States’ Rights…For Murder too?

Many Americans are, no doubt, familiar with presidential candidate Ron Paul and his general beliefs. The libertarian inclinations of this man have led to his traditional arguments in favor of preserving the Constitution and upholding states’ rights. His economic policies follow the Austrian school of economics, which favor a free market devoid of government intervention. He also argued strongly in favor of supporting the rights of unborn children, and has openly opposed the Roe vs. Wade ruling and abortion in general. For many of these reasons, I have held a strong degree of respect for the man, regardless of his unpopularity among the mainstream Republican Party and his often uncouth supporters.

However, it has recently come to my attention that Dr. Paul is not in favor of federal laws regarding abortion, as he considers it to be a “states’ rights” issue. I admit, this bothered me, so I decided to look a little closer at his sentiments on abortion. On his campaign website, his stance on abortion is stated specifically:

“As an OB/GYN who delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul knows firsthand how precious, fragile, and in need of protection life is.

Dr. Paul’s experience in science and medicine only reinforced his belief that life begins at conception, and he believes it would be inconsistent for him to champion personal liberty and a free society if he didn’t also advocate respecting the God-given right to life—for those born and unborn.

After being forced to witness an abortion being performed during his time in medical school, he knew from that moment on that his practice would focus on protecting life.  And during his years in medicine, never once did he find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

As a physician, Ron Paul consistently put his beliefs into practice and saved lives by helping women seek options other than abortion, including adoption.  And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress”(http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/).

Well, if this is indeed his beliefs, than he may be a good candidate after all. Unfortunately, when asked whether he thinks minors should be provided with the morning after pill, he declared, “I think the states have the right to try to do that, the morning after pill is nothing more than the birth control pill…How are you going to take all the birth control off the market? It would be impossible. States have some rights to regulate things, they regulate alcohol and nobody complains too much about it” (http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/02/28/ron-paul-states-should-decide-if-16-year-olds-can-get-morning-after-pill/).

This startled me, and began to anger me. After all, this is coming from the man who declared that, “I can assure you life begins at conception” (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/). However, he is willing to let the states provide 16 year old girls with pills that effectively –according to his own definition of life – kill a child. That is an extremely disturbing implication.

I realize that this is one particular issue, and not even a central one for the 2012 elections. However, as a Christian who is absolutely pro-life, I find this to be a very important issue to keep in mind, especially in view of the fact that we are hours away from Super Tuesday. Ron Paul had lost my support as my choice candidate a few months ago. However, in view of this new information, I am not even sure if I can continue to maintain him as my second choice in this election.

Our Founding Fathers understood the value of human Life when they wrote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” (Declaration of Independence).

and,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (Constitution, Preamble).

May we also remember the value of Life – as a God-given right to all individuals regardless of age, size, or social condition. And may we reflect on these values as we look forward to the coming election.

~A Renegade For Christ

Advertisements

About Renegade4Christ

I am a strong supporter of limited government and the voice of the people in government. I am also a believer in Christ Jesus as the way, truth, and life, and I know that you can experience his love as well, if you are willing to place your trust in Him!
This entry was posted in Christian Perspective, Life, Patriotism, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to States’ Rights…For Murder too?

  1. Ed Gilles[ie says:

    Wonderfully said Evan. It especially does my heart good to read these words. Truth is truth.

  2. Those above comments were actually mine.

  3. Paula Leary says:

    Evan,
    WOW! What a fine communicator you are. Is there a cadidate we can back? Just wondering??

    • Renegade4Christ says:

      Hello!
      Personally, I’m backing Rick Santorum for President. He’s pro-life in particular and socially conservative, as a whole and has a much better chance of winning than Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich. While it’s probably true that Romney’s success on super Tuesday indicates that he will likely get the nomination, I just can’t back Romney at this time, and Santorum is the next closest. So as far as the primary is concerned, I’m voting for Santorum.

  4. Samuel Friedrich says:

    Santorum, what reason would you possibly have for supporting him? He may be “pro-life” in certain circumstances, but certainly not under others. For example: He voted for the federal budget every year that he was in office, that included funding for Planned Parenthood, he supported Arlen Specter (a very pro-choice candidate) for political office. He is not at all fiscally conservative, having voted for FIVE debt ceiling increases. He also voted for the PATRIOT Act, and No Child Left Behind.

    The birth control pill that Ron Paul references is one that prevents fertilization from occurring, not implantation of a fertilized embryo. But it is indeed not the federal government’s place to regulate such issues, the Constitution does not provide any basis for anyone but the state to deal with murder. Ron Paul does support life, and even introduced a pro-life constitutional amendment on the floor of the house. Other than a constitutional amendment, there is no way that the federal government can become properly involved in this issue.

    • Renegade4Christ says:

      Hey Sam, I appreciate the comment – its good to have some friendly discussion, once in a while.

      Since he dropped out, I suppose this is a bit out-of-date, but I’ll respond to your question anyway.

      If you noticed, I gave reasons for why I was supporting Santorum – chief among them were his pro-life stance, and his *social conservatism*. Notice, I did not mention his fiscal policies – I admit he is not ideal in this regard – his economics were bearable, but not ideal. In fact, Ron Paul is probably the most ideal, fiscally speaking, in my opinion. However, his consistently strong social conservative views were encouraging for me. Notice also, I compared him to the other GOP candidates – Romney, Gingrich, and Paul. Besides Romney, Santorum was the only one who had even the slightest chance ( I think he had somewhere around 220 delegates when he dropped out, compared to Romney’s 500 or so). Gingrich cannot hope to win the nomination – the scandal with his wives made sure of that. And Ron Paul, though he has a loyal base, has very little support from the mainstream party – he is incapable of winning a presidential nomination unless that changes.

      I hope that clears up your questions.

      Sincerely,
      – A Renegade for Christ

  5. Samuel Friedrich says:

    Does this mean that you will be supporting Romney?

    • Renegade4Christ says:

      It means that I really don’t know who I’ll be voting for in the primary. I’m leaning toward Gingrich ONLY because I don’t like Romney or Paul. Frankly, I think Gingrich should have dropped out long ago. But honestly, I don’t know who I’ll end up voting for.

      In the general? Yes, I’ll back Romney against Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s