Liberty Define: Abortion

As I am reading through Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, I have decided to briefly provide summaries of his arguments put forth on each issue--or at least the biggest and most contentious ones. Chapter one deals with Abortion.

For those who have followed Dr. Paul's career for some time, it is well know that he is an ardent supporter of the pro-life position. So not surprisingly, in this early chapter, he pulls no punches regarding the issue.

On the first page, Congressman Paul insists his position is the one truly consistent with liberty. He states, "Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right." He continues by noting that such reasoning "ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn" and that "cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life."

Dr. Paul  points out the hypocrisy of those who support the termination of a child within the womb and oppose the same for a child outside the womb. For Paul protection of life is an absolute; either we protect it or destroy it; there is no middle ground. Moreover, we cannot trump the right to life of the child merely for the sake of the mother.

It should be noted: Paul's argument is not at all lacking in compassion for the mother. He wants to assist these women and make the alternatives of adoption and the like even easier for them by addressing adoption regulation and the costs of carrying a child to term.

Since it is Ron Paul writing on the issue he is quick to layout the constitutional reasoning that bolsters his argument. He notes that any attempt to justify abortion in the constitution will go unfounded. It is simply not in the document, and the federal government has no right to prevent states from protecting the life of the unborn. Moreover, he is critical of those within the pro-life movement which seek to use unconstitutional means to achieve and end even with which he agrees. Abortion can be dealt with in a constitutional manner that would work to protect life.


Ron Paul understands that more federal government is not the answer to the problem, nor is waiting on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Paul believes that the Constitution leaves the issue of abortion up to the states and that is where we as pro-lifers have the best chance of making real change. For years and years each side has done nothing to make in-roads on the issue. Instead the status quo is upheld--a status quo that leads to further death.

Unlike many politicians, Ron Paul has been trying to make honest in-roads for years. One example is a bill he annually sponsors which would instantly overturn Roe v. Wade in a constitutional manner. The bill would use Congress' right to change the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over abortion--instantly making the Court's Roe ruling a non-issue.

Paul notes that his position "does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life," but these actions will only help in the long run, doing little to protect life immediately.

Not wanting to steal the good doctor's thunder, I will leave most of his arguement for you to read when you pick up the book, but I would like to address a few things I appreciate about his position.

1. Paul realizes that the way we treat the abortion issue as a society directly influences the amount of innocent life that is destroyed. If we act cavalier about abortion, we will reap the negative effects. Moreover, our unwillingness to protect life leads to more people deciding to flippantly take life.

2. Paul is quick to point out hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. In addition to the pro-choice hypocrisy discussed above, Paul points out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-life but support unnecessary war.

3. Paul, unlike many, does not merely run on emotion. You can sense that his position is on thoroughly grounded in fact and conviction.

Please pick up Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom and read his position for yourself. You can buy the book at the link below.

Stupak is a Man of his Word

This video shows that Stupak did not care about the abortion issue. He said he would vote for a pro-abortion bill all along.

Quotation of the Day

“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”--Thomas Jefferson

Harold Ford Jr. Should Look to the GOP

Even if you are not from Tennessee or New York, chances are that you have heard of Harold Ford Jr.'s possible Democratic primary challenge in New York. And if you watch the Colbert Report you have probably seen the recent interview in which Colbert gave the former candidate for Tennessee senator quite a hard time. This hard time stems from both Ford's relatively little time spent actually living in New York and his recent change of heart on a number of positions.

When running for senator in the Great State of Tennessee, Ford positioned himself as a true Southern Democrat, boasting of his pro-life and pro-traditional marriage positions. Now as a potential challenger in New York, Ford claims he has always been pro-choice and has recently had a change of heart on gay marriage that has positioned him left of President Obama himself.

I don't blame Ford. He comes from a family of political opportunists and is making the best of a situation put in front of him. Never being a principled man, I don't expect anything different from him now.

