As he has said on the campaign trail, he needs consensus to get many of the things he wants to get done.
Of course, I am in favor of strict regulations on abortion, and also view it through a constitutional lens.
From my readings, the right is reserved to the person; however, the government should not have a say in it.
It is a private right, as the procedure (known in colonial times) is left unmentioned in the Constitution.
Rep. Ron Paul, naughty or nice?
I am impressed by Rep. Ron Paul because of his willingness to stop the war in Iraq, his support for the Constitution, and his concern that our country be ruled by laws instead of by people with their own agendas.
I'm concerned, however, that Rep. Paul carries a lot of baggage that we don't hear too much about. Here's Mahablog talking about her concerns about Paul's position on abortion,
"...Libertarians will disagree, but I say the essential difference between liberals and libertarians is that the latter define oppression as something only the federal government can do. If state governments violate the rights of its citizens and treat women and minorities like chattel, that’s OK with them. Liberals, on the other hand, think oppression is wrong no matter who or what is doing the oppressing. We think, for example, that if a state is denying its African American citizens equal treatment under the law, it’s a legitimate use of federal power to force the state to stop the oppression. Libertarians generally disagree, and would rather allow states to discriminate than concede any part of state sovereignty to Washington or federal courts.
Thus, to most libertarians, liberty and equality are less important than maintaining a weak federal government.
Justin Raimondo asks why “neocons and sectarian leftists” have united to “smear” Ron Paul. I can’t speak for everyone, but I do want readers of this blog to understand what Ron Paul stands for. And he stands for the political oppression of women. His followers seem to think it is enormously significant that Paul wants to keep the federal government out of abortion law and give the states total authority in the matter. I, on the other hand, think Womb Nazis are Womb Nazis, no matter what branch of government they report to.
How can this person call Dr. Paul -- a man who has devoted his life to the preservation of life -- an oppressor of women and a Nazi?
This sounds unfair to me, regardless of his position on the issue.
I have seen people show up at liberal/progressive gatherings with Ron Paul T-shirts and buttons who don’t seem to know anything about Paul except that he’s against the war in Iraq. Well, folks, educate yourselves.
If you agree with Ron Paul’s views (meaning you aren’t one of my regular readers) then vote for him. That’s what republican government is about; you vote for the candidate you think will best represent you. My intention here is to be sure we’re all clear that Ron Paul is no liberal.
Good! This country has had enough of them!
Yes, the Iraq War is a vital issue, but it’s not the only vital issue, and Ron Paul is not the only anti-war candidate. The struggle for liberty and equality in this country will continue long after the Iraq War has scrolled off the page into history..."
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/19/boxes/
I take from this that Paul is against slavery, say, only insofar as it would be a federal issue. His problem with slavery, if his position on abortion tells us anything, is that he is against any federal government involvement. So, his solution would be to let the states regulate it. This is how the Founders would want to deal with it.
As for abortion, he is against the federal government regulating it. That is, he would have the federal "Womb Nazis" be disbanded but would see nothing wrong in having the Alabama state "Womb Nazis, or the Washington state "Womb Nazis" carry out whatever state regulations their legislators would see fit to enact.
I think the question of whether slavery was a state issue or not was supposed to be a question that had to be solved by civil strife, as I understand it, because the issue of slavery wasn't something that could be decided by a mere majority vote in a local legal jurisdiction.
I understand Paul's position on the war in Iraq to be based on similar considerations. If the Congress thought it was a good thing to drop bombs on France, or Ottowa, then Rep. Paul would be alright with that because his only concern seems to be the proceedural one of whether the Constitutional provisions for starting wars is followed.
That would be crazy, though. There has to be more to our opposition to the war in Iraq, or abortion, or slavery, than whether or not we've been following the rules set down by the Founders. The Founders had slaves for Christ's sake!
There's more to Rep. Paul's position on the war than just whether we're following the rules when we invaded the country. He thinks the hostility in the world has something to do with our having unwise entangling alliances. The Islamic world has a problem with us because of what we've been doing to them in their countries. This makes sense and it gives me the impression that Paul's opposition to the Iraq war or slavery would be more than just about proceedural questions.
Mahablog gives me the impression that Rep. Paul sounds pretty good to liberals because he's against the war but, if you look into the reasons and the why nots of his opposition, we would find scariness and a hint of political nonsense.
I am not wanting to accept this suggestion about Rep. Paul without getting his side of the story.
I understand he has a pretty grim position on abortion. He's agin' it.
This is troubling to me, but it is not a deal breaker for me as yet.
I want to know, in addition to his rejection of a woman's ability to choose to end a pregnancy, if he's for reducing the size and scope of the federal government, is he going to eliminate what protections of the people the federal government provides against the predatory activities of business. Or, is he thinking have to fend for ourselves alone against the immortal and all powerful international corporations already too much in charge of our lives even without Paul's help?
Is he going to roll our society back to the 1800's to some feudal existence just so we can have limited government over business?
I am concerned that Ron Paul has an attractive message based on our concern for a few issues only so long as we don't look too closely at the full package."
The blogger raises some good questions; however, when you compare Dr. Paul's positions on so many other issues with those of the other candidates, really, what choice is there?
Another thing to remember is Dr. Paul is not motivated by a lust for power, unlike most of the other candidates (save for Kucinich and Gravel).
And if the electorate is finds character the overriding issue, then Dr. Paul wins hands down.
And remember, readers, he knows he needs consensus.
After the dictatorship of the last six years, Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air!
Here's a selected comment from the blogger's post:
I appreciate your concerns
although I don't share your concern about abortion.
I am against abortion, except under very narrow circumstances - none of which have anything to do with lack of money.
Coming from a woman, that should say at least a little more than it does coming from a man.
It's not that I want people to interfere in my decisions, it's that the interfering takes place from both sides and it happens no matter what the government legislates.
What's happening now is that it's open season on women by abortionists, pushing them to consider executing "their right to abort" their baby almost in defiance of other people's desire to stop them from doing it.
Defying other people's belligerence or hypocrisy is not a good reason to abort your baby.
The fact remains that most women who abort their babies do so because they are afraid that no one will help them care for their baby, in other words we're back where we started - it's all about money. And who benefits from seeing poor women abort their babies?
I do share your concern about Ron Paul being okay with business as usual by corporations at the state and municipal level against citizens.
However, I believe (and I'm just hoping here) that he thinks that people have more control and influence at the local level and more likely could better protect themselves against predatory corporate practices, unlike if that same practice was taking place at the federal level, logistically out of the average person's reach and control (the perfect feeding ground for corporate criminals, i.e., lobbyists).
This is a complicated issue but should definitely be raised with Ron Paul.
On my part, I will try to raise the issue with him by email or letter, but if someone out there has a direct channel by which he or she can raise the issue before him, please do and let us know.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do."