Ron Paul, Obama, Planned Parenthood Support Gendercide
June 2, 2012 11 Comments
The group Live Action has produced a couple of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood outlets in New York City and Texas providing aid and advice to women alleging that they want to abort their babies because they’re girls. So-called gendercide is a major problem in countries like China which has the infamous one child policy. Boys are preferred to girls, so the girls get aborted. It’s becoming an increasing problem here in the United States. Planned Parenthood claims to be against gendercide, yet their employees are handing out advice and support to women who seek to kill their unborn baby girl. Talk about a war on women.
This week the House had the opportunity to vote on a bill that would outlaw gendercide. Not surprisingly Planned Parenthood opposed it. Equally unsurprising President Obama opposed the bill. Considering Obama as a state senator voted against a bill that would protect aborted babies who are born alive, it should surprise no one that Obama opposes a bill outlawing gendercide. In typical lock step, most Democrats oppose the gendercide law. These people want to whine about a war on women but they won’t vote for a law banning the murder of a baby girl because she’s a girl. The left loves abortion more than feminism it seems.
What is surprising is that Ron Paul voted against the bill, as did my Congressman, a Paul sycophant, Justin Amash. Paul alleges to be pro-life, yet he’s one of only seven Republicans to vote against a bill outlawing gendercide. He has a big, long winded claim that this is unconstitutional. He’s simply wrong. It is not unconstitutional for the Federal government to outlaw sex specific abortions. There is no clause preventing it. Yet the ideological libertarian rears his ugly head to vote against a bill that would protect unborn girls. Ron Paul is more libertarian than pro-life. Let’s be perfectly honest, the consistent libertarian position isn’t pro-life. Paul is simply behaving as a consistent libertarian.
It is exactly this situation that caused me to oppose Ron Paul. He makes these claims of pro-life to Christian audiences to get our votes yet his voting record and his on the record comments to non-Christian groups suggests he isn’t pr0-life, he’s simply a consistent secular libertarian. He votes against the gendercide bill, he says that banning the morning after baby killing pill is an “unenforcable legislation of morality.” He says he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman to one audience, to the next he says it’s a state issue.
Morality isn’t a state issue. Killing babies isn’t a state issue if that means that it’s morally acceptable in to kill them in New York but not in Wyoming. The libertarianism of Ron Paul is nothing more than moral relativism cloaked in the language of freedom and liberty. The truth though is that apart from God, there is no freedom or liberty. The secular libertarianism of Ron Paul gives us votes in Congress against banning the murder of baby girls because they’re baby girls. Paul isn’t pro-life, his libertarian ideology prevents it.
Abortion is evil, immoral and unethical. It always results in the death of an innocent human being. That we as a nation allow it is a disgrace. That we cannot even bring ourselves to outlaw the killing of a baby girl because she’s a baby girl and not a baby boy shows the level of depravity our nation has fallen to. It surprises no one that Planned Parenthood, Obama and the Democrats have fallen to this level of depravity. But that Mr. Christian, pro-life Ron Paul has will surprise a lot of people. But it won’t surprise those of us who understand that Paul is nothing but a libertarian ideologue and that precludes him from being truly pro-life.
About Steven
Good post Steven, thanks for the link!
No problem. Come back often!
Pingback: Ron Paul, Obama, neither pro-life! Both support Gendercide! - Watchwoman on the Wall
Ron Paul’s “state’s rights” is often confused with Ron Paul advocating a state having the right to legalize abortion. When, in actuality, he is referring to the right of states to define and prosecute crimes, like murder.
He has repeatedly said that life begins at conception and that the right to life should be upheld at the federal level. However, the states are the ones which will implement the law. Federal offenses are those which deal with federal issues. All other rights belong to the states.. This is not the same fight as the civil rights movement or the abolition of slavery. This is getting the natural rights of the preborn to be recognized by defining abortion as “murder”, which is already illegal in all 50 states.
God bless.
Like it or not the due process clause allows the Feds to define and criminalize such things as gendercide. Ron Paul isn’t 100% pro-life, he has a number of positions that aren’t pro-life. That we’re going to sit back and pretend that abortion isn’t a Federal issue when the US Supreme Court is the body that’s legalized it nationwide is naive. Worse it leads to the sort of moral relativism that Ron Paul pushes, the idea that there is no such thing as national morality. Morality isn’t a state issue, it is universal.
That is precisely why Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional. A law in Texas should not have made abortion legal in all 50 states. That was a violation of the 10th amendment.
Congressman Paul is not a relativist. At the Ames straw poll speech he talked about how he witnessed a late-term abortion and then witnessed doctors trying to save a baby’s life just down the hall. He said, “my conclusion that very day is you cannot have relative value for life and deal with that.. we cannot play God and make that decision. All life is precious”. There is no inconsistency with upholding the Constitution and believing in absolute morals.
Except he is a moral relativist. The only moral absolute he upholds is the Constitution, which itself is not a Christian document. It is Paul’s position that it is perfectly fine for New York to legalize abortion based on the very 10th amendment argument you made concerning Texas. That’s moral relativism when it comes to the life of the unborn.
Ron Paul worked with the National Pro-Life Alliance on the Sanctity of Life Act, which declares that human life exists at conception. And it would prevent judicial activists in New York from deciding in favor of abortion.
If that’s the case, why did he vote against the gendercide ban? If the Federal government can declare what human life is from Congress, why can it also not ban sex selective abortions? Under a typical libertarian strict reading of the Constitution both violate the 10th amendment. So why is one acceptable to Paul but the other isn’t?
The Act is a federal declaration that life exists at conception and is to be protected. It then puts the matter in the state’s jurisdiction to go about protecting it.
Under what clause in the Constitution do libertarian Ron Paul supporters such as yourself believe the Federal government can make such a declaration?