Ron Paul and Abortion - In His Own Words

I was working on a post addressing Ron Paul's commitment to life and ending the practice of abortion, when I found this. I've said for a long time that Dr. Paul's pro-life record is stronger and more respectable than can be said for most of his critics on this point, especially when one turns from their rhetoric to examine their behavior. The most relevant example in the context of this election cycle would be Rick Santorum, who misses no opportunity to trot out his pro-life ratings and cultivate his image as a champion of the unborn. As a Pennsylvanian who remembers his unprincipled endorsement of the belligerently pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey in 2004 (an endorsement which arguably cost Toomey the election and set the stage for Specter's predictable mid-term switch from big-government Republican to big-government Democrat), I find Santorum unconvincing, not to say - well, I won't say. But back to Ron Paul: here is his position on the right to life, in his own words. All I have to add is that, as usual, his own words aren't just words, they are backed by a consistent and active thirty year record that is unmatched by any other candidate in the race.

Ron Paul Life Pledge

December 19, 2011

As a pro-life OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always opposed abortion. Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents.

While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life.

I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.

Today, I want to tell you a bit more about my views on life than the attached pledge really allows me to explain. I think it is important for us all to describe our views on life in our own words.

I believe the attached pledge is important. The fight for the Right to Life is unlike any other in our society right now, and I am proud to be a soldier in that fight.

But it is also important to fight every battle with principle. At this point, I think I am well-known for my constitutional views and sticking to my principles, even when doing so is hard and forces me to stand alone. Both this pledge and the pro-life issue itself require some careful thought from my fellow pro-lifers so we can avoid the trap of throwing out the Constitution in our effort to save lives. Just as we cannot have liberty without life, I believe the opposite is also true: we must keep the Constitution and liberty in mind when fighting for the rights of the unborn. Otherwise, we undermine the entire system our Founders put their lives on the line to create in order to protect life and liberty.

I guarantee you that no one would work harder to be the most ardent and active pro-life President in history. I do not say that lightly. My entire life’s work has touched on this issue in a way few others have. So as I pondered this pledge, as I do all pledges, I had to ensure I would continue to stand with the Constitution.

I have previously sponsored a Human Life Amendment while in Congress, and though I ultimately do not believe this is how we will end abortion, achieving such an amendment is certainly a laudable goal. Of course, Presidents do not sign constitutional amendments – another reason I cannot guarantee what would happen on this issue.

A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does – through state laws.

To summarize my views – I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.

I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues. The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a “Federal Department of Abortion.” Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.

I would place a priority in my administration on ending federal abortion funding, defunding Planned Parenthood, and defunding any state department or UN agency that encourages abortion in their “family planning” activities. As a Congressman, I have consistently voted against giving federal funds to any organization that performs abortions or engages in “family planning” activities, and I have offered legislation on the floor of the House to defund all international family planning programs.

No one has ever completely defunded these programs, because they weren’t willing to undertake the fight that would result from vetoing the spending bills. I will veto these bills every time it takes until no taxpayer dollars go to abortion.

I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans.

In addition, I will only put pro-life judges who adhere to the Constitution on the federal bench.
Finally, I will fight back against our depraved culture by ending all federal programs that undermine the family and our traditional American values of respect for life and personal responsibility. I will lead by example, as I have done every day in my medical practice and in Congress.

We CAN both fight for life AND liberty. We can remain true to our principle of following the Constitution while also fighting for our moral values. In fact, we must.

I ask for the support of every one of my fellow pro-lifers. This is an important moment in history. You can vote for any of the many folks who will sign a pledge, or you can vote for the one who stands by everything he has ever said on this critical issue over the years. You can choose the candidate whose principles and consistency are unquestioned, and whose record is unmatched.

You can vote for BOTH a pro-life champion and a different kind of President, who will end business as usual all across Washington, fix our budget mess, and strengthen our families by restoring jobs and upholding our values.
Thank you for your consideration.

