Profile image

Ron Paul

U.S. Representative (R-Texas)

Tier 4 - Personhood Never


Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choice state by state, and so contradicts himself and wrongly assumes that states' rights supersede human rights, concluding that a state like California has the right to permit abortion. But the right to life is God-given so there can be no 'right' to decriminalize child killing.


  • Ron Paul is Pro-Choice state by state with all of these observations fully documented below:
    - opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children
    - claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children
    - has not acknowledged that human rights trump states' rights
    - legislates as though rights come from the state and not from our Creator, thus
    - believes the states have the right to permit genocide and commit holocaust
    - claims that killing children in the womb cannot "conceivably" violate the U.S. Constitution
    - believes the state is the ultimate authority, superseding God's enduring command, Do not murder
    - defends the killing of any of the very youngest babies including those conceived in rape through his "exceptions"
    - is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republican for greater visibility
    - The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crack cocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution
    - Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warn them about their party's gross immorality
  • Opposed to National Ban on Abortion: "While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."1 2 3
  • Pro-Choice by State: Some people are "pro-choice" for each woman; some are "pro-choice" for the parents; and some are "pro-choice" for each state. No one has the right to kill a child. Yet those who are "pro-choice" at some level think they have found a way around God's enduring command, Do not murder.
    - Women's Rights: Many who think they're supporting women's rights claim it should be legal to kill the child if the woman agrees.
    - Parents' Rights: Many who think they're supporting parents' rights claim it should be legal to kill the child if the father also agrees.
    - States' Rights: Many who think they're supporting states' rights, including Ron Paul, claim it should be legal to kill the child if the state agrees.
  • States Prosecute But Cannot Decriminalize Murder: States prosecute murder. They do not have the right to decriminalize murder. Because states justly prosecute kidnapping and theft, it does not then follow that they have the authority to legalize kidnapping and stealing. Ron Paul promotes a confused view of states' rights that suggests that the federal government can apathetically look the other way if the states authorize the killing of innocent human beings. As the largest Ron Paul fansite describes his view, "the ninth and tenth amendments... do not grant the federal government any authority to... ban abortion."4 Neither God nor the U.S. Constitution, however, gives to any state, county, city, nor any subdivision of government permission to authorize or even to tolerate the intentional killing of the innocent. The federal and state relationship is irrelevant to the "legalization" of abortion. If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify even invasion. Further, the Bible itself explicitly opposes the idea that subdivisions of a nation can refuse to prosecute murder (see AmericanRTL.org/states-rights-and-abortion).
  • Ron Paul is Guilty of a 19-State Revisionism: Paul writes, "Roe vs. Wade... ushered in the age of abortion."5 However with that evidently false revisionist history, Paul is behaving like a populist arguing then that it is reasonable to fight abortion only at the state level. He claims that the federal government is the wrong jurisdiction for such efforts because it was the federal U.S. Supreme Court that legitimized abortion with Roe v. Wade.6 Against that error stands the historical reality that the states began de-criminalizing child killing with 19 states permitting abortion for various reasons in the seven years before Roe (MS, CO, CA, OR, NC, NY, AK, HI, WA, FL, AL, AR, DE, GA, KS, MD, NM, SC, VA) including New York which allowed "elective" abortion on demand through six months.7 8 9 10
  • States Rights quote from St. Louis Arch museumHuman Rights Supersede States' Rights: At the museum beneath the St. Louis Arch a plaque presents a quote from Stephen A. Douglas. This Democratic politician championed states' rights.11 No state though has sufficient authority to nullify the God-given inalienable rights to life and liberty. His states' rights view led Douglas to claim that the people of a territory should decide the slavery question by themselves. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it's errors. Like Ron Paul today and abortion, Stephen Douglas believed his Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 would thereby "remove the contentious slavery issue from national politics, lest it threaten to rip the nation apart, but it had exactly the opposite effect."12 The extent of destruction from doing wrong is difficult to fathom. Ron Paul and Douglas reject the truth that human rights trump states rights. And in 1858 the latter said, "I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, than I do for all the Negroes in Christendom."13 This parallels Paul's claim that, "a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid" as compared to Roe.14 Ron Paul puts his supporters in the awkward position of siding with Douglas, and wrongly claiming that states' rights supersede the God-given inalienable rights of life and liberty. If states have the right to permit the systematic killing of children,  as in Paul's view, then they would also have the right to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty. But as a University of Denver law student argued with a professor during a 2008 American Right To Life event, "If a state has the authority to nullify rights, then rights aren't rights, are they?" Thus states' have no such right, neither to define one class of living human being as nonpersons, nor to decriminalize murder, for human rights supersede states' rights.
  • Paul's SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT Elevates States' Rights Over Human Rights: From the text of Ron Paul's bill, "...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review... any case arising out of any statute... on the grounds that such statute... regulates... the performance of abortions..."15 16 Ron Paul's legislation would violate a fundamental principle of governance by removing the protection of inalienable human rights from the jurisdiction of the courts. By his theory, a state like California has the right from the Constitution to allow the intentional killing of unborn children, but actually those children have a right to life from their Creator. Because the Creator trumps California and the Constitution, and the right to life is inalienable. It is wrong to give aid and comfort to any jurisdiction of government suggesting that they would be free from interference if they permit genocide within their borders. Ron Paul's so-called Sanctity of Life legislation is illegitimate because abortion cannot be a right: neither a woman's, nor parents, nor a states' rights issue.
  • 7.4 Million Children Aborted by Ron Paul's Policy: In 1997 Ron Paul assumed his current seat as U.S. Representative from Texas' 14th District.17 The Exceptions Calculator documents that during his seven terms through the end of 2011, pharmaceutical and surgical abortionists will have killed 7,413,084 children by the actual policies, and therefore the approval, of Ron Paul.18

