To catch up on this series you can read the first part, and the second part.
When writing on the subject of abortion, I somehow feel it necessary to defend myself before I even get started. Not from those with a pro-abortion/pro-choice stand, but from some pro-lifers who seem to have a litmus test of whether one is pro-life enough. So, let me establish some street cred as it were.
I have donated money to pro-life causes, was a member of the Moral Majority (card carrying-literally), and regularly picketed the worst abortiatorium in the entire state of Georgia: Midtown Hospital (in Atlanta before being shut down). For I don’t know how many times on Saturday mornings I and others stood on the sidewalk handing out literature to women and girls who were heading in to have an abortion. We prayed for them, talked with a few and saw a few change their minds. But, it was a noticeable minority.
I know they were having abortions because it was the only medical procedure done at Midtown Hospital as far as we were ever able to ascertain.
I encouraged a church I attended to show The Silent Scream narrated by former abortionist Bernard Nathansen, participated in Sanctity of Life Sundays, went to marches at the state capital, preached and taught against abortion, and read an uncountable number of books and articles about life. I have been a supporter of the pro-life movement and the unborn with my words, actions and money.
With this background, I now hope to encourage Christ followers to consider voting for Ron Paul as an authentic, consistent, pro-life candidate.
Because Ron Paul has so many libertarian views many people assume that he is pro-abortion/pro-choice. I’ve seen this in more than one comment thread. But, this is incorrect. (The official platform of the Libertarian Party is that “abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” This is insufficient, but it is what it is.) Not only is Ron Paul pro-life, he is the only candidate whose positions have any remote chance of effectively reducing the number of abortions performed in America.
Since the imposition of Roe v. Wade upon the United States population in 1973, 10s of millions of babies have been killed while in the safety and security of their mother’s womb. Dr. Paul’s stirring testimony of witnessing the attempted abortion of a baby while a resident physician is chilling. In that operating room, the baby was delivered alive then placed into a bucket to die. In an operating room just beside that one, many doctors and nurses were actively trying to deliver another baby. The only difference, as pro-lifers have argued for years, is that one is wanted and the other not. [See video at the end of this post.]
Paul understands a quote I read years ago:
We do not enjoy life so that we might exploit liberty. We enjoy liberty that we might respect and protect life.
Abortion on demand is not an affirmation of liberty in any respect. It is an exploitation of liberty to the detriment of humanity. The false conflation of a “woman’s right to choose” with a supposed “right to privacy” is one of the greatest blights on our nation’s history.
In America almost every crime of violence is a state issue. Rape, murder, assault, and the like are charged and prosecuted at the state level, not the federal level. Abortion is a violent assault. If the legality and regulation of abortion is returned to the authority of the states (as it was before Roe) then at least some states will restrict abortion even if they choose not to outlaw it. Likely, some states like California and New York will allow abortions as long as the baby’s little toe remains in the birth canal. Others might restrict it severely with still others scattered philosophically and legally between those to ends.
I am not of the opinion that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. It is accepted by the judiciary as the law of the land. Shall we continue to allow abortion to continue unabated, providing only adoption options and support to struggling mothers, or should we try for what is actually possible?
In the years following Roe, the primary strategy to see abortion eliminated from American culture has been to nominate justices to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn it. However, even “pro-life” presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush, were not able to tilt the balance of the court, and in some cases, did not even appear to try. For years the court was composed of people who were practically on life support and it was never overturned. Now we have younger, more diverse justices, but the balance has never created a condition that led to a reversal.
The other strategy has been to have a Life Amendment to the constitution. Potential candidates for office have been evaluated as to how they support a Life Amendment that would declare all human life protected from the moment of conception. There are only two ways to add an amendment to the constitution, neither of which, in my opinion, will ever happen. First is for an amendment to be passed on capitol hill (by 2/3 in both houses), then approved by 3/4 (37) of the states. The Equal Rights Amendment was the last to come by this method, but it failed because the time for ratification lapsed.
The second way an amendment can be added is for a constitutional convention to be requested by 3/4 of the state legislatures at which time amendments can be added. This has happened exactly zero (“0”) times since THE Constitutional Convention, so pro-lifers will turn all different shades of blue if they hold their breath waiting on this one.
Ron Paul’s position, while not removing abortion, would almost certainly guarantee a reduction in the number of abortions in the United States.
A problem that I have seen with the pro-life movement in America is how many see it as an all or nothing venture. I perceive that a significant reduction would not be enough for some even though the absolute outlawing of abortion on the U.S. is about as likely as finding a family of Bigfoots living in my basement. This seems a dangerously radical position that has the actual effect of working against the goal.
As you might expect, Ron Paul opposes the use of tax money for abortions. From his website:
Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.
Would Ron Paul’s view of abortion as a states’ issue ever be implemented? I do not know. Would he be able to accomplish anything even if he tried? I do not know. But, would he try? I believe he would, and likely more diligently than any president we’ve ever had. And were he to be successful we might even see a substantial reduction of abortions in the United States.
Below the video are links to three books on life. Rachel Weeping is out of print, but is the best book ever written on the subject if you can get a used copy.
