The Constitution, States' Rights, and the Right to Life: Iowa, Please Get it Right!
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'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 ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More U.S. News
- Cheers Star: We Didn't Need Surveillance When We Were Kids - 'We Had God'
- Poorly prepared teachers steering nation's classrooms
- No-one Can Change the Truth About Fatherhood. Love Your Father. Be a Good Father
- IN SEARCH OF SUNKEN TREASURE: Divers plunge into Lake Michigan to search for 17th Century ship
- Courageous Bishop Paprocki Shows Us How To Contend for the Truth About Marriage
- Courageous Cardinal George of Chicago Defends Marriage, Calls for Public Conversion
- Archbishop Chaput Cuts Through the Double Talk About Religious Liberty
- CENSUS: Non-Hispanic whites hits all-time low of 63 percent
- SHOCKING COURTROOM VIDEO: Nevada woman arrested by same Marshall she says sexually assaulted her
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?