  • Mark Crutcher Exposes States' Rights Claim: A WorldNetDaily article by Life Dynamics president Mark Crutcher, titled, "Why abortion's not a states' rights issue,"19, states: 

Both the fifth and 14th Amendments create a constitutional right to life for all "persons" as well as a federal duty to protect those lives. Therefore, if the Court were to overturn Roe on the basis that the unborn child is a person, their lives would be protected by the Constitution and this nightmare would be over. However, most legal experts feel that the Court is far more likely to overturn Roe on the basis that… abortion… is... a "states' rights" matter. That would be an unmitigated disaster for the unborn. We would almost immediately end up with a "patchwork quilt" of abortion laws in which a few states would prohibit abortion altogether, others would allow it in any circumstance, and the vast majority would take some sort of middle path. Given that state lines are freely crossed, this would leave every unborn baby in every state exposed to abortion. It could also guarantee that our great-grandchildren will still be fighting this battle a hundred years from now. …when someone claims to be pro-life, he or she is saying that the unborn are persons. After all, there is no other basis upon which to justify the pro-life position. So in light of the Fifth and 14th Amendments, it would be preposterous for the pro-life movement to be working toward a situation where the right-to-life of the unborn is negotiated within the state legislatures. …we must always be mindful that until America has a constitutional amendment that affirms the personhood of the unborn from the moment of fertilization, this battle cannot end… the Personhood Movement is reminding us of that.

