Rand Paul and the Fourteenth Amendment
Note: I wanted to get quotes from Bill Johnson and Nate Hobson, campaign manager for Trey Grayson, but they couldn't be reached today. Please remember that only those with IP addresses in Kentucky may comment.
As I was putting together my article today regarding Rand Paul's position on abortion, I began to consider what it is that makes people so unwilling to end abortion in America. Many of the comments left on this blog in defense of Dr. Paul have pained me to the core because they reflect not only a lack of compassion for children in the womb, but an outright hatred for them precisely because the children seem to be getting in the way of their beloved Dr. Paul's aspirations. I couldn't help but wonder what the root causes for this animosity toward the most innocent among us might be.
Mind you, there are at least two people who have submitted comments in support of Dr. Paul whom I can tell are genuinely pro-life, honestly believe him to be a defender of life, and are offended that I would challenge him on the issue. Most seem to think this is a secondary issue. These claim to be "more concerned about the Constitution", as one of them said, not realizing that Rand Paul is supporting an unConstitutional and even pro-"abortion" (beyond pro-"choice") piece of legislation. But it is truly those who have contacted me who hate children outright who concern me the most. I don't know what blinds people to truth, but I think it does reflect on the leader when the followers are generally not on the right track.
There has been another time in America's history when we've faced an issue as profoundly divisive as abortion. That issue was slavery and it is no accident that the pro-slavery forces were giving the same arguments for their cause as Rand Paul supporters have been offering in support of him on this issue. Pro-slavery forces also thought slavery should be a states' rights issue, or that white men should have the "choice" to own slaves or not. History is repeating itself, and when America can look upon the preborn child with as much respect as she is able to give to a person of another skin color, I can believe that we will have again accomplished something that God has charged us with. Until then, I am waiting for America to take a stand on this.
As I considered the arguments submitted to me by Paul supporters, since I am not a cynic, I decided it might be best to try to address the good intentions that are driving those who set forth arguments for the continued acceptance of evil institutions. One of the arguments based on some very good intentions of the pro-slavery forces in America was that if slaves were freed, it would have a devastating impact on the economy. I wondered where these Paul supporters get the idea that the economy is the most important issue, but then I recalled an observation from
an article about Rand Paul in the WKU Herald:
Like a wrestler, Rand Paul could man-handle a question about having children and suplex it into an answer about high birth rates among poor people causing persistent poverty.
Another article from The Daily Beast regarding an interview with Rand Paul noted this:
Paul said his most cherished issue—the one that motivated him to jump into the Senate race—was the country's $11.8 trillion national debt.
His most cherished issue is a fiscal issue? (Slapping myself on forehead.)
My most cherished issue is the protection of the right to life, not to mention the Constitution, so these two observations made me think that perhaps this is why Dr. Paul's supporters take the positions that they do in their defense of him.
Dr. Paul says he is pro-life. One of his supporters actually offered to me as proof that Dr. Paul is pro-life, "I heard it from his own mouth." (Slapping self on forehead again.)
Saying one is pro-life isn't the same as actually believing it and being a true, conscious defender of life. One has to look deeper to find the answer to the question. I'm sure it's much easier for someone who has been doing this for 17 years, as I have, to know who the "good guys" are and who the "bad guys" are based on the things they say -- which ones actually believe it in their hearts and which ones are merely taking a political position for expediency's sake. If you've been a part of the "sleeping giant" for the last 17 years, know this. I have been a wide awake pro-life Reagan conservative trying to get the giant to wake up.
To reach those with economic arguments, I decided to offer the evidence that America did not end slavery easily. We went to war over it. Not only that, there was a severe economic impact experienced by both whites and blacks as the slaves were freed. All suffered from the economic impact, but it was worth it. The important thing was human dignity, regardless of the horrific suffering that came about in the quest to ensure the protection of all human dignity.
Was America more noble then than she is today as she struggled in anguish to birth freedom for African-Americans and, in the process, for all of us? I hope we are as noble today. This Senate election will confirm or deny this for me.
As I was reading the preface of
One Kind of Freedom: The Economic Consequences of Emancipation
, by Roger L. Ransom and Richard Sutch, I was struck by this passage:
A serious danger which accompanies any attempt to theorize about human behavior and social institutions is that the theories and the models are likely to depict experience too starkly. They may stereotype individuals and situations, while paying insufficient attention to the variety of experiences and deviations from the norm.
I was reminded of the attacks from Rand Paul's supporters who seem to honestly believe that I am a "shill" for the Grayson campaign. (I don't know what a "shill" is, actually, but I'm nothing for the Grayson campaign so I know I can't be one.) Perhaps they themselves have been attacked so much from the Grayson campaign that they have put me into a stereotype, as the passage above says. They are ignoring my unique "variety of experiences" and "deviations from the norm" and seem to believe that any challenge to Rand Paul is a lie from the Grayson campaign -- the very same tactics we see so frequently from Obama supporters who believe we dare not challenge him on issues. This is also the way of those who have embraced cynicism rather than a healthy skepticism.
I think that I have tried to be a skeptic, not a cynic, when it comes to Dr. Paul. I actually wanted to vote for him, at first, because I am fed up with the establishment GOP. (That's another story.) But then I found out about his position on abortion and I was heartbroken. Thankfully, I found out about Bill Johnson, so I can cast a vote in good conscience on voting day.
Suffice it to say that, no, I am not working for any campaign. Far from it. I'm just a pro-life mom who has endorsed Bill Johnson because, like me, he is a pro-life Reagan conservative who also wants to take on the Republican establishment. I agree with him. He fights for the same things I fight for, so he is the person I am voting for. It really is just that simple.
So, what is wrong with Dr. Paul's position on abortion? It's not just his position on abortion that concerns me. It's also his position on the Constitution itself which protects all "persons", not just the preborn children. His position is dangerous to all persons. I will explain how, but first need to hear from Dr. Paul's campaign.
I was contacted by Christopher Hightower of the Rand Paul campaign yesterday and we talked at length, off and on, all day. After a long round of what he and I would probably both agree were frustrating attempts to clearly discuss the issue -- albeit in a cordial manner -- I settled on asking him these three questions and asked for his response.
1) Rand Paul has said that he supports a human life amendment. Which human life amendment, if any, has Rand Paul read and which, if he has read any, would he support?
2) Dr. Paul has stated his position clearly on the stump: "I think we should make Roe v. Wade part of our philosophy as part of states' rights in believing we should have the prerogative over this". My question, does Rand Paul stand by that statement?
Audio: http://kywordsmith.com/#/johnsonvspaul/4535452248
3) Does Dr. Paul believe that the word "person" in the 14th amendment includes all individuals from the point of fertilization (the biological definition) to natural death?
Below is the full text of his response:
1) Rand Paul has said that he supports a human life amendment. Which human life amendment, if any, has Rand Paul read and which, if he has read any, would he support?
Rand Paul will support both federal and state attempts to limit, regulate, and prohibit abortion. There have been many Human Life Amendments through the years. Famous among them are the Hatch Amendment and the Paramount Amendment, both of which Rand Paul would support. Rand Paul does not limit himself to only these amendments as others have and will be introduced. Rand Paul thinks it is important to support all attempts to end abortion.
Rand Paul will also support the Sanctity of Life Amendment. The California Catholic Daily cited Rep. Paul as "abortion's 'unshakeable foe'" with the Act as evidence because of his introduction of this legislation.
On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), now a pro-life activist, endorsed Rep. Paul for president based on his authorship of the Sanctity of Life Act and the We the People Act. Clearly, many in the Pro-Life movement believe that the Sanctity of Life Amendment should be part of the pro-life strategy.
Also, this aspect of our strategy only requires a majority vote in Congress as opposed to a Constitutional amendment which will always be more difficult to achieve.
Support of the Sanctity of Life legislations [sic] does not in any way preclude support of Human Life Amendments.
2) Dr. Paul has stated his position clearly on the stump: "I think we should make Roe v. Wade part of our philosophy as part of states' rights in believing we should have the prerogative over this".
That quote should read: "I have argued that the REPEAL of Roe v. Wade should be integrated into the 10th amendment movement for more state rights."
In addition to fighting for Constitutional protection for life, Rand Paul will support any legislation that allows states to protect life.
3) Does Dr. Paul believe that the word "person" in the 14th amendment includes all individuals from the point of fertilization (the biological definition) to natural death?
Yes.
Unless you are familiar with the Constitutional implications of these positions, you may miss the danger here. It certainly does sound as if Dr. Paul is pro-life, and he can point to a few notable people who agree with him on the Sanctity of Life Act. I would add to his short list the two sponsors of the bill in Congress. Are they correct? No.