What suprises me is his desire to run as a Democrat. Even if he is now pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, he could still run to the right of Scott Brown--the GOP's latest poster boy. Since the Republican Party is so willing to compromise principle for the sake of a win, surely they would back Ford in New York.

Mr. Ford, you are barking up the wrong tree. The GOP loves running liberals for office. Just look at the '08 presidential ticket. Let them know you are fine with bombing brown people and the GOP will have its supporters sending you money and supporters in no time.

Aborted Liberty

On this day 37 years ago the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its decision in Roe v. Wade in what was one of the greatest affronts to liberty in our nation's history.

It was a violation of states' rights, a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and a violation of human liberty. For, without life there can be no liberty. Below is a decision I delivered as if a member of the Court when I was a Constitutional Law student. In it I seek to prove the constitutionality of a state abortion ban and the unconstitutionality of abortion itself.

08-002 South Dakota v. Planned Parenthood of South Dakota
Justice LUNA delivers the opinion of the Court

The Court today is faced once again with “the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy”[Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.CT. 703 (1973)]; therefore because of these emotions, we must consider the issue of abortion in light of the Constitution’s text. If we as a Court do not limit ourselves to the interpretation of the text, we open the Constitution to swaying trends of society. However tempting it may be to account for evolving social norms, our task is to uphold the Constitution, not our own public opinion. It is not the Court’s job to decide whether banning abortion is morally or socially acceptable; it is the Court’s job to decide whether or not the statute in question violates the Constitution. More specifically, the Court must consider whether or not the Constitution prohibits a state’s banning abortion save in the case of protecting the life of the mother. In Roe, this Court ruled that a pregnant woman’s “right of privacy” through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause’s guarantee of liberty allowed for the termination of pregnancy through abortion. However, it is this Court’s opinion that Roe was wrongly decided. Though we members of the Court always seek to rule rightly in constitutional matters, we are not infallible, and errors in interpretation are at times made. It is this Court’s duty, then, at the risk of eroding stare decisis, to hold fast to the Constitution even above precedent. The Court will first reconsider Roe, then turn to the constitutionality of the South Dakota statute before us.

The ruling in Roe is based upon what the Court holds as a 14th Amendment “right of privacy,” and this Court agrees that such a “right of privacy” does exist. This Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. CT. 1678 (1965), held that a right of privacy emanates from a “penumbra” surrounding the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. However, the Court realizes that these guarantees arising from the Amendments are specific in nature and serve not to diminish other rights guaranteed within the same document. We now consider the nature of the “right of privacy” as held in Roe.

The Court in Roe struck down states’ ability to prohibit abortions, holding that up to a certain point in term a woman’s “right of privacy” encapsulates the right to terminate her pregnancy while outweighing a state’s interest in preventing abortion. However, the Court drew this ruling from an overly broad interpretation of the “liberty” guarantee of the Due Process Clause. The “right of privacy” is not and cannot be guaranteed at all cost. No reasonable person would hold that something such as murder would be protected if done within the privacy of one’s own home. There are limits on what can be done by one even within the realm of privacy. Roe had no basis in the actual text of the Constitution itself. The ruling overlooked the textual guarantee of “life” which precedes “liberty” in the 14th Amendment. Moreover, it did so in preference for a “constitutional right” found nowhere within the text of the Constitution. If a ruling of the Court will have the effect of infringing upon a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the ruling cannot stand. In the case of Roe, the Court made such a ruling. This non-textual exercise of judicial activism cannot be perpetuated by this Court.

