Ron Paul vs. Birth Control

[barts]

According to an article in Mother Jones, Ron Paul vs. Birth Control,

Last year, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul introduced a bill in Congress that would allow states to ban contraception if they choose.

Paul's "We the People Act," which he introduced in 2004, 2005, 2009, and 2011, explicitly forbids federal courts and the Supreme Court of the United States from ruling on the constitutionality of a variety of state and local laws. That includes, among other things, "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction." The bill would let states write laws forbidding abortion, the use of contraceptives, or consensual gay sex, for example.

It would seem that Ron Paul, a self-professed libertarian, is also a foot soldier in what liberals are calling the Republican War on Women. I would add to that the Republican war on gays.

At any rate, it seems to me that like the other Republican presidential nominees, Ron Paul would make a lousy President, unless the goal is a meaner, crueler America, where freedom truly is "just another word for nothing left to lose".

[LetThereBe]

I fail to see how leaving something to the states is inherently sexist. This no more proves that Ron Paul is a "foot soldier in the War on Women" than state traffic laws prove we are "anti-transportation".

[cat505]

At any rate, it seems to me that like the other Republican presidential nominees, Ron Paul would make a lousy President, unless the goal is a meaner, crueler America, where freedom truly is "just another word for nothing left to lose".

Precisely. As time goes by, it seems the presidental candidates just get worse and worse.

[RickSp]

The fatal contradiction in the claims made by so-called libertarians and their fellow traveler conservatives is that they praise individual liberty yet deny that the right to privacy does or should exist. They simultaneously claim that government should keep out of peoples' lives while at the same time claiming the right to dictate what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Ron Paul rants about the "nanny state" and yet claims the right to control what goes on in women's wombs. Ron Paul also claims to be the "champion of the Constitution" but shows contempt for privacy rights established by the First, Third, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

It is hypocrisy, duplicity or just stupidity? Perhaps a mix of all three. It is disturbing that the current front-runner in the Republican clown circus is the theocracy loving Santorum.

[LetThereBe]

The fatal contradiction in the claims made by so-called libertarians and their fellow traveler conservatives is that they praise individual liberty yet deny that the right to privacy does or should exist. They simultaneously claim that government should keep out of peoples' lives while at the same time claiming the right to dictate what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Ron Paul rants about the "nanny state" and yet claims the right to control what goes on in women's wombs. Ron Paul also claims to be the "champion of the Constitution" but shows contempt for privacy rights established by the First, Third, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

It is hypocrisy, duplicity or just stupidity? Perhaps a mix of all three. It is disturbing that the current front-runner in the Republican clown circus is the theocracy loving Santorum.

I still don't get this. Where does Ron Paul say he wants to control what goes on in women's wombs? It sounds to me he wants to keep the federal government out of it altogether... which is pretty much the opposite of controlling anything.

I believe I have heard Ron Paul is personally against abortion. At the same time, he does not favor federal legislation banning it. This is consistent with the libertarian position.

Saying that Ron Paul is attacking women's rights by avoiding explicit federal recognition is like saying the United States is attacking Christmas and Christianity when it doesn't nationally recognize the holiday's doctrines.

[The Black Ghost]

He has to take this position because he's a hardcore libertarian. This is Reaganism to the extreme--strong state's rights and a weaker federal government. Whether or not he actually cares about birth control is irrelevant...he simply wants to get rid of federal government power over states and individual communities.

That said, I think it's unjust to overturn years of hard-fought progress in our government which maintain acceptable standards of living for people across the country. Slavery and the Jim Crow era proved that you cant just let states do whatever they want because you end up with places where the ruling majority oppresses the weaker groups in society.

[RickSp]

I still don't get this. Where does Ron Paul say he wants to control what goes on in women's wombs? It sounds to me he wants to keep the federal government out of it altogether... which is pretty much the opposite of controlling anything.

I believe I have heard Ron Paul is personally against abortion. At the same time, he does not favor federal legislation banning it. This is consistent with the libertarian position.

Ron Paul is libertarian when he wants to be. In the case of abortion he is a straight ahead pro-government social conservative.

He is opposed to abortion, period. Whether he wants the federal government to make it illegal or the states, it is all the same. From Paul's website:

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

Saying that Ron Paul is attacking women's rights by avoiding explicit federal recognition is like saying the United States is attacking Christmas and Christianity when it doesn't nationally recognize the holiday's doctrines.

Paul's "We the People Act," is again pure pro-government social conservatism, not to mention being wildly in violation of the Constitution. More bullshit and hypocrisy from man who claims to be the "Champion of the Constitution."

