I would much rather be writing a positive and promotional post about the American Right to Life. I have lauded their organization, their efforts and their leader from their beginning, early this year. I agree with their approach, to focus on the personhood of the unborn. Restoring the unalienable right to life ultimately depends on our recognition of personhood. It's right there in Roe vs. Wade: “(If the) suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” Whether we do that separately in all 50 states or through a federal Constitution Amendment (ratified by all 50 states), that is the goal. No amount of child killing regulation will restore the right to life. We can't just "chip away" at Roe vs. Wade. We must challenge it outright.
The decision to "focus on the strategy" is a good one, so long as it includes an approach that is lawful. The American Right to Life Action league would do well to consider constitutional arguments from a presidential candidate who shares the principles and goals of their organization, but instead, they have chosen to slander him. That's right. Ron Paul, the only presidential candidate who has given the pro-life cause enough thought to write a book about it, has championed the cause of personhood in his Sanctity of Life Act, and has even won over former pro-choicers to his principled pro-life position. Ron Paul has been ignored or written off by the media, and now more than ever, is assumed to have no chance at winning the Republican nomination, barring a miracle (which I still hope for and still believe can happen) yet is now being slandered by American Right to Life in their hit piece, "Ron Paul is pro-choice, state by state." The timing of their anti-Romney campaign made much more sense, when he was leading in the polls, unless they know something now that we don't know about Ron Paul and his chances.
Before the piece went public, I was even contacted and given the chance to respond, "make corrections, comments or criticisms". I responded, but apparently they had no response to my corrections, comments and criticisms, so they went public with it anyway, without taking any of my advice into consideration. So I publish my response below:
______________________________________________
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to this. As you know, I have supported the efforts of American Right to Life to speak the truth on the betrayal of pro-life principles by "pro-life" leaders, organizations and politicians. That said, I am curious as to why this effort is being spent attacking Dr. Paul, a sincere pro-lifer and critic of the betrayers, who at this point, stands little chance of winning the Republican nomination (barring a miracle, which I still hope for), nor even garnering much pro-life support (unfortunately), rather than attacking the current "frontrunner" and likely nominee, John McCain, who has the support of "Republicans for Choice", and will likely also have the support of National Right to Life.
Also, has ARTL tried to discuss this Ron Paul to see if these disagreements are legitimate? I would think you're in a very good position to do this. You might also ask Pastor Chuck Baldwin (another friend of ARTL and supporter of Ron Paul) to respond to this.
Here are my responses to the claims (below in red):
1) "Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state." RP: "While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."
Response: Ron Paul is pro-life state by state. His H.R. 1094 states:
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress-
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
(Note that it does not say that each state has the right to allow abortion. Ron Paul recognizes not only the proper jurisdiction, but also the proper role of the local governments to protect life, not simply to do whatever they want.)
2) "Libertarian Party: officially pro-choice" "Libertarian Party platform: "I.8 Reproductive Rights ... We oppose government actions that... prohibit abortion..."
Response: Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. While yes, he shares some views with Libertarians, pro-abortion-choice is not one of them. In fact, he pointed out his constant arguments with his Libertarian friends over this issue in his speech at this year's March for Life. Pointing out the Libertarian platform is misleading your readers to believe he shares the views of the Libertarian Party on abortion. With all due respect, that is irresponsible and slanderous and not worthy of an organization that claims to abide by God's Law.
3) Libertarian ProLifers: guilty of revisionism
Typical Claim: The federal government gave us abortion with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade. What makes anyone think the federal government will end abortion.
Truth: The states began "legalizing" child killing with 19 states permitting abortion for various reasons in the seven years before Roe (MS, CO, CA, OR, NC, NY, AK, HI, WA, FL, AL, AR, DE, GA, KS, MD, NM, SC, VA) including a number with virtual abortion on demand like New York which allowed abortion through six months.
Response: In fact, both the federal government and the states gave us abortion on demand. I don't think this is a disagreement. However, it is the states' responsibility and jurisdiction to protect life, though it is perfectly legitimate for the federal government to lay the foundation for just principles, which Ron Paul has attempted in introducing H.R. 1094. I have heard him make the case that we would have better success in passing laws that protect life at the local level, where government is closer and more accountable to the people, once given back the opportunity. One can argue that, sure. Man's law can be flawed no matter what jurisdiction it comes from. The question is, who has the proper authority and jurisdiction?
4) Paul's 'Life' Bills:
allow abortion in the states Sanctity of Life Act of 2007: "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review…any case arising out of any statute… on the grounds that such statute… regulates (A) the performance of abortions." Sec. 3(2) (consistent with other Paul bills)
Response: For proper context, here is more of that text:
...any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.
Again, it's a matter of who has the proper jurisdiction.
5) Even Violate Constitution:
deprive life and liberty Paul would require the federal government to violate the U.S. Constitution and tolerate child killing, rejecting the 5th and 14th Amendment: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Response: How would he "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?
