Posted on 05/26/2010 2:25:51 PM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
Rand Paul on Abortion
Jacob Sullum | May 26, 2010
Let's take a breather from the heated argument over Rand Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act and instead discuss something completely uncontroversial: Rand Paul's position on the Life at Conception Act. As Ari Armstrong notes on his Free Colorado blog, Paul's anti-abortion stance, unlike his father's, goes beyond overturning Roe v. Wade and letting the states decide the issue. The younger Paul, who describes himself as "100% pro life," says "abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being," "life begins at conception," and "it is the duty of our government to protect this life." Toward that end, he supports "any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion," including "a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue." A Human Life Amendment would declare all fetuses to be persons with a right to life guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. A Life at Conception Act would seek to accomplish the same goal by statute. Hence either measure, rather than denationalizing the issue and letting states decide how to regulate abortion, would make abortion murder under federal law and render unconstitutional any state laws allowing it.
If you agree with Paul that "abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being," this may all seem perfectly sensible to you. Indeed, it can be defended on libertarian grounds. (As I've argued, the belief that abortion is murder would seem to justify even stronger action, assuming the government continues to shirk its duty.) But for anyone who rejects Paul's premise, the legal regime he envisions clearly violates a woman's right to control her own body, as Armstrong argues:
But a fertilized egg is not a person. A fertilized egg does not properly have the legal rights of a born infant. Abortion is not murder. Women have every right to take birth control drugs or obtain an abortion. Abortion bans place a woman's body under the control of the government and threaten to unleash a heavy-handed police state.
For the details of Armstrong's argument, see this 2008 paper (PDF). Since the disagreement about the moral status of the fetus will not be resolved in the foreseeable future, a federalist approach has the advantage of neutralizing the debate at the national level and allowing Americans to choose from a range of regulatory approaches. It is also more consistent with the (unamended) Constitution. But it is far from the ideal libertarian solution, which, depending on your view of abortion, is either prohibition or deregulation.
W. James Antle III profiled Rand Paul in the May issue of Reason. Last week Brian Doherty contemplated the significance of his primary victory.
Addendum: Libertarian Party Vice Chairman Joshua Koch cites Paul's support for a federal abortion ban, along with his opposition to gay marriage and his refusal to call for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, as grounds for running a candidate against him this fall, which he says the party is considering. "We're not going to let Rand determine what a Libertarian stands for," Koch, an erstwhile Paul supporter, told The Washington Post. "I'm here to say Rand does not have the Libertarian ideology."
And while some libertarians deny it, there is a faction of libertarians who want to do away with the age of consent. I saw a debate on a “free state” forum where a poster who was amazed and shocked at this was “suspended” for 2 weeks.
He simply could not believe they thought a 16 year old inducing a 10 year old into sex (for video games) was a “consensual” relationship.
There are very few Libertarian politicians. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. Peter Schiff is not a Libertarian. Some of those Conservative Republicans like many Libertarian positions. And in many cases, the Libertarian position and the Conservative position are identical.
I’m sure Eternal Vigilance is circling this thread and will blab that Rand Raul is still “pro-choice” for the states or whatever.
Yes, any abortion-related thread just isn't the same without EV trying to tear down the Pro-Life Republican Candidate, for the benefit of the Pro-Abortion Democrats and Libertarians.
Doris Gordon, one of the chief promoters for L4L, is an outright atheist, a devoted prolifer, and one of the most tenaciously, relentlessly logical people I have ever encountered in my life.
Big L Libertarians give small l libertarians a bad name.
In the final analysis, many of them are going to vote for him because this is an issue that doesn’t rank very high on their list of priorities because they’re not as interested in social issues like social conservatives are.
Actually, I was paying no attention to this thread until you pinged me to it. There aren't enough hours in the day for me to try and untangle all the confusion created by Libertarian Paulites when it comes to protecting the unalienable right to life of all.
But, now that I'm here I do find it interesting that Rand Paul continues to add language to his campaign rhetoric that sounds more and more like a Reagan personhood Fourteenth Amendment pro-life position.
Of course, at the beginning of the campaign, when he didn't think anyone was paying any attention, he was still spouting the same old Ron Paul pro-choice for states, states' rights trumps unalienable rights position. (The link to the audio of him doing exactly that can be found HERE, in the third *UPDATE* down the page.)
I wish I could say that the change in language reflected a real change in his actual beliefs and positions. But I don't. I watched him in the course of this campaign, in public debate, contemptuously deriding the idea of being "pro-choice for states."
And his idea of what a "Human Life Amendment" is is deceptive. His father's bill predictably doesn't require the states to follow the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment and protect the lives of all innocent persons, according them the equal protection of the laws.
Looks like Rand has himself in a real jackpot, though. Very sad. That's what happens when you aren't consistent in politics.
If the KY Libertarian Party believes a fetus is no more important than a diseased appendix, then they are in agreement with the abortion rights clowns who believe it's the right of the mother to do with whatever she pleases with her own body and anyone who takes that right away from her, be it a pro-lifer or a politician is infringing on her right to her own body.
EVOLUTION OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY PLATFORM ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND ABORTION
2002 & 2008
(Note that explicit references to women's rights were deleted from the 2006 and 2008 platform and forced sterilization and freedom of contraception have been deleted in the 2008 platform!)
* Report on 2002 LP Convention & Abortion See full Platform here.
Women's Rights and Abortion Plank
Individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.
* Report on 2004 LP Convention & Abortion See full Platform here.
Women's Rights and Abortion Plank
The Issue: Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
The Principle: We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.
Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.
Transitional Action: We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women.
* See full 2006 LP Platform here.
Reproductive Rights Plank
The Issue: The tragedies caused by unplanned, unwanted pregnancies are aggravated and sometimes created by government policies of censorship, restriction, regulation and prohibition. Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
The Principle: Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman regardless of age, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.
Solutions: We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically we condemn the practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients, or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individual. We support the voluntary exchange of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies. We oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.
Transitional Action: We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws.
* See full 2008 LP Platform here.
Abortion Plank
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Unfortunately, that does appear to be the stance that they are taking, which is why they are attacking Rand Paul.
I do consider myself a libertarian-minded Republican, overall; but if the Kentucky Libertarian Party is going to pull a stupid stunt like this, then you can consider me Pro-Rand Paul and Anti-Libertarian (at least on this issue, certainly).
But if the Libertarian Party of Kentucky is going to pick a fight against Rand Paul for being "too Pro-Life" -- then you can definitely count me on the side of Rand Paul, and against the purist "Big-L" Libertarians, on this one.
As you pointed out, though, that was not the thrust of my remarks. The very foundations of our own liberty as human beings rests on whether life and liberty are gifts of God or grants by human beings, be they judges or mothers. Jefferson and the Founders knew the Source of life, liberty and law.
Well said.
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.