For Life and Liberty,

Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul, Slander and Christian Libertarianism

As a Christian, I constantly get emails from moral majority types who think they believe in freedom, but have encountered the shocking idea that freedom might actually allow others to behave in ways that are ultimately wrong. And as a vocal supporter of Ron Paul, I get a lot of unsolicited information regarding his views on individual liberty from well-meaning folks who imagine I don't know what those views are. I generally ignore this stuff unless the sender is a personal friend, in which case I try to explain why I agree with Dr. Paul (which I do, most of the time).

Yesterday, however, I received a particularly low assault on Dr. Paul's candidacy, one which had evidently been circulated widely before reaching me. I was particularly upset because it was forwarded by a fellow Paul supporter who seemed a bit shaken by the allegations it contained. What follows is my response. I hesitated to post it here but ultimately decided it might be helpful to someone, so here goes. I removed the name of the individual who apparently originated the email, partly out of courtesy and partly to deny his blog the unmerited attention it might receive as a result.

I should point out that I don't go far into my own positions in this response - it is pretty narrow and focused in scope. I was simply answering the charges made in the email. On some issues I'm not so libertarian-leaning as Dr. Paul, and on others (like immigration) I might be even more libertarian than he is. But that's irrelevant to this post.

---

This is absolutely shameful. I don’t have time to respond but this is too slanderous and deceptive to ignore. Point by point:

1. Denies that God says homosexuality is a sin.

The link is to an interview with a particularly obtuse John Lofton, who consistently refuses to get the very important point Dr. Paul repeatedly makes about sin and military service. He does not deny that God says it is sin, but he does not admit it either. He’s wrong about that. But why don’t the hypocrites that slam him for his hesitation also slam Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Barry Goldwater, and the majority of other Republican candidates who won’t call homosexuality a sin either?

2. Supports open homosexuals in the military and repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Another link to the same interview, but this statement is absolutely a lie. Paul clearly says in the interview that he does support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – a policy similar to George Washington’s approach 2 centuries ago.

3. Supports the “freedom philosophy” of legalizing cocaine, heroin, marijuana and all other hard drugs. “Government has no role or authority in regulating drugs.”

The federal government has no role in , or authority to, regulate drugs. Anyone who reads the Constitution knows that. Some, however, would prefer to slander a man who has done more for this country than they ever will, rather than admit that their own pet issues are beyond the legitimate purview of any government. I wonder if D___ would support a United Nations initiative to prosecute drug dealers and users globally? To be consistent he would have to.

4. Supports legalization of pornography and prostitution.

I didn’t follow this link because it’s youtube and I don’t want to know what else might be there. But this is another false statement because it ignores the difference in federal and state government.

5. Supports right of homosexuals to marry one another. i.e. “gay marriage.” (“Gay couples can do whatever they want.”)

Also not true. Dr. Paul rightly says that in the absence of a federal marriage amendment, marriage is a state issue. Again, how about a global ban on gay marriage?

6. Is “pro-choice for states” on abortion. Individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. All pre-born babies don’t possess a God given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate.

I’m trying to stay calm. Really.

This links to a hit piece by prolifeprofiles.com which is so slanderous and transparently dishonest it seems beneath even the national prolife lobbying profession, which is saying a lot. I simply can’t take the time to dissect it, but anyone interested in the truth should be able to see through much of it just by reading it carefully. Those not interested in the truth can keep reading D___ .

7. Supported abortion legislation regulations which have resulted in 7.4 million chemical and surgical abortions since taking office in 1997 in Congress.

Still trying to stay calm, but failing. This links to the same hit piece, but restates the most profoundly evil of their claims, which is that since 7.4 million abortions have been committed since Paul last took office in states where abortion might remain legal even if his Sanctity Of Life Act were made law, he is somehow responsible for allowing those abortions. Are we to hold those allegedly pro-life legislators who oppose the Sanctity Of Life Act to the same standard? Are they responsible for all the abortions that have taken place in states which might have outlawed or restricted abortions if Roe v. Wade were nullified? Of course, exceptions.com isn’t interested in telling us those numbers.

