Some pro-life organizations have given Dr. Paul a low rating, saying he is only moderately pro-life. Here are the four objections they have to Ron Paul:
1. Objection: Ron Paul voted “no” on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act (H.R. 534) that would ban the creation of and trafficking in cloned human embryos, both embryonic and experimental. It would also ban the importation of “any product derived from” cloned human embryos. This bill would establish both criminal and civil penalties for cloning. The bill banning human cloning passed the House with 241 votes.
Response:
A “no” vote doesn’t necessarily mean Dr. Paul is “for” human cloning, rather that, once again, he believes the federal government should only legislate things the federal government was granted the power to legislate.
In 2003 Ron Paul introduced a bill called “Human Cloning Prevention Act of 2003” (H.R. 938)
The bill would prohibit any Federal agency from making any grant, contract, or other payment to any entity that “within the past year has engaged in human cloning.” The phrase “human cloning” is defined to include somatic cell nuclear transfer technology for the purpose of deriving stem cells. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Note that the bill he introduced doesn’t ban cloning, rather it prohibits the government from funding it. That would be consistent with his small/less government approach, and one that wouldn’t infringe on personal liberties. It would be up to the states to regulate human cloning. There are fifty states. What are the odds that out of fifty experiments in solving the cloning problem, one of them (or several in cooperation) will develop something that works, and that other states will then begin to follow suit?
Those who raise this objection want to make it look like Ron Paul is “for” human cloning and therefore is not in line with the standard pro-life position.
Fair-minded pro-life, pro-family people must concede that Ron Paul does not endorse human cloning.
————-
2. Objection: He voted “no” on the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (H.R. 4623) that would prevent trafficking in child pornography and obscenity and seek to prevent the use of child pornography and obscenity to facilitate crimes against children. The bill passed the House 413-8.
Response:
Here is Congressman Paul’s statement on why he voted “no” on H.R. 4623:
Mr. Speaker, as a parent, grandparent and OB-GYN who has had the privilege of delivering over 4,000 babies, I share the revulsion of all decent people at child pornography. Those who would destroy the innocence of children by using them in sexually-explicit material deserve the harshest punishment. However, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (HR 4623) exceeds Congress’ constitutional power and does nothing to protect any child from being abused and exploited by pornographers. Instead, HR 4623 redirects law enforcement resources to investigations and prosecutions of “virtual” pornography which, by definition, do not involve the abuse or exploitation of children. Therefore, HR 4623 may reduce law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute legitimate cases of child pornography.
HR 4623 furthers one of the most disturbing trends in modern politics, the federalization of crimes. We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that states are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
Legislation outlawing virtual pornography is, to say the least, of dubious constitutionality. The constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to cover sending obscene or pornographic materials over the internet. Therefore, Congress should leave the issue of whether or not to regulate or outlaw virtual pornography to states and local governments.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I share my colleagues’ revulsion at child pornography, I do not believe that this justifies expanding the federal police state to outlaw distribution of pornographic images not containing actual children. I am further concerned by the possibility that passage of HR 4623 will divert law enforcement resources away from the prosecution of actual child pornography. HR 4623 also represents another step toward the nationalization of all police functions, a dangerous trend that will undermine both effective law enforcement and constitutional government. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed bill.
[end quote]
Conclusion: Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution does not give the federal government the authority to pass laws like this for the entire nation. Each state has its own set of laws and prescribed punishments for crimes against children and pornography. If there is a federal law, then the states must abide by that one. What if a particular state wants a stronger law? The 50 states are sovereign and only need the federal government to do the things the constitution has spelled out for them to do.
The people who consider the vote of “no” to be anti-family don’t realize that this bill was mostly centered around virtual content and included content that wasn’t even obscene or considered pornography. You’re not really directly preventing anybody from being hurt or exploited when you outlaw drawings and cartoons such as anime that offers hints of sexual conduct. It doesn’t even have to be a drawing, it could be written text… including text that’s not even obscene. It’s very far-reaching and tramples all over the first amendment while not preventing exploitation nor punishing those involved in it, and actually redirecting law enforcement resources away from those who are.
————————-
3. Objection: Ron Paul voted “no” on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The bill (S.403) attempted to help protect a state’s authority by making it a crime to transport a minor girl across state lines in circumvention of a state’s parental notification law. The House added a provision requiring abortion facilities to notify a girl’s parent before they perform an abortion on an out-of-state minor. The bill passed the House with 264 votes.
Response:
Ron Paul tells us why he voted “no” on the CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT — (House of Representatives – September 26, 2006)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps States’ rights by creating yet another Federal crime.
Our Federal Government is, constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not.
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some States. To the extent the Federal and State laws could co-exist, the necessity for a Federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb …..” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more Federal crimes, while they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor prudent. Rehnquist has stated that “The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in State courts ….. threatens to change entirely the nature of our Federal system.” Meese stated that Congress’ tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the principle that States are something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read” It’s ten o’clock; do you know where your children are?” I suppose we have devolved to the point where it reads” It’s ten o’clock; does the Federal Government know where your children are.” Further socializing and burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more involved.