[LetThereBe]

Ron Paul is libertarian when he wants to be. In the case of abortion he is a straight ahead pro-government social conservative.

He is opposed to abortion, period. Whether he wants the federal government to make it illegal or the states, it is all the same. From Paul's website:

He is opposed to abortion, but he is also opposed to a federal ruling on the matter.
In other words, he thinks it is bad, but he doesn't want to tell you that you can't do it.

Again, this is 100% consistent with the libertarian position. He has always been a strong supporter of state's rights.

Paul's "We the People Act," is again pure pro-government social conservatism, not to mention being wildly in violation of the Constitution. More bullshit and hypocrisy from man who claims to be the "Champion of the Constitution."

It is "pro-government"? This is what I read:

1/14/2009--Introduced.We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving:
(1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws. Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states. Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act. Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal. Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

So... how is prohibiting the federal courts from ruling on an issue "pro-government"? That sounds like a stance supporting state's rights to me. This sounds like a RESTRICTION of federal government authority... and again is 100% consistent with the Libertarian position.

[Dieval]

He is opposed to abortion, but he is also opposed to a federal ruling on the matter.
In other words, he thinks it is bad, but he doesn't want to tell you that you can't do it.

Again, this is 100% consistent with the libertarian position. He has always been a strong supporter of state's rights.




It is "pro-government"? This is what I read:



So... how is prohibiting the federal courts from ruling on an issue "pro-government"? That sounds like a stance supporting state's rights to me. This sounds like a RESTRICTION of federal government authority... and again is 100% consistent with the Libertarian position.

It doesn't matter what the words say...He's "pro-government"!

[RickSp]

He is opposed to abortion, but he is also opposed to a federal ruling on the matter.
In other words, he thinks it is bad, but he doesn't want to tell you that you can't do it.

Again, this is 100% consistent with the libertarian position. He has always been a strong supporter of state's rights.

If you refuse to read Paul's own words from his website that is your problem not mine. He refers to doctors who perform abortions as criminals. He wants the absolute abolition of abortion. That fact that he thinks that the state rather than federal government should deny women the right to choose what to do with their own bodies is a distinction without a difference. Paul is a an anti-abortion theocrat.

So... how is prohibiting the federal courts from ruling on an issue "pro-government"? That sounds like a stance supporting state's rights to me. This sounds like a RESTRICTION of federal government authority... and again is 100% consistent with the Libertarian position.

Paul claims to be a "Champion of the Constitution" but here he has tried repeatedly to enact a bill which explicitly violates the Constitution's separation of powers. He claims to rever the Consitituion then does all he can to trash the portions that he doesn't like.

And by the way, there is nothing "libertarian" about "states rights" if the states want to deny individual liberty. I grew up in the segregated South during the civil rights movement. Back then "states rights" meant a noose and lynch mob.

[LetThereBe]

If you refuse to read Paul's own words from his website that is your problem not mine. He refers to doctors who perform abortions as criminals. He wants the absolute abolition of abortion. That fact that he thinks that the state rather than federal government should deny women the right to choose what to do with their own bodies is a distinction without a difference. Paul is a an anti-abortion theocrat.

I will call him a hypocrite and a theocrat when he actually takes positive action toward implementing such laws. Further federal government restriction is what he has actually done, and that is consistent with the libertarian position.
The distinction is that he is not personally responsible for any legislation at the state level... so maybe some theocrats will take advantage of state's rights, but that doesn't mean Paul is the one behind more government intrusion. Ron Paul is just a strict constitutionalist, and as such believes powers not expressly granted to the federal government belong to the states.

It doesn't matter how much he hates abortion. So long as he doesn't propose legislation controlling it, he is still consistent with libertarianism.

Paul claims to be a "Champion of the Constitution" but here he has tried repeatedly to enact a bill which explicitly violates the Constitution's separation of powers. He claims to rever the Consitituion then does all he can to trash the portions that he doesn't like.

And by the way, there is nothing "libertarian" about "states rights" if the states want to deny individual liberty. I grew up in the segregated South during the civil rights movement. Back then "states rights" meant a noose and lynch mob.

Can you be more specific where there is a Constitutional conflict here?
Ron Paul does not legislate at the state level... so what states do with their authority is out of his hands.

[Zeebadee]

And by the way, there is nothing "libertarian" about "states rights" if the states want to deny individual liberty. I grew up in the segregated South during the civil rights movement. Back then "states rights" meant a noose and lynch mob.

Except, of course, that individual liberty and lynch mobs are covered by the Constitution. Abortion isn't mentioned, so, barring an amendment to address that issue, abortion policies should fall under the 10th amendment.