8. Doesn’t believe it’s government’s role to “legislate morality” even though all laws are based on morality.

Watch the clip. He is absolutely right. The most totalitarian of Christian conservatives still thinks government shouldn’t legislate morality in the areas where they are immoral. Of course all legitimate law is based on morality, but that isn’t the only criteria or we would all be criminals before the civil law, as we are before the Creator and His Law. This gets back to the point Lofton doggedly refused to acknowledge in the very interesting interview linked earlier. The so-called “Christian right” loves to dwell ad nauseum on a very few sins, while ignoring or even promoting others just as evil. Unlike Ron Paul, I won’t hesitate to agree that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, and a shameful blot on the face of our society. But unlike D___ and the myopic brand of “Christian” politics he represents, I also believe that lying, back-biting and slander are equally shameful, abominable sins.

What makes me want to cry is that people can tear down the most pro-life candidate in the race, a stand-out beacon of decency, honesty and integrity in the cesspool that is our federal capitol, because they can’t stand the thought that their beloved leviathan of a federal government might be somehow restrained by the Constitution from instituting heaven on earth, something we can all see is just about to become a reality. They treat the one candidate with no skeletons in his closet, no improprieties in his personal life, and no stains on his honor, as if he were a first-degree pervert because he doesn’t recognize the federal government’s jurisdiction in the bedroom. Yet these same people care nothing for the slaughter of 40,000 Mexicans in less than five years by the drug lords they have created and sustained. They support the torture of their fellow men by an out-of-control military and intelligence sector with no oversight, no protection for the innocent or justice for the guilty, and justify it all with ridiculous scenarios that have never occurred in the history of the world. They dismiss with contempt the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan because it feels good after 9/11, and they lash out in rage when a soldier exposes to them and the world an example of how those deaths occur. (Bradley Manning and Julian Assange shone a light on a world of iniquity beyond most American’s comprehension, but the average “Christian” conservative I meet knows far more about their personal sexual sins than the cruelty, violence and fraud they exposed.) Like Jonah, they hope and pray for the destruction of “Israel’s” enemies rather than the triumph of the gospel of Jesus Christ over the false religions that keep Jews and Muslims alike in bondage. They are a worse blot than homosexuals, because they dishonor not only the society in which they live, but their Lord and Savior.

Maybe we need to be reminded that there are other sins besides homosexuality:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I read that list and thank God with fear and trembling for His forgiveness and long-suffering. I don’t feel that I’m in a position to focus on other people’s sins. There is plenty of guilt to go around. That doesn’t mean I think other people’s sins are ok, just that when I hear others calling for the state to legislate morality, I wonder where they find a definition of morality that they would want the state to judge them by? If the legitimate authority of the state is not limited to those areas where one’s immorality violates another’s rights, then where is the limit?

Compassionate Atheism ... ?

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times printed a special op-ed by Sam Harris, atheist know-it-all and author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason.” Harris praised California Democrat Pete Stark for being the first openly atheistic U.S. Congressman, and he called on Americans to break “the spell” of religion and dig a fresh grave for the “God of the Bible and the Quran.” Besides his condescension and arrogance (the usual pre-requisites for atheist writers when dealing with subject matter beyond their comprehension), Harris’ style is positively bursting with a surprising level of confidence, far surpassing anything an accidental, mutant product of primordial soup should be permitted to display. “There is not a person on earth,” he announces, ”who has a good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead… Many of these ideas, by their very nature, hobble science, inflame human conflict and squander scarce resources. … Every scientific domain - from cosmology to psychology to economics - has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.”

Really? Sure, cosmologists know more about, say, black holes than we could learn from Scripture (assuming, of course, that they exist, which cosmologists don’t yet know). But rather than claiming to be the complete source of information on all things cosmological, God’s Word takes the much simpler approach of assuring all of us, including Mr. Harris, that there are far more things we will never know regarding the cosmos than we can even imagine. As our knowledge of the universe now stands, anyone who has studied the cosmos at all knows this to be the case. As far as economics are concerned, the Biblical teachings regarding this subject are indisputably superior to anything Mr. Harris might suggest. But psychology? Our entire approach to psychology has proven utterly without merit and incapable of explaining the most basic and self-evident phenomena of the human mind. If this is to be held up as an example of scientific accomplishment, we have very little to be proud of. Perhaps this is why Mr. Harris carefully avoids citing any specific area where these scientific domains excel. Generalities sound much more impressive while requiring much less in the way of evidence.

