I am strongly pro-choice. On this conviction, I differ from the candidate whom I am supporting for president in 2012, and whom I am suggesting liberals everywhere support.
Many of those liberals who most strongly disagree with the Blue Republicans -- former Obama supporters, Democrats and Independents, who support Ron Paul for president in 2012, revert to a single argument against him: that he is pro-life and this will have terrible consequences for the reproductive rights of women in the USA.
I've really not wanted to engage this as, on the one hand, it seems to be such an extraordinary (sometimes I think deliberate) misunderstanding of Paul's politics as to be not serious, and, on the other, abortion is such an emotive subject, I can't imagine any writer gaining more readers than he loses by writing about it.
But since this matters so much -- as this misunderstanding is now standing in the way of remaking our country -- I'm going to engage it this once, and damn the torpedoes.
On the abortion issue, Ron Paul is pro-life. He believes human life begins at conception. But his entire political, indeed philosophical, worldview, is pro-choice. He believes that he does not get to impose his views using the force of federal law on a nation that might disagree with him -- especially in areas in which the Constitution does not give him that authority.
In other words, were someone of Ron Paul's views to win the presidency, there would be no federal action to prevent you from having a safe abortion. He is on the record. For most pro-choicers, that should put the issue to rest -- but it doesn't, because as other progressives rightly point out, under a Paul presidency, some states could make abortions illegal.
That is indeed the "worst case." But any liberal should be able to see that this worst case, taken in its entirety is better than the present situation, for multiple reasons.
1) If you allow this issue to be legislated at the national level, then a Republican majority or president with a large neocon or religious-right base will be able to reverse that legislation to ban abortion nationwide. The only way to guarantee that safe abortions will always be available in the USA for more than one Congress or presidency is to push this issue to the states in the spirit of the Constitution. Then, even the possibility of a nationwide ban on abortion disappears.
2) It is easier to reverse bad policy at the state level than the federal level through public pressure.
3) There is nothing liberal or humane about requiring those who sincerely disagree with us on abortion to subsidize our practices -- just as there is nothing liberal or humane about those who like unnecessary wars to force us to pay for them. In particular, if we are concerned about the rights of women, we shouldn't be asking women who disagree with us to subsidize our views.
4) The very worst (and frankly, extremely unlikely) case under a Paul presidency is that a poor woman would have to cross a state line to get an abortion. However, this worst-case scenario comes with the benefit of the reinstitution of the Bill of Rights, the end of killing innocent people in foreign countries, the end of indefinite incarceration without trial of Americans, the end of bank bailouts, the end of spending money abroad that should be spent at home, the end of government agents listening into your private conversations, the end of government by corporate lobbyists, and so on and so on.
In other words, if you don't vote for Ron Paul because of the abortion issue, then you cannot claim to be a progressive or liberal in any sense. You are a single-issue voter, which means, I am afraid, that you don't care about everything else that is going on in your country that is destroying the lives of the very same women whose right to an abortion you wish to protect. That does not make you a progressive; it does not make you a feminist and it certainly does not make you a liberal.
But since I agree with you that America should be a country in which all women have access to safe abortions, I would also pledge to support a charity that would pay for poor women in Mississippi -- to use an example that was suggested to me in a radio interview -- to travel across state lines to get the safe abortion they require.
The point of course, is there is no charity that could stop the government from killing people in undeclared wars, or bailing out crony corporatists, or making laws that favors well-funded lobbies or, cause federal agencies to follow again the Bill of Rights.
Vote Obama in 2012 and you'll get your federally mandated right to an abortion -- and you'll lose (or more accurately, fail to get back) every other Constitutional right you are supposed to have.
If I have to spell it out, under a Paul presidency, no woman would have to forego an abortion. Under the presidency of any other candidate, every woman has to forego the right to privacy, to due process before detention, to not participate financially in the killing of innocent people abroad, to not have her wealth transferred to rich guys who run banks and know other rich guys, to not have her conversations listened to by government authorities, and so on.
Do you see the asymmetry? Do you see how this is a matter of priorities?
I would like the USA to be the live-and-let-live country it was supposed to be.
Let us as liberals be true and consistent in our principles. The only way in which our pro-choice views directly impinge on others is by forcibly taking money from them to pay for things we want. We should no more need to use the monopoly of force of government in that way than should any religionist use it to prevent a gay couple from making a life-long commitment and calling it whatever they want, including "marriage." And if the religionists don't believe it's "a real marriage," let them call it whatever they want, too. And we can ignore them. And so on.
Paul's pro-life views are personal. The country needs to understand that a leader can hold a view fervently without having to impose it on the country as national policy.
Indeed, that is precisely what the Constitution requires him -- or her -- to do.