6) Libertarian Falsehood:
murder is not a state's right States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. God gives no country, state, or any subdivision of government permission to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the legalization of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify invasion. Neither God nor the prolife movement will give the federal government a pass to look the other way when American states authorize child slaughter.
Response: Again, Ron Paul has never advocated decriminilizing murder at any level. He simply wants to restore the proper jurisdiction to the states, which Roe vs. Wade took away. Unlike the National Right to Life, which ARTL has rightly criticized for being duplicitous, Ron Paul does not try to have it both ways by opposing laws at the state level that would protect life. In fact, he supports the efforts underway in Colorado and Georgia, and I'm sure he would support them in any state. Does the American RTL advocate invading China? Or is American RTL "pro-choice, country by country"?
7) Libertarian Party: officially immoral Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party and spoke at its 2004 national convention and he has never repudiated them even though the Libertarian Party is officially: prolegalized abortion, prolegalized homosexuality, prolegalized pornography, prolegalized adultery, prolegalizing crack cocaine, prolegalized suicide and euthanasia, prolegalizing prostitution, and against protecting marriage between a man and a woman, The Libertarian Party is based on a humanist rather than on a JudeoChristian worldview and thus has misguided notions of governance and no compass for righteousness in law.
Response: Again, Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian.
8) Personally Prolife: means officially prochoice American RTL Action opposes candidates who are "personally" prolife. The official position of someone who wants to be a governing official matters. If an official is personally against lynching blacks, killing Jews, and aborting kids but will officially tolerate such crimes, we will oppose him.
Response: Ron Paul is both personally and officially, pro-life and has advocated more sound pro-life laws than any other candidate for President, as covered above.
9) Constitutional States Rights:
side deals aside Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings. No side deal that human beings make between themselves can exempt them from obligation to uphold God's enduring commands. So even if the U.S. Constitution explicitly stated that most blacks would be counted for appropriations reasons as threefifths of a person, or if it explicitly stated that the states have the right to decide whether to authorize the killing of Jews or unborn children, such provisions would be unjust and should not be defended under some perverse understanding of governmental principles but should be opposed by all.
Response: What side deal is Ron Paul making and what is confusing about his states rights position?
10) And Then You Can Kill the Baby:
PBA fiasco Ron Paul voted for the partial birth abortion ban. Any law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby" is a bad law. Thus the PBA ban is a bad law. The U.S. Supreme Court in April 2007 upheld this wicked child-killing regulation in the most brutally vicious decision ever issued by an American court. In their majority Gonzales v. Carhart ruling the court advocated "an injection that kills the fetus" and "less shocking methods" of killing the same late-term children, and the ban explicitly keeps partial-birth abortion legal declaring that the baby can be delivered up to "the navel" and then terminated, turning this ruling into a virtual PBA manual.
Response: I agreed with ARTL on the PBA ban and so did Ron Paul, who and he spoke explicitly about it in his floor speech on the ban, and later wrote about it in "Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle". He was torn over that bill for the same reasons we were and others, yet still decided to support it. This is evidence to me that as president, he would be much more thoughtful about the kind of legislation he would promote, than anyone else in Congress or who's running for President. I agree that the Supreme Court decision and the majority opinion on that case was a gruesome PBA manual, but Ron Paul wasn't voting on that statement. He voted on the bill. The majority opinion was written well after the bill was passed.
11) "States' Rights": violated by advocate Ron Paul Ron Paul, in violation of what he sees as a states' rights principle, voted for the federal partial birth abortion ban imposed upon the states. Paul rightly chastised the prolife movement (which had been led by National RTL) for sponsoring the unprincipled PBA ban, but then he voted for this federal legislation violating not only God's enduring law but also his own states' rights principles even though he acknowledged his fear that this "pro-life" law "does more harm than good" by corrupting the principles of life and further undermining the possibility of legally protecting human life from fertilization. Paul gets a lot of support from confused pro-lifers who also gave popular support to the evil PBA ban, so rather than risk alienating some pro-life voters Paul lambasted the law, then made a populist excuse, and voted for it.
Response: This gets to the heart of his dilemna of balancing the constitutional principle of states rights and the founding American and godly principle of protecting life. When it comes down to it, I think this demonstrates his tendency to side with protecting life, even over his desire to protect states rights. Though the PBA ban was flawed, both on states rights principles and pro-life principles, he was doing what he believed he could to support the protection of life. However, he was not the author of this legislation, and would prefer to be voting on his superior legislation that violates neither. However, the "pro-life" movement gave it no attention.
Thanks again, for allowing me the chance to respond. I advise caution before proceeding, and if possible, to sit down with Dr. Paul and go over your concerns. I would love to be part of any such efforts.
Sincerely,
Michelle
It's times like these, we could sure use a friend. Here is Reagan's "