It would likely be useless to instruct Mr. Harris on the stupidity of his rejection of the idea of a Creator. Either he lives his life under the assumption that order and design indicate the existence of a designer, or he is known to all his acquaintances as a consummate fool. So basic a concept requires no defense. Nor will I attempt to illuminate his understanding of the vast differences between the God of the Bible and the moon-god of Islam. While many rational unbelievers could no doubt grasp the distinction, one who has so completely offered up his intellect to the gods of humanism should not be expected to score on the finer points of history or theology.

Even pointing out that the Bible he scoffs at has anticipated, predicted and refuted the very “progressive” ideas he pretends to believe would probably fall on deaf ears. “Willingly ignorant,” says the scripture, and sure enough, they are.

But near the end of the article, the author makes a fascinating assertion. “There are better reasons,” he opines, “to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak … Compassion is deeper than religion.”

This statement, if correct, is actually worth a book. Rather than writing an entire volume about an event that, in spite of Mr. Harris’ dreams, will never occur, his time would have been far better spent in framing a convincing argument on this subject for those who choose to live out the tenets of the ancient religion he espouses. It is well enough to be an atheist in theory and refuse to accept the authority of a Creator; it is well enough to be a Darwinian in theory and view oneself as merely a survivor - the animal on top of the food chain. But when such a one is faced with a crisis, why should they not act according to their beliefs? Why should the atheist be the only animal to help the poor and feed the hungry? Why should the survivor feel a responsibility to the weak? Why not let nature take its course? If we’re all dust on a rock in a cruel universe, why can’t we kill each other off to increase the odds of our own survival? Matter of fact, why can’t we kill each other off just for fun? If your existence is just an accident, why can’t we treat the end of your existence as an accident as well?

A convincing argument that atheists and evolutionists have a good reason to defend the weak would have saved millions of lives in the past century. If Mr. Harris can make such an argument it is his duty to humanity to quit wasting his time scoffing at Christianity and get busy converting his own brethren to compassionate atheism.

Then again, why should he have a duty to anyone?

Oh, and speaking of squandering scarce resources … it is my understanding that trees were cut down to print Mr. Harris’ last book.

Be Still, My Soul

Be still, my soul! the Lord is on thy side;
Bear patiently thy cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide -
In every change He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul! thy best, thy heavenly Friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.

Be still, my soul! Thy God doth undertake
To guide the future as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake;
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul! the winds and waves still know
His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below.

Be still, my soul! The hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord;
When disappointment, grief and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul! When change and tears are past,
All safe and blessed we shall meet at last.

"Detainees?"

Am I the only one who thinks Iran is deliberately attempting to contrast its methods of dealing with foreign suspects with those of the U.S.? I haven't heard anyone mention that possibility so far. There seem to be three common reactions to the Iranian detention of 15 British sailors and marines. Many folks wonder why Iran would detain the Brits for such a minor incursion, considering that such incidents are rather commonplace. Many more automatically connect President Ahm with hostage beheadings and suggest a nuclear strike as the obvious solution. And some poor souls are so fed up with being lied to by our government that they assume Iran is telling the truth and will "do the right thing," whatever that is.

Politics aren't limited to the U.S. of A., folks. President Ahm and his henchmen aren't stupid. Probably the Iranians are lying. Obviously they don't really think the Brits were spying. And certainly they are in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But why does any of that matter? The Iraq war furnishes far too many instances of dishonesty to allow for much righteous indignation now. The U.S. is holding Iranian military personnel in "undisclosed locations" at this very moment, also in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But that's ok, because we think they might be terrorists.

Of course Iran wants to return the favor, but they can't make the case that coalition forces are infiltrating Iran as terrorists. So why not charge them with spying? Maybe they weren't, but God knows some Brit somewhere is. And they haven't got much international credibility to lose. Moreover, if fudging the GPS coordinates is what it takes to get their hands on a few pawns to play against the U.S., why not do it? What a golden opportunity to contrast smiling British sailors chatting over a basket of fruit with images of dog kennels in Guantanamo Bay. And now the trial! Imagine how it will feel when President Ahm says, "We gave your spies a fair trial in open court, and all you give our soldiers is as many secret hearings as it takes to get them declared 'enemy combatants.'"

