In another Ron Paul post I raised some concerns about Ron Paul’s voting record on Abortion related issues. I have yet to find answers about those questions. So here they are as a stand alone post in the hopes someone will answer those questions or bring light a very important issue. A much bigger issue than where he stands on evolution.
My concern is this: Why does Ron Paul’s voting record look so confusing regarding abortion?
* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
December 11th, 2007 at 9:03 am
[...] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt(Feb 2003) * Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) * Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) * Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing … [...]
December 11th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Many of Ron Pauls votes seem confusing until you look at it from his view point. He is a strict constitutionalist and many of his votes are based on that. The wording at on theissues.org is unclear and I can’t seem to find any identification of the actual bills. What I can tell you is what Ron Paul has done for unborn children. He introduced H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 The text of the bill reads:
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes more…that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.
You can also read some of his ideas here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul240.html
December 11th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Good info, Johnathon. I look forward to what else you or someone else can find on this important area.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Here are some more details on the bill. I’m pretty sure he voted no because it would make it a federal crime.
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes.
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing any of 68 federal offenses or a crime under military law. Abortion doctors and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses would be exempt.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Graham, R-SC; Bill HR 503 ; vote number 2001-89 on Apr 26, 2001
December 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Could have been that he voted no because Dr. would be exempt. I need to find out for sure. Not that I think it would get me to vote for him.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
We, as Christians, have to obey the Bible first and the Constitution second. We cannot let our love for the Constitution (the best political document ever written) override our submission to the Bible (Word of God).
December 17th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
This tells me you dont really understand what Paul believes. Those cases where he voted no (seemingly “pro-choice”) were regarding the federal government. At the state govt level though, he thinks you can do anything up to banning abortion entirely. He has also voted for federal restrictions as well though, so he’s sort of a hypocrit about “states rights/federalism” (he voted for the federal partial birth abortion ban for example). He doesnt believe in incorporation of the Bill of Rights, he thinks EVERYTHING shoud be decided at the state level.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
You are right, DD, I don’t understand why he voted that way (or what his full beliefs are) - that was the reason for the post. If you have info that clarifies any individual bill - with his reasoning, I’d love to see you post it.
December 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 am
I believe in full confidence that this accurately states Ron Paul’s view on abortion: he does not want the federal government to decide anything about it. I believe that if an amendment to the Texas State Constitution barring all abortions were proposed, he’d probably vote for it.
As for your highlighted items, I would like to try and point out why he might have voted that way (I’m not going to be as specific as to check the wording beyond the title, like Jonathan did).
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
This I think is more of a “how would you enforce this?” than anything else. Constitutionally there is also the problem that it would make traveling across state lines illegal in some circumstances, something the Founders did not intend.
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Did you know there is no federal law against murder? If someone commits a murder in Texas, and then goes to Colorado and commits another murder, that person is to be tried in Texas for murder A and then tried in Colorado for murder B. Many states (I don’t know the exact amount) include the death of a fetus as a murder. Look at Scott Peterson for one example.
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
I’m confused on this one, given his voting record on stem cell research. I’ll have to look it up to even come close to an answer.
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Frankly I’m more surprised about the support for funding health providers with federal money than anything else. Also, I don’t know what is meant by abortion info. I can only assume (by looking around your site) that you mean info against abortion. Another one I need to research.
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
See the one just a little above this. I’m thinking this has more to do with state’s rights than anything.
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Same answer as the first highlighted item. The enforcement problem, as well as making interstate travel illegal in some circumstances.
Based on your website design, I can tell I’m not going to agree with you a lot. However, I like what I have seen so far because you offer a viewpoint I don’t normally see. I’ll probably be checking back in from time to time to see what you have to say.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 am
Thanks, RM. Your thoughts helped a little. What I would love to see and what would really help me feel better about Ron Paul would be some direct answers to some of these things. I do appreciate your speculation and honest answers where you had some.
I know Ron Paul has a history of vetoing even good sounding bills, if they seem unconstitutional, limit states rights or contain some pork barrel line. And like you, I’d just like the confusion cleared up — beyond just speculation.
Again, thanks for your comment. You’re welcome to stop in any time and chime in any place you agree or disagree.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Some of these so called anti-abortion bills do more harm to the pro-life cause than help. I would go even further than Ron Paul in voting no. The partial birth abortion bill (which he heavily criticized, but still voted for) contains a line which says that an individual attains “personhood” during the its delivery from the womb. No longer can we say that the idea that a fetus is not a human being is just something that the judges have to pull out of thin air in order to justify upholding Roe v Wade. The nonpersonhood of the fetus is now codified into this wicked federal law.
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Hmmm - thanks Matt. I’ll be checking that one out. This is new news to me. If you have a verifying link, please post. I’m not saying I doubt you, it’s just important we all link to stuff when we can to verify our sources.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Matt, I’ve been looking and can’t find anything like you mentioned. I did find this:
What it is actually saying is that even Roe v Wade said it was a person once the delivery process “had begun” and therefore it’s appealing to the logic of those who hold Roe as this untouchable decision.
Perhaps that is not what you referring to. If not, please post, because it is important. And thanks for taking the time. Merry Christmas!
December 24th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
http://www.covenantnews.com/cspa991018.htm
There were several partial abortion bills:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108Qp6JNK:e19902:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:3:./temp/~c106kLG8f1:
Though I could not find such a statement in the text of any of them yet, I did find this in the Findings section:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108Qp6JNK:e2908:
“Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a `person’.” (look under (14) (H))
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the partial-birth abortion law has been criticized by groups like the colorado right to life for language in the ruling which legitamizes abortions.
http://coloradorighttolife.org/openletter