Ron Paul says being anti-abortion is a Libertarian stance based in faith

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

Speaking at the Iowa Family Leader's presidential lecture series in Sioux City, Paul, an obstetrician and a Christian, explained that he disagreed with the popular belief that to be a Libertarian means having a laissez faire attitude of "it's the woman's body; she can do whatever she wants."

"Life comes from our creator, not our government," Politico reported Paul as saying. "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

Paul's stance on abortion won him the endorsement in 2008 of none other than "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v. Wade legal case of the '70s.

"Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a pro-life advocate a decade ago and supported Paul in the last presidential election specifically because of his views on abortion. "I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade," McCorvey said. "He has never wavered ... on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."

When Paul accepted the endorsement he said, "As much as I talk about economic liberties, and civil liberties and trying to avoid the killing overseas, I think the issue of life is paramount."

RELATED:

Another side to Ron Paul the pol: Dad

Ron Paul of Texas wins CPAC presidential straw poll

Trump on Ron Paul: 'He has no chance of getting elected'

-- Tony Pierce
twitter.com/busblog

Photo: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) speaks in Sioux City, Iowa, on Monday. Credit: Tim Hynds / Sioux City Journal

Comments

[Ron Paul Fan]

I agree with Ron Paul on almost every single issue -- but this is one where the Great Congressman and I differ.

Run Ron Run!

[unreligious]

I guess the old adage about nothing worse than a reformed sinner applies to Norma (Roe) she got her abortion and now to hell with everyone else.

[JKR]

He said that if government has a function it is to protect life and liberty. If you believe that the unborn are living humans, there is no 'choice' to kill them that isn't murder like any other. It is only if you DON'T believe they are people that you can reach an opposite conclusion.

Your phrasing of the issue ignores the question of when life begins, which is the entire beginning and ending of the dispute.

[Paul N]

Ron Paul and I can disagree on many personal issues. But one thing I do agree with him is: the federal government has no authority to legalize or ban behaviors of Americans, including abortion.

[Charlie Peters]

Audit the federal reserve, support HR 459 Paul

[Dave]

First, that is a great picture of Dr. Paul. Thanks for using a decent photograph.

Second, I've read reports by local journalists in Iowa that Cong. Paul is getting a very positive reception in Iowa.

[abortion fencesitter]

Unreligious,

It is possible that her stance comes from afterwards living in a world of regret, and wishing to prevent others from feeling such pain.

[LibertyForAmerica]

The issue of abortion is of the smallest importance given the current situation of the republic. I will vote for Ron Paul if he runs because I agree with his economic and foreign policies, and because he has a record to prove his integrity.

[John]

Forcing your religious beliefs into law and making others adhere to them is not Libertarian. It's not even democratic. Is he next going to say his racism and homophobia are Libertarian principles?

[todd]

Unreligious: that is actually completely false. Norma McCorvey never actually had an abortion. She was the litigant who considered having an abortion since she was a very young woman then but she never actually had an abortion.

[Bluegillmaster]

Is this guy ever wrong?

I don't think so.

Ron Paul 2012!

[Steve G]

Norma McCorvey did NOT have an abortion. She gave the baby up for adoption.

[AAAAANDRE]

Abortion is the least of our worries, a President Paul would get the economy back in shape, end the wars and get government out of our lives, then people might even want to have children!

[Charlie Peters]

Audit the fed, support HR 459 Paul

[garrett]

You might have mentioned that his stand on the Federal government would be that it stay out of dictating pro-life or pro-choice. Its lawfullness being determined on State and local levels... regardless of how he feels personally.

Consider that when a female is murdered and she is pregnant, the prosecution goes for a double murder. So is the choice simply individual pregnacies choosing whether or not its human life before actual birth... or better yet a prosecutor making the choice to suit their own purposes.

