The Constitution, States' Rights, and the Right to Life: Iowa, Please Get it Right!

By Jennifer Hartline
12/18/2011
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

No individual state has any Constitutional right to do what is morally wrong!

I don't disagree with Ron Paul that the federal government has grown too large and intrusive and States' rights have been violated. But protecting the child in the womb is not an "issue" that can be left up to each state to decide. There's no spectrum of decisions with varying degrees of rightness. Abortion is wrong, period.

Iowa looms large

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - I wish I was an Iowa caucus voter right about now.

Iowa's going to get this ball rolling for real in just a few short weeks. Many polls suggest that a large percentage of caucus voters still haven't decided who they're going to vote for, and the battle for support is intense. It concerns me when I see indications that Ron Paul may very well have a huge surge in Iowa because he's got a small army of dedicated supporters on the ground.

I mean no disrespect to Ron Paul, but the more I've read of him lately (in his own words), the more convinced I am that he has fallen under the spell of Constitutional idolatry. He worships the Constitution. It is his idol.

Now hold on; before you skewer me, I'm a big fan of our Constitution, and I want to see our nation return to its principles and rules and clearly-stated guidelines. Our Constitution is a brilliant document -- of that there's no doubt.

Yet adherence to the Constitution is not an excuse or a justification for allowing moral wrongs or to permit injustice against the innocent.

It's hard for me to make heads or tails of Ron Paul's statements on abortion and the sanctity of human life. I read through a section of his book, Liberty Defined, where he talked at length about his beliefs and his policy positions, and it was a rather crazy roller-coaster ride that ultimately left me feeling nauseous.

One paragraph I was soundly agreeing with him, and then all of a sudden, I was saying, "What in the world?" He writes profound and powerfully straightforward statements like this one: "I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right."

Amen! I don't understand it, either! And this one: "If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life -- not grant permission to destroy it."

Amen again! He goes on: "I believe that the moral consequence of cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life." "In the age of abortion, with nearly a million being performed each year in the United States, society sends a signal that we place a lower value on the small and the weak."

Another amen! I couldn't agree more. But then comes a wacky curve with this statement: "So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice."

How the heck is that last sentence any different than what abortion proponents have been saying all along? "My body, my choice." I thought abortion diminished the value of all life, and now he's saying each individual must make his or her own "moral" choice? I thought he said it was an act of violence against the small and the weak? How can that be moral?

"Very early pregnancies"? You mean, very young and very small babies? "Can be treated with the day after pill..." Treated? You mean, can be killed with chemicals? His statements here sound exactly like standard pro-abortion spin. He himself has just given the okay to chemically abort babies conceived very recently or through rape, calling it "treatment."

Paul is correct in saying that only a moral society can do away with the evil of abortion. But I believe he is very wrong to insist that the law has no role in accomplishing that.

In another crazy turn-around, he writes: "A society that readily condones abortion invites attacks on personal liberty. If all life is not precious, how can all liberty be held up as important? I've become convinced that resolving the abortion issue is required for a healthy defense of a free society."

No argument there, Congressman. But how does that square with your assertion that it's okay to "treat" very early pregnancies with the morning after pill? How does that square with your idea that each individual must make his or her own moral choice?

He then gets to the heart of his position: "I also believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being."

"The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 42 Comments

Sandy
1 year ago
When someone goes out and commits a murder, or a rape, or an assault, etc. and he gets arrested and tried for this crime, what words do we hear concerning this case? We hear the words, "THE STATE of such and such versus so and so." The STATE is the one who prosecutes most indidvidual crimes. Abortion is a crime, even though the court of the U.S. has ruled that the states may not prosecute this crime. The fed. govt. needs to get out of the way so the states can handle this once again. The problem is that the people, in the years since abortion was at first a controversial issue before Roe v. Wade, have become so extremely immoral that the people in the individual states may not want to consider abortion a crime again. That is what has to be changed. A constitutional amendment to make abortion illiegal on a fed. level will get nowhere if the states do not support such an amendment anyway. It belongs with the states. Dr. Paul is totally pro-life, and if you cannot understand his positions, perhaps you don't really understand the law of this land, the law that was originally so wisely written as to protect the people from the government.
as
1 year ago
Amen!! This article was worded perfectly!
JoAnn
1 year ago
David&Joan: Amen! Thank you. God bless.
Judy
1 year ago
David&Joan: Right On!
Judy
1 year ago
Very Good Post Rob. Thank you.
Vance
1 year ago
David&Joan, great post, Your post hits the proverbial nail on the head.
David&Joan
1 year ago
Morality used to be taught in the school systems. There was a sense of a universal humanity that understood that moral codes of ethics were good for society as a whole. Every human right that comes with responsibility and freedom,is protected by responsible behavior,regarding the protection of those basic moral rights. Now the workplace must teach these things because the educational system doesn't. Rights are taught without responsibility to act with respect to the rights of others. The 10 commandments and the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you",were good starting points and the Constitution was written with these points in mind. If our country can not respect the right to life as a basic concept,than it is being completely destroyed from within, as it is being turned completely inside out. Laws are written to protect all life,especially the weak and vulnerable members of society,and to protect the innocent. Basic fundamental humanity is geared to justice and protection for all people and to ensure sound moral concepts that help all people grow and prosper in any given society. Laws that protect immorality do not protect any human rights. There is certainly no right to be wrong or to write laws to protect degrading human behavior of any kind.
Rob
1 year ago
Hi Judy. First let me say that I don't believe that anyone who regularly posts on here is blind. We all are trying really hard to call it like it is. And while we may differ on how what we believe is causing it or how we got her or how we are going to get out, I have no doubt in my mind that folks who posts really care. If I didn't I wouldn't spend so much time on here. But if you've ever tried to mix it up with people of the culture (sorry for the description as I couldn't think of any other way) you realize really quick that they just don't have the same moral compass. It's mostly relativism gone wild. They have lost the ability to see what is right anymore. And this has rendered them unable to even understand where we are coming from. Forgive my poor explanation, but I would liken it to the stories my neighbor tells me about Afghanistan. He is a recently retired general who spent several years there working to establish a legal system in the country. When I asked him how fruitful he felt our efforts were there he said he had mixed feelings. He said so long as we stayed there we would keep the bad guys out of there (but he said they would just move to neighboring countries). But he said something very interesting. He said the people just did not have the capacity to understand our way of life. Unless we were willing to put in decades there, we have no chance of changing that culture. They just don't see it. People in our country today just don't see it. They think that tolerance is some sort of kindness and love and let live should rule the day because we'll all just get along. They really are a lot of good and descent, misguided people. Maybe because I'm still in the "younger" category, I run in to more. These people are not evil. They are just blind. In order for something to be a mortal sin, you have to have full knowledge. And I'm conviced that some people don't have that knowledge anymore.
Judy
1 year ago
Rob my friend, Could you further explain as to what part of society is blind? Thank you. Blessings ....
JoAnn
1 year ago
Rob: I totally agree. God bless.

Prev12 3 4 5 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment