Constitution Confusion: The Ron Paul Hypocrisy

Posted: January 7, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, statements, and views presented henceforth are solely of the author and not of or on the behalf of any organization, politician, political party, or entity.

The GOP Presidential nomination race has been fast and furious since its start last year. As the field has thinned out, we see a few men taking center stage as the final contenders. Among them is one of the most polarizing figures in modern politics, Ron Paul.

Ron’s purist, Libertarian philosophy has been the mantra of constitutionalists and pacifists across the nation. Some finding solace in his no-provocation/no-imperialism stance toward foreign policy, many standing strongly behind his “End The Fed” crusade, and a distinct demographic striving for liberty and justice for all. The resounding message behind Paul’s platform is simple: “Reduce the federal government. Expand state’s rights. Promote personal liberty.”

Paul, an OB doctor of 30+ years, having delivered more than 4,00 babies, quickly won the support of many in the Pro-Life movement. Ron believes that life begins at conception, that Roe v. Wade must be overturned, that abortion leads to euthanasia, that Planned Parenthood should not be federally funded, and that you cannot protect liberty if you do not protect life. His strong convictions and experience with the issue of abortion makes him well suited to speak on the behalf of the unborn.

Doesn’t it?

You see, there is a fundamental flaw with Ron Paul’s Pro-Life platform. It arises at the point at which his Libertarianism crosses over his convictions and creates an impasse that spells certain danger to the unborn:

Ron Paul believes that the federal government should not address abortion. Rather, he believes that the states individually have the only authority on the issue because the Constitution doesn’t directly address it.

Being a Constitutionalist, Paul has surely read the Fourteenth Amendment, which says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws… The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

For those not following along, the Constitution designates that all persons are entitled by the same unalienable rights endowed by their Creator, that the federal government and the Congress have the power to enforce the protection of those persons and their rights, and that the States cannot impede a person’s rights.

Ron Paul not only believes that the federal government and the Congress do not have the right to protect the life and liberty of the unborn, but that the States have a right to deny these rights to human persons based on discriminatory qualifications.

To go even further, the Ninth Amendment (which Paul cites as a reasoning for the State’s right to allow abortion to remain legal) states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

For our scorekeepers, this even puts the nail in the coffin that JUST BECAUSE the Constitution doesn’t say that abortion is an infringement upon a person’s rights or that the federal government should protect the unborn DOES NOT MEAN that those items are the case. Ron Paul, however, allows his personal convictions and scientific knowledge to be contradicted by a technical misinterpretation of the Constitution.

What we can take away from Ron Paul’s Pro-Life views is that somewhere along the way, the legalism and strict technicality of the words written within the Constitution took precedent over the moral and scientific knowledge that he possessed that stated plainly and clearly that the unborn child is a human person and must be protected.

Ron has no problem stating with his words that a human life is sacred and should be valued. He has no problem painting abortion as a barbaric and senseless murder. He has no problem wanting to defund Planned Parenthood or define life at conception. But he has a problem standing against the tyranny against the womb with any of the political power he has or would possess.

Paul has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act 4 different times in congress. This act defines life at conception, but then removed abortion federal court jurisdiction and turned the issue over to the states. Paul also has, hypocritically to his own stance, voted on a federal ban of partial-birth abortions. He even recently, hypocritically to himself, signed pledges to defend the unborn. Paul quickly, however, reiterated his stance against federal intervention on the abortion issue. He even voted AGAINST restricting interstate transport of minors for the purpose of obtaining abortions. His web ads and pledges say one thing about his convictions, but then his policy stances say another. He simply can’t seem to keep himself in one place on the issue except for the fact that human life is only sacred and should only be protected on paper.

Perhaps this laissez faire pacifism towards the unborn comes from his Libertarianism, which prompts him to believe that if we just leave tough issues alone, like the war on drugs, like terrorism, like foreign affairs, and like abortion, that they will simply go away.

Perhaps it is simply an inability to understand that the framers of our great nation intended to protect all human persons equally, or that we have a moral responsibility to defend the rights and liberties of those who are marginalized.

Perhaps it is a subtle political ploy that enables him to hold his personal convictions and win over Pro-Lifers, but also say that he doesn’t think the Constitution gives rights to the unborn and win over moderates and pro-abortionists.

I can’t answer why. But I can most definitively say that Ron Paul is ignoring the Constitution when it comes to the issue of abortion. Whether out of ignorance or cunning, he has selected which parts he shall adopt as gospel and which parts he will conveniently refuse to follow. Either way, the unborn will be in the same situation with Barack Obama in the White House declaring abortion legal than they will be with Ron Paul sitting in the White House declaring that it isn’t illegal.

In the 2012 Primary Elections, I urge you, vote for a man whose convictions agree with his policies. Vote for a man whose convictions defend the marginalized, the weak, and the innocent. Vote for a man whose convictions stand in agreement with the Constitution, especially if it’s the one thing his entire campaign claims to stand on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s