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national government and, accordingly, S. 403.
[end quote]
Fair-minded pro-life, pro-family people will read this statement by Dr. Paul and will note the three bills he has introduced into Congress (listed below). This should dispel any doubts about his pro-life stance.
1. “We the People Act” which effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.
2. “Sanctity of Life Act” which would define life as beginning at conception.
3. “Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act” which would stop the American people’s money from being used to pay for abortions and fund any so-called family planning programs.
There are fifty states. What are the odds that over the last forty years, out of fifty experiments in solving the abortion problem, several states would have developed effective laws, other states would have followed suit, and the issue would be largely if not entirely resolved in favor of life?
—————-
4. Objection: He voted “no” on H.R. 1997 to recognize the unborn child if that child was killed in a violent crime involving a pregnant woman. The bill passed the House with 254 votes.
Response:
UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2003 — (House of Representatives – February 26, 2004)
[Quote]
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, while it is the independent duty of each branch of the Federal Government to act constitutionally, Congress will likely continue to ignore not only its constitutional limits but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001, H.R. 1997, would amend title 18, United States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting unborn children from assault and murder. However, by expanding the class of victims to which unconstitutional, but already-existing, Federal murder and assault statutes apply, the Federal Government moves yet another step closer to a national police state.
Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of federalizing every human misdeed in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent crimes initiated against the unborn?
Nevertheless, our Federal Government is constitutionally, a government of limited powers. Article one, section eight, enumerates the legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every other issue, the Federal Government lacks any authority or consent of the governed and only the State governments, their designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such rights to governance. The 10th amendment is brutally clear in stating “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Our Nation’s history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.
However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply-it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision-the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn-as is the case with this legislation-Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill-which implies knowledge-on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence-yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others.
In his first formal complaint to Congress on behalf of the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said “the trend to federalize crimes that have traditionally been handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature of Federal system.” Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding to the political pressure to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.”
Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of another constitutional protection which comes with the passage of more and more Federal criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are only three Federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting-and, because the constitution was amended to allow it, for a short period of history, the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcohol was concurrently a Federal and State crime. “Concurrent” jurisdiction crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past and federalization of murder today, erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . .” In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the Federal Government and a State government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
Occasionaly the argument is put forth that States may be less effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to centralization of police power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the cost. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions-it is called competition and, yes, governments must, for the sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete. We have obsessed so much over the notion of “competition” in this country we harangue someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior products to every other similarly-situated entity, he becomes the dominant provider of certain computer products. Rather than allow someone who serves to provide value as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and economies of scale in the private marketplace. Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize government, the ultimate monopoly and one empowered by force rather than voluntary exchange.
When small governments becomes too oppressive with their criminal laws, citizens can vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction. If, for example, one does not want to be forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief from pain and nausea, that person can move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football game without the threat of government intervention, that person can live in Nevada. As government becomes more and more centralized, it becomes much more difficult to vote with one’s feet to escape the relatively more oppressive governments. Governmental units must remain small with ample opportunity for citizen mobility both to efficient governments and away from those which tend to be oppressive. Centralization of criminal law makes such mobility less and less practical.
Protection of life-born or unborn-against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
[End Quote]
Conclusion: Fair-minded pro-life, pro-family people will read this statement by Dr. Paul and will note the three bills he has introduced into Congress (listed below). This should dispel any doubts about his pro-life stance.
1. “We the People Act” which effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.
2. “Sanctity of Life Act” which would define life as beginning at conception.
3. “Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act” which would stop the American people’s money from being used to pay for abortions and fund any so-called family planning programs.
Ron Paul has a good plan for getting rid of abortion. Not only is it a plan which lines up with the constitution, but it is a workable plan. If we had followed his plan (passed his bills and given jurisdiction to the states) then AT LEAST one state (most likely many states) would have outlawed abortion by now. Millions of lives would have been saved.
There are fifty states. What are the odds that over the last forty years, out of fifty experiments in solving the abortion problem, several states would have developed effective laws, other states would have followed suit, and the issue would be largely if not entirely resolved in favor of life?
From the NARAL web site
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/
Rep. Ron Paul has a long anti-choice record from his years in Congress, repeatedly voting to make it more difficult for women to access abortion and birth control.
During his years in Congress, Rep. Paul voted 106 times on choice-related issues. Ninety-three of those votes were anti-choice. On the occasions he voted pro-choice, Paul often made speeches on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to explain why and to reaffirm his anti-choice views.
Rep. Paul tried to zero-out all international family-planning funds.
In 2009, he voted for the notorious Stupak abortion-coverage ban.
Rep. Paul voted for “personhood” rights, which could make abortion and many forms of birth control illegal.
Rep. Paul is vocal about his extreme position on choice:
“I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family-planning schemes.”