Ron Paul’s NARAL Pro‐Choice America’s Congressional Record on Choice

[archerships]

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/paul.html

2006: 65 percent
2005: 75 percent
2004: 65 percent
2003: 0 percent
2002: 20 percent
2001: 35 percent
2000: 0 percent
1999: 26 percent
1998: 10 percent
1997: 3 percent

Original: craschworks - comments

Comments

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Ron Paul wrote an interesting article on this point, cached in Google.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:tdC86gO-fZwJ:www.l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html+%22Being+Pro-Life+Is+Necessary+to+Defend+Liberty%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I don't agree with him on this issue, but his views on abortion are completely consistent with his libertarian and Constitutionalist views.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I agree.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I don't think his position has changed that much. Rather, I think that his changing scores reflect the kinds of legislation that came up that year. For example, he voted against a bill that would ban transporting minors across state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion (which NARAL would support); in another year, he voted for a bill that would cut off federal funding for family planning clinics which advocated for abortions (which NARAL would oppose).

Although it's often framed as such, I don't think abortion is a privacy rights issue. Rather, I think it's an issue of the extent to which a fetus is deserving of legal protections, if any.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

"that's because roe v. wade's majority decision is based almost entirely on the issue of privacy."

Yes, that's true. And I think that the reasoning used in Roe v. Wade was a tortuous as the reasoning that allows the interstate commerce clause to be used as justification to regulate marijuana grown on your own property for your own use. A number of liberal, pro-choice legal scholars agree:

http://timothypcarney.com/?page_id=176

I think Roe has not been overturned because there has not been a case yet in front of a conservative majority. Even with the appointment of Roberts and Alito, I don't think they have enough votes.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I suppose it depends on what you judge to be "conservative". Judges don't necessarily vote the way the person who appoints them would prefer.

[adam--selene.livejournal.com]

#1 Does the federal government have the right to proscribe medical procedures or pharmaceuticals? If not (the libertarian position), than that reaches well beyond abortion; it pretty much abolishes the powers of the FDA and NIH. Other interesting medical procedures may include cloning (from organs to organisms), genetic engineering, human augmentation, etc.

#2 Does the federal government have the right to prevent the states from proscribing medical procedures or pharmaceuticals?

If you answered no to #1, it's pretty hard to answer yes to #2. If #1 is not within the powers enumerated to the federal government, then powers "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" (10th amendment).

In order for the federal government to have the power to prevent proscription of medical procedures by the states, it must also have the power itself to proscribe them, which I find a worse situation for freedom in general.

#3 Do the state governments have the right to proscribe medical procedures or pharmaceuticals?

Libertarians may find it unfortunate the federal Constitution does not enumerate the powers of the states versus what is left to the people, but it is so. It is a question of states' constitutions what powers each state may have.