So you recognize that it is appropriate for the federal government to enforce our God-given rights as declared in the U.S. Constitution (Mankind can declare, or recognize, rights, not create them), yet you don’t think that by refusing to move the federal government to protect the Right to Life (the most basic of our God-given rights) that it disqualifies him from being called “pro-life”?
In the 1850s, in an America in which the Bill of Rights applied only against the federal government (the 14th Amendment, intended by its author John Bingham and the other Congressmen who approved it to apply against the states all “privileges or immunities of citizenship,” including the individual rights declared in the Bill of Rights, was not introduced, approved and ratified until after the Civil War), if a congressman claimed to be opposed to slavery but believed that the Constitution did not permit the federal government to legislate regarding slavery in the several states and went on to say that states had the right to impose slavery on a portion of the population, and went on to oppose the enactment of federal laws that granted freedom to slaves if they legally resided in a U.S. territory, such congressman would not have been deemed to be an abolitionist—heck, that was pretty much Stephen Douglas’s position. The Constitution nowadays provides Congress with many more weapons to fight abortion than abolitionist congressmen had in the 1850s to fight slavery, yet Ron Paul expects to be called a pro-lifer even though he opposes federal efforts to combat abortion?
Ron Paul voted against the Child Custody Protection Act (making it a crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion in violation of state parental-notification laws) every time the House voted on it (the only other “Republicans” to oppose it were pro-abortion RINOs). Ron Paul voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (recognizing unborn children harmed in violent attacks that were already federal crimes as separate victims in addition to the mother) every time the House voted on it (again, the only other “Republicans” to vote against it were pro-abortion RINOs). Ron Paul voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (similar to the Child Custody Protection Act that had never become law) every time he voted on it (and again, the only other “Republicans” to vote against it were pro-abortion RINOs); Paul’s opposition was not based on a principled belief that the Constitution does not allow Congress to prohibit abortions performed on minors taken across state lines in violation of state laws, since he voted for amendments introduced by Sheila Jackson Lee and Bobby Scott that would have exempted only grandparents, clergymen, nurses, cabdrivers and busdrivers from the law.
Maybe in his heart Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, but his voting record in Congress cannot be described as pro-life, and if he were president he would by no means fight abortion in the way that George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and even George H.W. Bush did. I have my doubts about Paul truly basing his votes on principle (the same goes for his vaunted opposition to pork—he will fill up bills with lots of pork for his district, and then cast one of the few votes against final passage so as to claim to be a principled “pork-buster”), but even if his commitment to the Constitution was the reason he votes as he does the end result is someone I could never support for president (even if he wasn’t crazy and senile).
I think he’s pretty seriously bended to be so hardcore “state’s rights” to the detriment of other more important principles but I wouldn’t say he’s not pro-life because of it. Though I see your point. He wouldn’t be the best Pro-Life President.
Didnt GWB say it was not his job to care if the bills he supported/signed were constitutional, like one he signed regulating OUR free speech against politicians? Not a good example of what I would support. How about this?
Q: Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do.
Q: The cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.
PALIN: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.
Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric Oct 1, 2008
Q: Why is Roe v. Wade a bad decision?
PALIN: I think it should be a states’ issue not a federal government-mandated, mandating yes or no on such an important issue. I’m, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas. Now, foundationally, it’s no secret that I’m pro-life that I believe in a culture of life is very important for this country. Personally that’s what I would like to see further embraced by America.
Source: 2008 CBS News presidential interview with Katie Couric Oct 1, 2008
Source:Issues2000: Sarah Palin Answers on Abortion
It was Pissant that clued me on to this when he attacked Palin on abortion using YOUR exact same argument which is. "Ends justifies the means".
GW 'who cares about the constitution?' B ???? You kidding? How about Scalia and Thomas?
“ Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote an interesting concurrence in yesterday's partial birth abortion case, indicating that he might be sympathetic to a Commerce Clause challenge to the federal partial birth abortion ban that was just upheld by the Court.” But no one — perhaps fortunately — raised the Commerce Clause, so Thomas and Scalia voted with the rest of them to uphold the ban..... .”
ref at Catholic Answers Forums