First, we must establish whether or not the fetus to be aborted is in fact in a “state of life” to be protected by the Constitution. Justice Breyer acknowledges in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S. CT. 2597 (2000), “Millions of Americans believe that life begins at conception and consequently that an abortion is akin to causing death to an innocent child.” Furthermore, Justice Kennedy has acknowledged that a fetus has life by noting “the legitimacy of the State’s interest in fetal life” in Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 121 S.CT. 1291 (2001). However, fetal life can neither be proven nor disproven by mere words. That is why the Court in Roe spoke of the point of viability. As the fetus reached viability, the mother’s “right to privacy” would decrease and the fetus’s right to life would increase. Though the Court does not embrace such a weak framework in which constitutional rights fluctuate over time, it is important to note that turning one’s eye to viability strengthens the argument for fetal life. With medical advancements, the time of viability has moved closer and closer to the time of conception. Furthermore, science has now conceived children outside of the womb through the practice of in vitro fertilization. With the possibility of survival for premature babies increasing and that human life begins at conception for “test tube babies,” the Court must realize viability at conception may in the future be a possibility. The Court then recognizes that human life has come into being at the point of conception whether or not the point of viability is met. Neglecting to protect this life is tantamount to not protecting the most basic of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, we opine that life does begin and is protected by the Constitution at conception.

Specifically stated constitutional rights must always be held in the highest regard. If a right is stated within the text, it obviously holds great importance to those who drafted and adopted it. Moreover, those rights specifically listed must hold a “preferred position” in our jurisprudence [US v. Carolene Products Co., 304 US 144 (1938)] . These guarantees must be protected by all means with the highest level of scrutiny applied to measures alleged to infringe upon them. This approach was absent in Roe and in the name of constitutional preservation must now be applied.

In Roe the Court was correct in stating that a woman has a right to privacy; that issue was settled in Griswold. However, the Court erred in its over inclusiveness with regard to reproductive decisions within that right of privacy. By permitting the taking of a fetus’s life through a “right of privacy” found nowhere in the text of the Constitution, the Court completely disregarded and negated the “right of life” specifically guaranteed in the text of the 14th Amendment. Life is the supreme fundamental right, which must never be taken without due process of law. Without “life” there can be no “liberty,” no “freedom of speech,” or no other rights for the people of the United States. A nation that does not protect life cannot protect liberty. As this Court realizes that the “right of life” is fundamental and must be preserved above all else, we thus overturn Roe v. Wade.

The issue before the Court in considering the South Dakota statute to take life must be subject to strict scrutiny, in which the burden is on the state to prove that the statute is based on a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored. As in all matters of the Court, we must turn to the foundation of our jurisprudence–the Constitution. The 14th Amendment addresses the issue clearly stating, “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It is the opinion of this Court that the explicit guarantee of “life” in the 14th Amendment is reason enough to uphold any practice that seeks to protect it. However, the Court will seek to exhaust the concerns of critics of the South Dakota statutes in order to test the constitutionality of their concerns and the Court’s ruling.

There are those who doubt that the unborn children were to be protected according to the wishes of the Framers. The answer to their concerns is found within the Constitution’s Preamble. There, the Framers state that it was their desire to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to [themselves] and [their] Posterity.” The Constitution was not meant to merely protect the living but all future generations.

The most important response to critics of the South Dakotan statute is that they lack firm constitutional evidence to support a right to abortion. In no place within the text of the document is there any explicit or implicit protection of such a right; rather, the opposite is found–a protection of life. The only support for abortion that critics can provide is based on the guarantee of liberty extending a “right to privacy” to a woman to terminate the life within her womb. However, this approach is problematic in many ways. It infringes on a specifically guaranteed right of life found directly before liberty in the Due Process Clause, and the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to an abortion. Therefore, we believe that the claims of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota have no firm constitutional support.

Instead, we as members of this Court can find nothing within the South Dakota statute that would violate the Constitution of our United States. On the contrary, this legislation seeks to galvanize and provide support for the constitutional guarantee of life. Rather than undermining rights given by our honored document, this statute provides additional support to life, assuring its protection and the Constitution’s guarantee. We not only find this law to be within the protection of the Constitution, but we also find it to offer protection to the Constitution itself. The state met the strict scrutiny and has showed compelling interest in enacting this narrowly tailored statute. For these and the aforementioned reasons, we uphold the South Dakotan statute banning abortion save to protect the mother’s life and reverse the ruling of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.