would be “his adherence to the Constitution prevents him from voting for federal pro-life legislation.”
While I am Pro Life myself, I don’t believe abortion falls into any of the current 3 categorical degrees of murder nor should a blanket law apply to all states thus allowing the Federal government control over all situations.
Lets not forget the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron Paul put forward as well before we label him in a negative light toward abortion.
——
Why do we have to get permission from the government to get married anyway? It’s a bond between God and another person. If the Fed came in and said that all marriage should be gay and not straight, would that be right? no. There should be no licence to get married at all.
——-
Ron Paul’s economics are genius and his plan is the only serious one out there. When the government creates subsidies to help medical care, education, etc. it raises the bar for what the minimum charge will be to the customer. The more we subsidize, the higher we raise the price. For colleges alone, they base what their tuition will be according to how much student aid they think students will be able to receive, thus forcing students to rely on student aid more and more. We don’t see that for industries that the government is the least involved in. Look at cell phones or computers. The technology goes up and the prices go down. Tech goes up in the medical industry all the time, but do the prices go down? nope, because the medical companies receive subsidies (guarenteed payments) so there is no incentive for them to lower prices below that of what they automatically get from the government.
——
If you don’t know why eliminating the federal reserve and how it is the lynch pin to so much of our economical problems, just read the book The Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, and you’ll see why.
In response to:
“Abortion — like polygamy or slavery — is not an issue that needs to be or can be exclusively addressed on the state level,” Graham continued. “Furthermore, the last time that view was embraced about a major social issue our nation was plunged into the Civil War. If the right to life is not a federal issue, what is?”
When America was founded, there wasn’t a Federal law against abortion or even against any other kind of *murder*. It was left to the states. Graham insanely insinuates that it would be civil war to let states decide this issue. But the non-interference of the federal government in the issue of murder did not cause an instant civil war in 1789 after the Constitution took effect.
Power corrupts. America’s founders wrote the 10th Amendment to be sure there would never be a concentration of powers at the Federal level, and to prevent the kind of corruption we have today.
Federal law on abortion? Another Final Solution. Just as corrupting as Obamacare. Humans are too weak to be granted such powers over so many.
Ron Paul is the only humble man in this race from any party. He knows what the problems are and how to solve them. And it won’t be from piling more restrictions on the states or the people. It will be by returning our lives, liberty and property to us. It can and will work.
So principle can’t be pragmatic? Religious belief includes adherence to certain principles; does this mean faithful Christians can’t be ‘pragmatic’? The Brookings Institute might think that, but I bet the Pope doesn’t. Let’s imagine him talking to the Founders - oh, well, it’s a nice idea that all men are created equal and endowed with certain rights - but that’s not pragmatic!
Ron Paul is one of the most “pragmatic’ members of Congress because he doesn’t always follow the ‘leader,’ he follows the Constitution - and that enables him to make principle-based alliances across party lines.
Of course if you define ‘pragmatic’ as meaning ‘totally utilitarian without any guidance from morality or the constitution,’ then no, Dr. Paul isn’t pragmatic. And that’s a good thing.
Murder is handled at the state level. Ron Paul introduced the sanctity of life Act which would make abortion murder and automatically a crime at the state level.
Ron Paul: “To those who argue that we cannot allow the states to make decisions on abortion since some will make the wrong ones, I reply that that is an excellent argument for world government - for how can we allow individual countries to decide on abortion and other moral issues, if some may make the wrong decisions? Yet the dangers of a world government surely speak for themselves.
Let us therefore adopt the constitutional position, one that is achievable and can yield good results but that shuns the utopian idea that all evil can be eradicated.” The Revolution: A Manifesto, page 61.
Responding to Clerestory’s comment and Neil Bailey’s understanding of compromise and being ideologically-driven: it’s clear Bailey is making an unfounded assumption about Ron Paul.
1. Consider the bills he has supported and the other legislators Paul has worked with; it doesn’t matter whether (R) or (D) ends their name.
2. Paul’s Plan itself is evidence of his ability to be reasonable: it’s not everything he would like, but it’s a great start.
As Paul has put it, there has been too much compromise in Washington over spending. This doesn’t mean that finding common ground is impossible.