It has been rather absurdly noted by some that I must be on the side of Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood is also opposed to the Sanctity of Life Act. The reason they are opposed to the Sanctity of Life Act is that it defines a preborn child as a "person". Of course, they are opposed to that, but opposition from Planned Parenthood does not a pro-life bill make.
Dr. Paul has certainly thrown out the pro-life positions like a masterful archer.......shooting into the air, it seems. He will do ANYTHING, apparently, to end abortion. He is so committed, in fact, that he will end it even if it means letting Oregon authorize the sacrifice of all red-haired children who are five years old. I apologize for the bluntness, but that is, by way of actual effect, what he is saying.
I reported earlier that Dr. Paul's position has a unique twist. There are actually two twists. The first is that the legislation says that personhood begins at "conception". This term is not scientific. We Catholics use it interchangeably with "fertilization" (meaning they are the same because Catholics know "conception" is at "fertilization"), but not everyone is Catholic, and terms often have different meanings when they are used popularly, in theology, or in legislation, whatever the case may be. For purposes of our conversation, though, he and I were speaking in terms of biology and legislation.
The biological beginning of a human person is at fertilization. In terms of legislation the term "conception" has been co-opted by pro-"choice" forces so that it can refer to just about any point after fertilization. Obviously, it is not pro-life legislation and anyone who claims to be pro-life should renounce this bill based on that one fact, yet Rand Paul refuses to renounce it. It remains an option for him.
I'm glad he supports the use of the term "fertilization" in legislation, but if he won't renounce the Sanctity of Life Act on the basis that it uses the term "conception", it means that he will not insist on the biological beginning of life as the point where personhood begins. He is willing to accept a later point.......or perhaps he has no earthly idea that this is the position he's taken. It's one or the other. Either way, he doesn't have any business representing me in the United States Senate.
The second twist has to do with the very fact that the Sanctity of Life Act does define the preborn child (after this relative point of "conception") as a "person". Dr. Paul agrees that the Fourteenth Amendment covers this "person". There is a problem with the rest of the Sanctity of Life Act, though, as it follows from that point. The act further gives states authority on the matter. States decide on the issue of whether or not this "person" should have his right to life deprived. The act is both unConstitutional and very dangerous, but he will not renounce it.
The Fourteenth Amendment says [empasis mine]:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is why Judie Brown of the American Life League says that the Sanctity of Life Act goes beyond the point of being "pro-choice" and is, in truth, "pro-abortion". Do you really want our federal government passing a law allowing that states have the right to decide if "persons" should be killed?
Many have said that murder is a state issue. No. If the State of Oregon, for whatever reason, decided that all red-haired five-year-olds must die, it would be unConstitutional because the 14th Amendment forbids it. You may think that no state would ever pass a law like that so it's okay for us to ignore this provision of the Constitution.........but you'd be an idiot if you thought that.
We are a nation of laws. The United States Constitution has been plastered all over the place, as of late, by the Tea Party movement, of which I consider myself to be a part since I attended my local Tea Party event with much gusto. Rand Paul would, in effect, completely ignore this part of the Constitution willingly........but, on the bright side, apparently only if it were the only way to limit abortion in our great state of Kentucky. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you should be very uncomfortable with this position.
My personal opinion is that Dr. Paul doesn't know much at all about this issue and is unwilling to criticize his father's legislation because his father's political career is more important to him than ending abortion is.
Does he like babies? I think yes. Does he love the Constitution? I think he does. Would he be willing to give the states more authority on a matter if, in doing so, it would expand abortion among the poor? I think it's pretty clear that he would, yes, if those were the options on the table in front of him. I base this on his saying the debt is his most important issue and also his comments about pregnancy among the poor.......oh, and his irresponsible position on an unConstitutional bill designed to make abortion a state issue.
I don't think Dr. Paul's position on the Sanctity of Life Act is due to his not being pro-life on some superficial level, nor do I think he's intentionally willing to let states pass laws to kill people. Whatever is the case, he has to renounce this evil bill and develop an actual position that doesn't include trampling all over the 14th Amendment. I'd also appreciate it if babies were more important to him than debt. His current position is that he will do anything to end abortion, even if it's dangerous to the lives of anyone else a state wants to kill.
Please support Bill Johnson for US Senate. He's a decorated Navy veteran, a graduate of the University of Kentucky, a Reagan conservative, TOTALLY pro-life....and actually knows the issue. I couldn't get his comment today because he was traveling to schools with Dr. Alan Keyes (
who has endorsed him) to speak about the Constitution.