[Ben]

I agree with Ron on this issue. I think abortion is a horrible horrible thing, but it is something that will always take place no matter how much you want it to go away. Let the states decide. Overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[Monty Ousley Weddell]

Ron Paul is right and his position on the issue is supported by the majority of Americans. It is unfortunate that the issue is not able to get to Constitutional ammendment status, due in part to the pro life believers themselves, because they can't stay organized, and direct their attention to the clinics instead of their elected representatives. A few of many causes of the decline of a civilization, perhaps even its failure is: Outside invasion and being conquered, civil wars, loss of economic self sufficiency, invasion of the hoards from lack of border protection, being absorbed by other civilizations with loss of its heritage and identity, and human sacrifice and genocide. In modern terms this latter is the practice and belief in eugenics - commonly called family planning. We have documented about 40 million children being aborted. That is the population of 40 cities the size of Dallas TX that does not exist because of abortion. Now, add to that the estimated 160 plus million children unborn because of birth control and you get about 200 million total. 200 cities the size of Dallas which now doesn't exist!!! You mathmaticians add the numbers up, isn't that into the multi trillions of dollars of GNP lost, thus reducing our national wealth? Thus, about 2/3 of the American population does not exist due to "eugenics". We are not heading in the right direction as a civilization. Sure, these statements will bring great controversy, but that is why blogging is such fun - it makes a point sometimes overlooked and avoided by the politicians. Perhaps we need to get back to our historic religious roots - which preserves life and advocated by Ron Paul. Monty Weddelll Dallas, TX

[Google is your friend.]

Ahem.

McCorvey's pregnancy that led to Roe V. Wade resulted in giving the baby up for adoption. She was pregnant two times prior to this and both pregnancies resulted in live births.

McCorvey never had an abortion. Everyone, check your damn facts before claiming she had an abortion or regrets the mythical abortion she never had. You're on the internet, therefore you have access to this information.

[Brandy]

I don't think he is saying that the government needs to make medical decisions for women at all. Nor do I think that he is speaking for all Libertarians when he voices this stand on abortion. I have studied the whole abortion issue from all sides and here is the conclusion I have come to: The medical establishment and government needn't be involved. Dr. Paul, as an obstetrician, has seen life in the womb on a first hand basis innumerable times and speaks from his experience. I DO think that the time for "choice" is really before pregnancy occurs. Lack of self control is not an excuse for extinguishing a life. However, there are circumstances in which the woman is subjected to impregnation without her consent, for whatever reasons, and that is another matter. Women have ALWAYS been the gatekeepers of life in this particular way, and for good reason. But abortion mills are about more than just helping sexually irresponsible women get out of an unwanted situation. They are about money, and political leverage, and eugenics. Marge Sanger went on record stating that Planned Parenthood was about keeping minority populations down, and I find that despicable, and in no way supportive of "women's rights". Also, there has been a deliberate effort on the part of the medical establishment to prevent women from learning about alternative ways to deal with unwanted pregnancies: Vitamin C, Dong Quai, Penny Royal, Parsley, etc. Because to empower women to control their own reproductive experiences would cut into the medical/eugenicist involvement in women's lives. If Planned Parenthood is really so "pro-women's-rights", why do they not publish literature on private, inexpensive, herbal means of contraception and abortion, instead of pushing drugs/surgical intervention?
Dr. Paul's stance has ALWAYS been against Federal intervention in abortion issues, whether pro or con. He's an advocate of personal liberty on ALL levels. He protests government funding of abortion, yes because of his personal beliefs partially, but also because people should not be FORCED to subsidize eugenics and selective population control.

[Joe the Taxpayer...]

“We, the People” desired a government "We" deserved. One that will promote and defend the principles of individual liberty, constitutional limited-government, sound currencies, free and open markets and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Regardless of our party affiliation, if we stand and share these values.
We will have a goverment. WE SO DESERVED!

What do you think Andrew?

In Liberty...
-Joe

[AAAAANDRE]

Plus, you have to consider where he is coming from...
As a Medical Doctor, he has delivered thousands of babies, aborted none.
Look up his story of while in medical school he watched an abortion being performed and they just dumped the breathing baby into a bucket to die like a piece of meat.
I think that image has stayed with him.

