Ron Paul 2012 Pt. 1 – On The Issues:
I am an advocate of choice, and the right of women to make their own choices when it pertains to their health, and their lives, and that includes the right to an abortion. I certainly applaud Ron Paul’s efforts in curbing abortion rates by having women think about alternatives, but I also have serious reservations about his essential forcing beliefs upon others (+1). As a Counselor-in-Training in the Mental Health field, it is imperative that I, and other professionals in any scenario take into consideration the cultural, political, religious, and other beliefs of the client. It is unethical to say the least to force my opinions upon my clients no matter how covert or overt this intrusion is. I cannot speak for Dr. Paul however, as he may appeal to these individuals, and/or he may be sincere rather than forceful about his approach. I may not know.
I agree with Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). I believe that the court aimed to protect the right of the woman, while also not impeding upon the states’ interests in protecting human life. Ron Paul wishes to repeal Roe v. Wade (-1). Before you agree or disagree with Ron Paul on this proposition, you should read the case first. The process of repealing the effectiveness of this decision is to pass H.R.958 “We the People Act.” The aim is to limit the ability of the Supreme Court (-1), as quoted:
This would be okay if it weren’t for the fact that this would take away the Supreme Court’s ability to protect people. While I understand what Ron Paul is trying to get at, I believe that his concept of liberty is skewed by taking away the Court’s ability to protect it. The findings under Section 2 also beg the question the validity of the arguments, particularly the eighth finding which is quoted as: “The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual states by replacing elected government with unelected judges.” I am confused by this and to what end it is referring to. It also brings to light another controversy, one for which I feel is ruining the judicial system, and that happens to be the elections of Judges via Republican vs. Democratic judges. This is tainting the judicial system invariably, and somehow Ron Paul feels that this bill will eliminate “activist” judges from legislating from the bench on issues pertaining to sex, sexuality, and abortion. I feel that this is a flawed theory.
Even more so, depending on what exactly this finding is in reference to, it seems that the authors neglected to include Article II, Section II (even though they added Article’s III Sections 1 and 2 , Article I Section 8, and Article IV Section 4) which clearly states that the President of the United States shall appoint judges to the Supreme Court. First of all, the constitution seems to be in conflict with the assertion for which is stated in the bill. Interestingly though, there are different methods for individuals to become a judge .
In California, Maine, New Jersey, and Virginia judges are appointed. Conversely, in states such as Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia, judges must choose a political party and run for election (partisan elections). Other states have nonpartisan elections such as Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Organ, Washington, and Wisconsin. For the remaining states (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, selection is based on merit. Depending on the state and method of selection the terms are also different.
I find it particularly interesting that Ron Paul’s support or authorship of this bill is in order to combat “activist judges” and yet he wishes for them to run for election. This is problematic because having judges manage a campaign to get elected forces them, and even reinforces them to give promises of activism – especially if that election is partisan based. These are only parts of the bill that I have analyzed, but I disagree with it entirely. This bill isn’t meant to protect liberty, or the rights of people, it’s meant to keep the Supreme Court out of the way of an agenda. It’s a brilliant plan, and a tactical move in politics, but one that will unfortunately place the consequences and slaughter the very concept of Liberty for which Ron Paul apparently adores.
Another bill for which Ron Paul wishes to pass is the Sanctity of Life Act. If zombies ever existed as parchment, this is a prime example. It was first brought up on July 20th 1995 by Steve Stockman (R), and Barbara Cubin (R) which failed. Ron Paul would reintroduce the bill in varying formats in the 109th, 110th, 111th, and 112th United States Congressional sessions. I give Ron Paul kudos for trying so hard to pass this bill, but I thoroughly disagree with the bill (-1). Section 2, Paragraph B, Subsection B, Part B states that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency…” This is an impediment upon people of religious faiths. Human understanding of life and death are culturally driven. While science may explain parts of both, it has yet to fully explain life in particular, and even death’s definition has had to be revised. The reason that I disagree with Ron Paul on this issue is because his actions, and even his stance, contradict the very essence of Liberty. On this point of view, I have to say that the Liberal side of the fence happens to be more in favor of Liberty. The conservative stance, or “pro-life” conversely requires the Federal Government to step in. Furthermore, the Sanctity of Life Act infringes upon religious rights and freedoms as given by the 1st Amendment.
Not every religion agrees on the concept as to when life begins. Further, not all doctors agree on this either, and many aren’t concerned with when life begins, but when does the fetus become a human being? On the other side of that page though, when does one stop being a human being? The guise for which Ron Paul hides behind is this concept of States’ Rights, and less federal government. That’s all fine and dandy, except that this perception is a very covert way of subverting the 1st Amendment rights of everyone else when it pertains to Abortion. Further, it ignores the fact that the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights not just to states, but to people in general – and if States weren’t so inclined to take rights away, the Federal Government wouldn’t be inclined to step in (-1). Pro-Choice advocates simply want it to remain legal. Scientists, Doctors, and Religions are not in agreement as to when life begins.
I give Paul a -4 on the agreement scale for Abortion. There are many other things to take into consideration when attempting to make it illegal on the basis of personal and religious grounds. While his argument is that he is trying to protect human life, which makes it particularly difficult to argue against, it’s important to take into consideration why women get abortions, effective means of curbing abortion rates, cultural differences, religious differences, etc – which he does not (-1). A woman’s choice to have an abortion should be her own, and her decision does not harm Ron Paul, or anyone else, and according to her beliefs, and even personal self interest in a system that works against her as a woman. I encourage you to check out the sources that I posted along with this in the foot notes to further enhance your understanding of the “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” agenda’s, don’t simply listen to your pastor, or radio host, or the “news” because you will simply not get any mental sustenance from those places.