____________________

According to a Newsweek survey released last week, one out of ten Americans is a fool: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/ & Psalm 53:1

____________________

There are two things that you should never watch being made: sausage and laws.
(Courtesy of a veteran midwifery lobbyist from Arkansas.)

Will Your Anchor Hold?

Will your anchor hold in the storms of life -
When the clouds unfold their wings of strife?
When the strong tides lift, and the cables strain,
Will your anchor drift, or firm remain?

We have an anchor that keeps the soul
Stedfast and sure while the billows roll -
Fastened to the rock which cannot move,
Grounded firm and deep in the Saviour's love.

It is safely moored, 'twill the storm withstand,
For 'tis well secured by the Saviour's hand.
Though the tempest rage and the wild winds blow,
Not an angry wave shall our bark o'erflow.

When our eyes behold, through the gathering night,
The City of gold, our harbor bright,
We shall anchor fast by the heavenly shore,
With the storms all past for ever-more.

Priscilla J. Owens

This song has always been linked in my mind with political action, because my earliest memory of both is that of a bored little boy standing on the steps of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. listening to a small group of American Christians crying out to God for mercy and deliverance from an un-Godly, un-American regime. I believe the specific concern was Everett Sullivan's padlocked church, because I recall a man named Greg Dixon being there. I was so young, however, that I don't remember things very clearly, except for singing "We Have An Anchor" and being asked to leave by a security guard.

It's been a long time, but God has not forgotten His people. Some day our leaders will have their day of reckoning. May God show them the mercy they have not shown to others.

To God Be The Glory

This is the day the Lord hath made; let us rejoise and be glad in it!

What a lovely autumn we are having here in PA! Driving Nantmeal Rd. between Rt. 100 and Rt. 401, I had to praise God for His wonderful works and awesome creations. Mile after mile of 200+ year old stone farmhouses and barns nestled into the hills, horses grazing in the pastures, with copper oaks and golden maples and beech trees stretching into the distance as far as the eye could see. If His creation in this world is so gorgeous, what will the new one be like? I can only imagine!

As if we don't have enough to be thankful for here in Penn's Woods, the God who rules over the kingdoms of the earth just answered prayer here in a big way! Some of you know about the sneak pay raise that our fat and kicking lawmakers slipped through at midnight with no debate earlier this year. Well, no legislators were up for election this year, but two Supreme Court justices were on the ballot for retention. Both of these judges received the pay raise.

Retention votes are a pure formality. Rather than two candidates running against one another, there is simply a yes or no vote on whether the judge should be retained or a new one appointed. Never before in the history of the state has a judge lost a retention vote. Never. But as they say, there's a first time for everything! Justice Nigro was removed from office and from the enjoyment of his illgotten salary, and Justice Newman barely avoided the same fate. YES!!!

I heard Justice Nigro complaining today that he was a victim of misguided voter outrage over the pay grab. Tough luck. Next year we'll have the same opportunity to send a few legislators packing. In the mean time, the bipartisan establishment needs to hear the message loud and clear. WE ARE SICK OF PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS! If the major parties in this commonwealth can't find someone with principles to save their hide, they can take the cue and get out of the way for a real statesman.

A special note to Republicans - you have an opportunity in the next gubernatorial election to put a real statesman at the forefront of the party. Jim Paynard has the principles to garner support from those who, like myself, see the current GOP as a controlled opposition party, and a poorly managed one at that. I am no longer a Republican, but if Paynard wins the GOP primary he will have my full support, and that of many other genuine Americans as well.

He Died - For Me!

My faith has found a resting place - not in device or creed:
I trust the ever-living One - His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument, I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me.

Enough for me that Jesus saves - this ends my fear and doubt;
A sinful soul I come to Him - He'll never cast me out!
My heart is leaning on the Word - the written Word of God:
Salvation by my Savior's name, salvation through His blood.

My great Physician heals the sick, the lost He came to save;
For me His precious blood He shed - for me His life He gave!
I need no other argument, I need no other plea;
It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me!

Lidie H. Edmunds

He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed!
Isaiah 53:5

Have a wonderful Lord's Day!
SF