[Barry Freed]

Despite these comments, Paul supporters should be heartened to know that he opposed the Constitutional amendment banning abortion and he is against giving the Federal Government the power to do so. He believes it should be a state issue (by all of his past deeds and statements).

[ladytigertexas]

I disagree completely. A woman should have the right to choose and no man or government should be allowed to take that away from her. I would not vote for Mr. Paul based on this issue alone. Women have fought too hard to have their rights infringed upon by a "Moral" Government. Why not keep them legal and support women's rights while vowing to educate and facilitate change so abortions won't seem like necessary choice for some? Many women don't necessarily agree with Abortions, we might even believe in our hearts and souls as Christians that they are wrong. But to take away a woman's right to choose by making them illegal is an issue that I wouldn't risk by voting for someone who wants to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I think Guns are bad too, because they kill people- but I don't think banning them will solve anything, nor do I think taking away the constitutional right to bear arms will stop people from killing one another. Drugs are bad too, but making them illegal and declaring "War on Drugs" hasn't solved anything. This issue is on that same genre- and it needs to stay out of government.

[GMK]

And that, my friends, is why I can't vote for Ron Paul.

[P J Evans]

Too bad he doesn't have room for anyone else's faith, when it differs from his. Maybe he needs to take civics again, so he understands that the government and churches should be separate - the government doesn't give them preferences or money, and they don't endorse candidates or try to get their views made into laws.

[Paul N]

I did enjoy MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan recent interview with Ron Paul the other day. I am simply amazed at the impression Dr. Paul makes on people who listen to him, regardless of political bias.

[GoDogGo]

There are Christians who believe abortions are not against life. We believe God intended children to be brought into this world with an act of love between two married adults. You cannot tell me children should be brought in from acts of incest and rape. You cannot tell me children should be brought in when two alcohol impaired adults have no shame or sense in conceiving a child. You cannot tell me that impetuous acts by minors are truly out of the grace of God. There is no love or holiness in these cases. Many Christians have chosen to view abortions as an act of the Devil, when indeed, it may be an act of the Creator.

[Kailon]

He is not anti-abortion. He is against federal government involvement and federal funding. He voted against a federal ban on abortion, believing it is a state power. Watch his interviews on abortion. Unlike other politicians he is honest and clearly defines his position.

[Ice Woman]

Republican­s: Abortion is wrong! No more abortions!
Me: OK, but I cant afford this baby and the father doesn't want it so, it would be best if I didn't have it

Republican­s:Abortion is wrong!
Me: OK, can we at least teach people how to properly use contracept­ives in school, give away condoms and make birth control accessible and affordable

Republican­s: sex is wrong, no sex before marriage!
Me: That's not an effective strategy for preventing unwanted pregnancie­s

Republican­s: Welfare is wrong, stop sponging off the system! get a job!
Me: OK, I have to pay someone to watch her while I work and I cant afford that..Can I get some assistance­?

Republican­s: Stop looking towards the government for help, solve your own problems!
Me: OK, the only option left is adoption, but if I give the baby up for adoption, it will probably become a child of the system, shunted from home to home, growing up maladjuste­d and angry and then ultimately become a liability of the state after it inevitably turns to a life of crime and ends up imprisoned­...so, really, if I choose this option the state will end up paying for the sheltering­, food and clothing of my child anyway, and for more years than you would have had I gotten general aid.

Republican­: ..........­........
Me: yeah, maybe you should have thought this through a bit better.

[Not Fooled]

So basically, libertarians are republicans wearing different hats. Great.

[rkl]

Paul is a conservative member of the GOP who, while supportive of many Libertarian views, is not a Libertarian originator or spokesperson. For information on what world Libertarians are doing, see http;//www.Libertarian-International.org

[JustCommenting]

Monty Ousley Weddell Wrote:

"invasion of the hoards from lack of border protection, being absorbed by other civilizations with loss of its heritage and identity, and human sacrifice and genocide."

Wow, I guess when the white man came here and all but exterminated the native peoples it was perfectly okay?
Human sacrifice? Huh?
I think that only happened in the Dark Ages and by those that were thought they were gods chosen people.

