« John McCain and Republicans for Choice Must Be Defeated | Main | Can Obama Be Defeated? »

February 25, 2008

Comments

daniel

Dear ARTL,

Ron Paul is a cosponsor of HR 4157 The Sanctity of Human Life Act.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-4157

So, Ron Paul is totally pro-life. This bill is much more solid than his own pro-life bill.

Matt

Good article. Both you and the ARTL make some good points. It is disappointing the RP says, "Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." And there's a lot more to disagree with here:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446

The ARTL is correct in pointing out that this statement is false. By the 14th, Congress does have the right to involve itself in the issue because it says, "Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." But some libertarians believe that the 14th should be repealed and that it was never properly ratified in the first place (the southern states votes didn't count). So he may be disregarding the legitamacy of the 14th altogether. This is interesting because, if the 14th were repealed or ruled legally invalid, then Roe v Wade would cease to exist because it is ironically based on the 14th.

The Findings section of PBA does contain a line which defines personhood at the beginning of the delivery thusly, “Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person’.” This legally dehumanizes babies in the womb. But RP does not address this issue.

Even though they have good points, and these are things that pro-lifers should be aware of, I agree with you that they shouldn't have been so harsh with the criticism and shouldn't have wasted their time on RP when the others (not including Keyes) were so much worse. I do believe that the Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 is good.

Bob Enyart

Michelle McIntyre owns the absolute best blog title: Life of the Party! (And I knew that her state was liberal, but sheesh, there's only one of these up there... "Your Pro-Life Republican Activist in Washington State" :)

Michelle, you're my favorite pro-lifer in Washington! (We'll, okay, I hardly know any up there, but even if I knew more, you'd still be at the top of the list :)

It's been a year since we've discussed Ron Paul's commitment to the unborn and his libertarian-leaning view of government. I'd like to clarify the 5th item we discussed.

(verbatim from our RP ad at http://artlaction.com/files/RPaulFullPg-VicAd.pdf):

Paul's Bills Even Violate Constitution: allow depriving of life and liberty. Paul would require the federal government to violate the U.S. Constitution and tolerate child killing, rejecting the 5th Amendment and the 14th: “...nor shall any State deprive any per-son of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

To this Michelle, you responded: How would Ron Paul "require" this? What law has he advocated that violates depriving anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or denied anyone equal protection of the laws?

You ask how so? Paul would require this in this scenario. Even if he became president, and his "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007" became law, and California, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. continued to use their governmental 'authority' to keep open their child-killing abortion mills, Ron Paul would refuse to allow the federal government to overrule these murderous states' so-called 'authority' to systematically kill the innocent. There is no such authority of course. One way we know he would do this is that the law he wrote states that the "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review… any case arising out of any statute… that… regulates -- the performance of abortions…”

I'm so thankful for your love for the Lord and the innocent! Also, I'm thankful that Daniel and Matt commented above, pointing out the difference between Paul's own bill and the later one (during the heat of the campaign season) that he co-sponsored. We're trying to reach Mr. Paul for clarification. If you find anything else that indicates Paul has now discarded his incorrect understand of government, that somehow God would give a pass to the federal government, and require them to "stay out of it," if the states en mass kill the innocent, I'd appreciate it if you forwarded any such info.

Again, thanks!

Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

Visit My Bookstore

Modesty-The doorway to a Culture of Life

TTLB