Follow Robin Koerner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rkoerner
Ron Paul emphasizes limited govt., individual values
Caucus Day 2012: Ron Paul doubles down on Minnesota
Ron Paul: U.S. sanctions against Iran are 'terrible'
For Ron Paul, Next Five Weeks Critical
Male Donors Fuel Ron Paul's Campaign, Barack Obama Sees Most Gender Parity
Ron Paul's Flinty Worldview Was Forged in Early Family Life
Ron Paul Went To Town Blasting The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau In His ...
All these people bitching about how 'ineffectual' he would be is nothing but the same fear blather, "he can't win" mentality that perpetuates the problems we have in America. Right here, right now we as citizens have an opportunity to throw our support behind a man who would truly act in his role as a servant of the Constitution, yet people would rather vote for someone else because the only honest man "can't win".
America has become quite jaded in its apathy.
Paul signed the anti-abortion pledge.
"I PLEDGE that I will only support candidates for President who are committed to protecting Life. I demand that any candidate I support commit to these positions:
FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;
SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;
THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;
FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion."
He has agreed to appoint anti-abortion justices.
As a proud owner of a uterus, I can not support this guy, and I'm shocked that any liberal leaning individuals can reconcile Paul's position with their own ideals.
"FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;
SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;
THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;"
http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge
http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/ron_paul_signed_pledge.jpg
Really? and what if a poor women can't afford to cross a state line? or several state lines? or can't afford to take some days off to get to an other state, have an abortion there and get back?
Are you going to help her to pay the costs? Remember, not all states are so small that you practically can walk to the next one.
Not to mention that Paul signed the pro-life pledge to select only only pro-life appointees and advance pro-life legislation..
http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/ron_paul_signed_pledge.jpg
I will be a bit more blunt then.
Some people are to stupid and brainwashed to understand the simple math here in this article, the good from a Paul presidency FAR and away exceeds any bad that could come from it.
A small example of the simple math that some are to stupid or brainwashed to grasp is this in a nutshell.
100s of thousands to MILLIONs of innocent lives lost is a infinitely more important than the hundreds or thousands that have to go to another state or give a child up for adoption rather than murder a child if they were to careless or lazy to take a morning after pill.
Paul would work to deny recourse to the federal courts if the Bill of Rights is violated by state or local governments. Secondly, a Paul Presidency would institute nothing. He would, at best, not exercise the powers already granted the Presidency, and veto any attempts to strengthen those powers (futilely I might add...check the numbers on the NDAA vote). The laws would remain until either the courts overturned them or Congress repeals them. (That's without getting into the possibility of the federal government being sued by local governments who demand that the President execute the current law.)
"In other words, if you don't vote for Ron Paul because of the abortion issue, then you cannot claim to be a progressive or liberal in any sense."
False dilemma.
Many would fall in line simply out of fear of being recalled by their constituents, others would be recalled. The end of the wars would massive flux of public support that would give him more power in the sense of outside pressure then any president in recent history.
Dream on..
Ignoring that, Ron Paul by signing the personhood pledge gets his way, Roe vs. Wade is overturned and it's left up to the states. We've already seen dozens of states vehemently push for more abortion regulation so it wouldn't take long for many states to completely criminalize it.
Now we have a situation where large swathes of the country have outlawed abortion. As you may know, when abortion is made illegal, abortion rates do not go down, they go up. So now the poor in many of these patriarchal Christian dominated states are facing murder charges because they got pregnant and had an abortion. And you say it's as simple as crossing state lines to prevent this? Let's say you live in Alabama and the closest place to get an abortion is Chicago. Or you live in Wyoming and the closest place to get one is Seattle. You're one of the millions of women living at poverty level. Just cross a state line? Are you serious?
So now we've got privatized for profit prisons locking women up by the tens of thousands, because if you look at abortion rates, that's how many women would be getting illegal abortions, and huge corporate Christian groups keep funding politicians who keep abortion illegal for profit.
Your ideas are bad.
"Who cares if I don't have a job, gas goes to $5 a gallon, and I have to rely on government for everything (and, as a result, fear having said support taken away at any time) JUST GIMME MY ABORTIONS AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OK!"
I am pro-choice, and am a Paul supporter, but this abortion discussion is getting tired, when compared to EVERYTHING ELSE this country faces in the coming years. I know Paul won't win, but i will continue to support and vote for him (if it means writing his name in). And when this country continues down its reckless path regardless of who else is in office, at least i will be able to say, "I didn't vote for that puppet".
The article assumes that this is the sole problem with Paul which I find pretty funny. My larger issue with him actually is in regards to his stance in dissolving the DOE. Look at what's going on right now in Arizona with the banning of ethnic studies. Even with the federal institution we are having an issue, which is a state-wide problem and in my mind a great example of lousy policy, however I don't see the public outcry having much of an impact at the present moment. If that doesn't show disastrous potential, I don't know what does.
Has education improved since the DOE? No it has not. It has declined.
No Child Left Behind was federal involvement in education, do you agree with that?