I guess it's true what I've been reading on those silly right wing sites. The Census said whites aren't breeding fast enough and if the GOP is to remain in existance they have to get the religious groups to do their work for them and get abortion made all but illegal.
It's working. Over 300 new laws are trying to do that and guess what, in Idaho it's now okay to rape your little girls and FORCE them to have your mutant offspring.
Who is going to support the second generation of this kids when the horrible inter-breeding defects start to show up? You?

200 Million workers and loss of GNP. Wow!
We don't have but 1 job for every 8 people now, 200 million more wouldn't make things better. Get a clue!

[Dr.Bob]

Pro-or anti-abortion views can both fit within the libertarian context. But the antiabortion stance seems to be much farther from the center. If libertarian means freedom, you can't believe and do as you will. This includes believing in a God or being atheist. You can't slice freedom anyway you want and still be called a libertarian.

[JustCommenting]

There is NO government funding of abortion. It's illegal and has been for decades. Look up the Hyde Amendment.

Planned Parenthood offers breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screeing, HIV and STD testing and they supply contraceptives and sex eduction.. among other things. They provide low cost health care to millions of women. Abortions are a few percent and I'm sure some of those are for cases of rape or if the mothers life is in danger. Too much exageration going on and less truth and facts.

[RonPage]

One thing everyone must understand is that Ron Paul would leave it up to the states to decide this issue. His stance is merely an opinion.

[adam87]

Hey, in the end it's all only a matter of faith. If your faith tells you to forbid pregnancy arrests and rob women of choice and possibly ruin their lives because of some sort of 'potential' that is 'prevented from being realized' then that's the not-so-free country you get to live in.
This is my main problem with republicans - they live in some kind of magical world where everything revolves around their human person. When in reality, nature plays a harsh game, and no matter how much you shake the bible around, humans are inextricable from its laws.
In fact, if they were really truly serious about 'not wasting potential human lives', men should be prevented from wasting and throwing sperm around, while women, of course, should have as little periods as possible. Just think about it, so many lives that never had a chance!

[Tony N]

Ron Paul just dropped the mask. He is just another Republican - a libertarian when out of power, an authoritarian once his party has the hammer. Not that I liked the old Ron Paul's ideas, but I respected him for articulating them. Now, I have no more respect for him than I do for any other conservative Republican who would run other people's lives.

Sad.

[M]

actually, nature dictates what "should" happen in the womb of a pregnant woman. A baby grows and is born.

It takes government to dictate what should not happen; that is for life to be terminated.

It's not about personal freedom; because freedom stops where other's lives begin; ie. I don't have the right to kill my neighbor just because I might find it convenient.

Similarly, if a pregnant woman is murdered and the baby dies, the murderer is charged twice.

[paul]

Some Libertarian. Less government except when his personal religious views are being forced on others. What a hypocrite.

[fazsha]

I'm ok with a law that says abortions are ok in the first trimester, but not afterwards. It's hard to defend aborting a fetus in the ninth month. You've had way too much time to think about it.

Even though Ron Paul and I have slightly different positions on this, I'm a rabid supporter of everything he does. He's simply the best, most articulate candidate we've ever had.

[MKS]

Ron Paul demonstrates consistent courage in standing for freedom.

Libertarian principles would recognize a woman's right to do what she will with her own body, possibly even to the extent of engaging in prostitution or voluntarily selling one of her kidneys. Both are distasteful options, but sometimes freedom allows the distasteful.

But, scientifically speaking, a fetus has a completely different DNA structure from its mother, and cannot reasonably be said to be part of the woman's body.

So Dr. Paul is correct to oppose abortion, and to invoke the power of the state to oppose abortion. Abortion is one person killing another innocent non-combative person - an act that should be illegal.