It isn’t that Paul just believes that abortion should be relegated to the states, it is the law. It is called the Constitution. There is no way around it. The federal government has no jurisdiction over the states other than the handful of responsibilities limited to it by the Constitution. If the issue had been left to the states in the first place, there would have been countless abortions that would have never happened.
I’ve made a promise to vote for Ron Paul and no one else. Then I went one step further and put my promise online for the whole world to see. Do you support Ron Paul? Will you be voting for him? Make yourself counted! Log on to http://RonPaulPromise.com and sign the statement of support. Let your weight to the growing avalanche that is Ron Paul. Remember to spread the word!
Where has the pro-life movement been more - and consistently - successful?
a) the federal level
b) the state level
This article fails to mention perhaps the most important reason to support Ron Paul. His pro-life position is not limited to abortion, but applies to the lives of innocents in foreign countries that the US routinely bombs. Ron Paul is the only peace candidate in either party, which should mean something to those of us who would follow the Prince of Peace. While not a pacifist, Ron Paul uses Just War theory to evaluate wars, and finds our current wars fall short. He is the only one who would end them. Which, in addition to being the right thing morally, is absolutely necessary if we as a nation are to avoid bankruptcy.
Looks like the churches failure to teach the importance of life is what the issue is. You can write a million laws on the books and until people have a heart for life you won’t stop abortion. If you write a federal law and the abortions continue in the backroom what have you accomplished? Nothing. There is a lot of opposition to abortion and not that the church as much to do with it. It is the new 3d sonograms that are changing hearts and minds on abortion. It is the videos of abortion procedures that are changing people. This should be required and the issue of abortion would be greatly eliminated. The Federal Reserve is another issue and it has robbed the American people and the full brunt of what they have done will be felt in the coming years. Paul is studied in Free Market Economics and he sees the robbery of the retirement, homes and savings of the America people as a total outrage that most even at the federal level don’t understand. You would think the church would also be opposed to the money changers that rob people. The dishonest weights and measures they use. Usury. The property confiscation by way of inflation. The wars to no end. The killing of innocent people 6 wars and counting. The politicians are the sell outs. You continue to look for people who have no integrity, say anything to get elected, and hope to hold them accountable which never happens. Ron Paul has more integrity than all of Washington put together. He is not bought by special interest groups. He say’s what he means and means what he says. Return the issues to the states and the people will see the changes are made. I fail to every see where Jesus would have attempted to beat people into submission but to love them and set a good example. Ron Paul has set an example that many people respect. He is changing hearts and minds on a lot of issues. Abortion is one of them. Robbery, killing of innocents, personal personal responsibility to names a few. As a christian my conscience is clear to vote for him and no other candidate has the honesty and integrity.
When I first heard of Ron Paul I thought he was a kook. Well, he’s making more and more sense to me. And Tom Woods, cited in the story, is a brilliant economist.
This article is inaccurate and grossly misleading. Ron Paul has is one of the strongest advocates for life in our govnment today.
He has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which defines life as beginning at conception, and pledges to repeal Roe v. Wade if he is elected president.
How do these not qualify as federal legislation against abortion?
Would a Gingrich-Ron Paul ticket be more appealing to the voting public than a Romney-Gingrich duo? I believe that either team would have a fair chance versus Obama-Biden. The 2012 election is about the match-up just as much as it is about jobs, the debt, economics, taxes, foreign affairs,etc. What say y’all?
I don’t think it is likely to happen, but I would be eager to see Ron Paul in office as president. I say this as a devout Catholic who opposes abortion wholeheartedly. I do wish people would give him a chance.
Slavery ended because of State’s Rights. It was only because some States were able to gradually eliminate slavery did abolitionism possess a political base of support. If slavery were made a Federal issue during the passage of the Constitution so that either all states had to be Slave States or Free States then every state in 1860 would have been a slave state.
Additionally when anyone claims that there MUST be a lender of last resort I’m reminded of the sort of person who claims that the world rests on the back of an enormous turtle. When asked what the turtle is standing on, the response is that it is turtles all the way down. Free markets can better assess risk than a central bank. Lenders of last resort subsidize the risk by shifting potential losses to the taxpayers and holders of the currency.
Murder is illegal at the state level, as abortion would be with a Paul presidency. Paul is the ONLY candidate to have introduced legislation which would define an unborn child as a person, thus making abortion illegal in all 50 states. The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception. The National Catholic Register needs to do more research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_ActSee MoreSanctity of Life Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.