Log in

Letter to Ron Paul. - one dour badger [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
one dour badger

[ website | Google ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Letter to Ron Paul. [Jul. 27th, 2007|01:26 pm]
one dour badger
So people have been bugging me about my absence from LJ. It's been a while since I've had anything I really thought was worth posting for public consumption. Not that my life has been terribly boring or empty, it's just that the things I've been doing have their own dedicated forums. :)

Today, though, I wrote something that might spark some interest.

to: mail@ronpaul2008.com
date: Jul 27, 2007 1:23 PM
subject: Question from a pro-choice independent.
I find myself in strong agreement with Congressman Paul on nearly every issue he's spoken about, with one major exception: I am adamantly pro-choice. This does not have to be a deal breaker, though, depending on exactly how Dr. Paul plans to translate his moral position (which I respect and do not wish to debate) into governmental policy.

Ron, you have stated that you believe abortion to be a cultural issue first, because any law will simply be broken (just as it was before Roe v. Wade) if popular morality does not recognize it as valid. Here, then, is my question: do you propose, at any time, to enact any Federal legislation banning abortions outright? or, do you propose to simply eliminate any blockades to the States enacting such legislation on their own jurisdiction? The latter position is one I can endorse.

If in fact you intend to promote legislation, one other question is necessary. You have spoken in terms of the difference between one minute before birth, and one minute after birth. This is not so vital to me as the difference between one month before conception, and one month after. Are you equally opposed to early-term abortion, including chemically induced abortion, before the fetus has differentiated organs?

I'll note that I don't care about loss of Federal funding to abortion clinics; a central pillar of your platform is elimination of many Federal programs and the taxes which support them!

As an independent voter, I am on the brink of registering Republican this year to give Ron Paul my support in the primaries. Whether I do so hinges on this issue. I doubt I am the only voter caught in this dilemma, and a public statement clarifying the details of your agenda might be valuable.

- Lief Clennon

From: bbachtung
2007-07-27 10:22 pm (UTC)

Ron Paul on abortion


In reluctantly voting for the ban on partial birth abortions, Ron Paul stated the following on the floor of the House on June 4, 2003:

"The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade."

To read his full comments, click the following link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

Ron Paul believes very strongly in a limited federal government; one that legislates and acts only in those areas expressly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution; his views on abortion mirror this committment to States' rights.

He has also voted no on proposals to make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll144.xml) and to make it a separate federal crime to harm a fetus while committing other federal crimes (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll089.xml).

I hope that this information helps you to decide to register as a Republican and support Ron Paul in the primary (and beyond).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dour
2007-07-28 02:55 am (UTC)

Re: Ron Paul on abortion

I'm glad to hear this reaffirmed. I had assumed that this would be Ron Paul's position, as it is in line with the rest of his platform, but I was concerned after listening to his speech before the National Right to Life Convention in which he cites existing laws which add a second charge to violent crimes against a pregnant woman as a "precedent" for future recognition of the fetus as a person in all respects. I'm certain that he was spinning his speech for the audience, and if he meant only a cultural precedent and not a legal one, all is well. And of course, you're absolutely right that his voting record bears this assumption out.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)