[LarryB]

I cringe every time I hear someone ask, "Are you anti-abortion or pro-abortion?" I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. It is a terrible choice for anyone to make. However, it is not a choice to be made by our government. The government already far over steps its power as intended by our founding fathers. They have their hands in our lives, our wallets, our privacy. Keep their hands out of a woman's womb. This is one of the few subjects with which I disagree with Ron Paul, and is likely why he wears the Republican brand rather than that of Libertarian.

[Matt]

"told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women." You are a liar Malcolm. And your overt tactic to try and scare the pro-choice crowd away from Dr. Paul is transparent.

Dr. Paul's stance on abortion is to leave it up to the state governments. NEVER has he said that "government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women." That is a blatant LIE! You do a great disservice to journalism in this article by trying to make Ron Paul seem like a crazy right wing pro-lifer, when in fact he is not.

[Lisa]

I'm pro-choice but I can't blame or disparage Ron Paul for his opinion. After all, the guy was an obgyn who delivered more than 4,000 babies. How could he not be pro-life after that?

[paul]

Typical media hogwash. Your very first paragraph throws your entire article into disrepute when you say that Ron Paul: "told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women."
He did no such thing. You go on later in your article to make some accurate quote of what he actually DID say, but you start off by twisting it into something completely different. One of the things that people like you don't seem to understand, and this type of thinking generally permeates all the media outlets is this: Just because a person claims to hold a particular beliefs does NOT mean that he believes that government should become involved in it. Get that? ESPECIALLY at the federal level. Even if one takes the position that abortion is murder, the fact is that there is no provision for the federal government to take a stand on this issue. Murder is a purview of the states. As a doctor who delivers babies, Dr. Paul has very strong beliefs against abortion, but just because he states those beliefs does NOT mean that he would have this regulated at the federal level. He does not come down on EITHER side of this issue at the federal level, instead believing rightly that the feds should have no voice in it one way or the other, and the reason that he would repeal Roe v Wade is because it incorrectly makes a federal case out of it.

[Delta Jordan]

"Planned Parenthood offers low cost..."

I called PP the other day for a well woman exam and they quoted me $200!! It is an urban legend that they are a do gooder organization giving cheap medical care.

[David Sharp]

It amazes me the spin on everyone that is a candidate. Where is the perfect candidate? Ron Paul stands on his values and reasons with sanity- America deserves what it gets from here on out. The federal goverment does what it likes- when it likes.

[James]

Uhhhh, you guys all know he's NOT in favor of banning abortions. He's in favor of the government NOT having a say in the matter at the federal level. He believes it is a states rights issue and that each state needs to handle this accordingly. Obviously the country is divided. Let the states choose, don't put the federal government into a woman's womb.

James

[J Baustian]

Mr Paul's position on this issue is eminently reasonable. Mr Paul is one of those individuals whose ideas make a great deal of sense on paper; but when you meet him in person or see him on TV, he comes across as 'strange'. I think this limits his upside potential in politics, but his son appears to serve as an alternative.

[SC]

Ice Woman, your argument fails. You can't afford the baby and the father doesn't want it you put it up for adoption.

Then saying if I put it up for adoption then it becomes the victim of the system, must not know a lot of adopted kids. I have family members that were adopted, and they are very well adjusted and have very loving parents. I have friends who are very loving parents who have adopted.

If you aren't ready to have a child, and wouldn't put it up for adoption, then either don't have sex, or since sex can be so enjoyable and is very hard to refrain from, use birth control, and/orwear a condom and/or don't have sex when you are ovulating. If that is too hard, all you are really saying is, a human life isn't as important as the small inconvenience of making sure I don't get pregnant, and since I also don't want to deal with the inconvenience of having a child and putting up for adoption, I will simply kill that child, call it abortion, and then get the government to tell me it is OK so i don't have to feel guilty about it.

The reason I agree with the position that you can be against abortion and be libertarian is for two reasons. Because I believe the fetus is a human life and as such should be protected from the use of force, and secondly, if we don't decide the fetus is a human life when does it become so, and who decided that it is. Does the government get to decide when you are considered a human and therefore have certain rights, so what if they decided your right to life doesn't count until you have a certain intelligence and they say infanticide is OK?