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

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.

"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.

H.R. 776 [109th]: Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 HR 776 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 776
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 10, 2005

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005’.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(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.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof—

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates—

`(A) the performance of abortions; or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.

You ask Who? Here’s who...

Guess Who Likes Earmarks?

Those of us who rail against earmarks and pork-barrel politics argue in part that the resultant spending usually goes to functions that have nothing to do with federal authority. These usually serve as incumbency protection efforts, attempts to drown the district in enough cash that it pressures voters to retain incumbents, in order to maintain the gravy train. One might think that a more libertarian incumbent would eschew such grubby tactics — but the Houston Chronicle’s investigation into Texas earmarks proves that theory incorrect (h/t: CQ reader Kirk H):
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Lake Jackson, the Libertarian-leaning contender for the Republican presidential nomination, long has waged war on the widespread federal spending he views as outside constitutional boundaries.
But the congressman, who often votes against spending bills, including funds for the Iraq war, leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function. ...
Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.
“I don’t think they should take our money in the first place,” he said. “But if they take it, I think we should ask for it back.”
The way it works in Paul’s office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair “for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk.”
I missed this yesterday; Betsy Newmark didn’t, and she notes the irony. Ron Paul and his legion of supporters routinely tell us that Paul is the only real conservative in the presidential race, dedicated to a return to a constitutional federal government. He will fight against federal involvement in any function outside of their clearly delineated tasks, as Paul has said on a number of occasions, including the presidential debates.
Obviously, Paul doesn’t put our money where his mouth is. He uses the same tired explanation as everyone in Congress regarding earmarks — “Everyone else is doing it, and why shouldn’t my constituents benefit?” It’s precisely that kind of reasoning that keeps earmarks a lively trade for influence peddlers and government expansionists, and Paul’s enthusiastic engagement in that process perpetuates it.
Paul is far from the worst offender when it comes to earmarks. In fact, a fellow Republican, Jerry Culberson, wants $1 billion in earmarks for his district, a rather astonishing sum that would cost taxpayers almost a half-trillion dollars if replicated in every district, or about 13% of the overall federal budget. However, for a man who regularly expounds on unconstitutional federal intrusions, this record seems rather hypocritical.
UPDATE: Commenter Buckwheat offers this counter-argument:
In a nutshell, Paul only requests these earmarks *after* money has been set aside for a bill, so his requests don’t increase the overall size of these bills. And he usually votes against them anyway.
Well, I thought Paul’s entire argument as a Constitutionalist was that those monies don’t belong there in the first place, and they’re going to functions that don’t belong at the federal level. Shouldn’t he stop encouraging that kind of spending? As for the second part of the argument, it seems very hypocritical to initiate earmarks, get them included in spending bills, and then vote against the bill when Paul knows it will pass over his belated objections.
If Paul wants to end earmarks, he should stop creating them, and encourage his colleagues to do the same.
Posted by Ed Morrissey

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.