  • Against Conservative Christian Policies: Libertarian Ron Paul campaigns as a Republican and many think he advocates conservative Christian policies, but Paul is a member of and remains on good terms with the Libertarian Party and he spoke at its 2004 national convention,20 21 22 23 24 and the Libertarian Party platform opposes traditional Judeo-Christian public policy.
  • Immorality as Public Policy: Paul has never repudiated the Libertarian Party even though it is officially: pro-legalized abortion, pro-legalized pornography, pro-legalized adultery (which has led to epidemic and "no-fault" divorce), pro-legalizing crack cocaine, pro-legalized suicide, pro-legalized euthanasia, pro-legalizing prostitution, and the Libertarian Party not only promotes homosexuality (which undermines the truth that God made us male and female) but it is even against protecting marriage between a man and a woman which is the social institution that God established which is the very foundation of civil society.25
  • Libertarian Humanism Omits God: Ron Paul supports the Libertarian Party even though it is based on a humanist rather than on a Judeo-Christian worldview and thus has misguided notions of governance and no compass for righteousness in law. So it does not know26 what The Declaration of Independence states, the fundamental truth that even a deist like Thomas Jefferson27 acknowledged, that people, "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [and] that among these are Life..."28
  • Parents Can Kill Their Children: Paul supports the Libertarian Party even though its official platform immorally declares: "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."29 These libertarians would set back human rights to: "If you're against the slave trade, then don't trade one; if you're against lynching... if you're against... etc." There are not "views on all sides," but only two sides, those who recognize and those who deny a child's inalienable right to life. And there is no "good-faith view" that permits the dismembering of unborn children. The Libertarian Party is officially a party of child killers which should be rebuked by anyone who knows that God has given each child a right to life.
  • Paul Says States Don't Have To Protect Children: Year after year Ron Paul authors and promotes legislation that says the states would have the option, but not the responsibility to protect children.30
  • Paul Used by his Christian Supporters: The more truth a person knows, the more God holds him accountable for betraying it. As Jesus Christ said, "that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not... do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few" (Luke 12:47-48a). A New Testament epistle adds, "to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" (James 4:17). Ron Paul's pro-life supporters are using him for political sport against liberals and they seem to care nothing about his soul, for if they cared about Ron as a person, they would warn him that God says, "Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't stand back and let them die" (Proverbs 24:11, NLT). For the Lord also said about those who have greater understanding, including Ron Paul, "For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required" (Luke 12:48b).
  • Paul's Policy Condemned by his Own Words: What is worse, the apathy of the atheist, or the pastor, over the killing of Jews? Who had the greater sin, the pagan Pontius Pilate or the religious leader who delivered Christ to be judged (John 19:10-11)? When a libertarian acknowledges that the baby in the womb is, in truth, a human person who should have legal rights, he then condemns his own claim that a state has the "right" to permit abortion. Ron Paul said, "I see the fetus as a human being that has legal rights… I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence... Our homes are our castles [but we don't] have the right to murder our children… So, it's very hard intellectually to distinguish between the killing of an infant a minute before birth, and a minute afterwards."31 In 2008 Paul rightly endorsed Michigan's personhood amendment32. And in 2010, pro-life news outlet LifeSiteNews asked Ron Paul, "What is your take on the 'personhood amendments' being brought forward in a number of states as an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade in those states?" Paul replied, "I think that is great. I think anything that emphasizes personhood and legal entity is good."33 His own words invalidate Paul's claim that abortion is a states' rights issue, because human rights trump states' rights. Because Paul acknowledges the truth that a child is a person with human rights, he should be able to recognize that a state therefore cannot possess a "right" to allow the killing of that child. Rights do not conflict. It is never necessary to violate one person's right to uphold the rights of another. The "states' rights" argument for "legitimizing" systematic child killing in California or in any venue, is itself immoral.
  • If states' rights trump human rights, then...Paul Violates Constitution to Oppose Personhood: Ron Paul would require the federal government to violate the U.S. Constitution at its 5th and 14th amendments and to violate its purpose as proscribed in its preamble.
    - 5th Amendment Violation: Ron Paul would require the federal government to tolerate child killing by rejecting the 5th Amendment34 which requires that, "No person shall be... deprived of life... without due process," that is, unless convicted of a "capital... crime."
    - 14th Amendment Violation: Ron Paul would require the federal government to tolerate child killing by rejecting the 14th Amendment35, which insists: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life... without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."36
  • Paul Claims Child Killing Consistent with Constitution: “There is not a word in the text of that document [the U.S. Constitution], nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion,” wrote Ron Paul.37 Not one word? The Constitution claims to secure equal protection under the law to all persons in the States, and to secure liberty to ourselves and to "our posterity."38 The tiny organism (preborn child) produced by the reproductive process, a woman's offspring39, is her posterity40. Abortion kills the father's offspring, and the mother's of course, destroying even that child's future generations. Yet if Ron Paul’s claim were right, if the Constitution had a loophole big enough to slaughter millions of innocent children, then it should be condemned. But it does not.
  • Contradicted His Own Policies to Regulate State Abortion Procedures: Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge that the federal government has the authority from God and even from the U.S. Constitution to compel the states to enforce equal protection under the law to prevent the de-criminalization of the murder of the innocent. Yet Paul voted to compel the states to regulate41 the killing of innocent children by voting for the PBA "Ban" which merely modified the grisly killing of a child by requiring only a four-inch42 variation from a typical partial-birth abortion (which "ban" permits the abortionist to deliver the baby to the navel rather than to the neck, before killing her). The PBA "Ban" is no ban at all, according to Dr. James Dobson, "Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life."43 If a leader will ignore even God's enduring command, Do not murder, then when it benefits him politically he will also violate his other claimed principles, and so Ron Paul voted for the PBA "ban" in violation of his own "states' rights" view, which vote was so hypocritical that he himself tried to justify his contradictory behavior44 45 46 47. Paul should have recognized that the PBA "ban" was immoral because it ends with "...and then you can kill the baby."
  • Paul Confuses Constitutions with Reality: Economist Ludwig von Mises observed both that governments cannot alter the laws of physics, nor the laws of economics, such that it is a meaningless concept for any constitution (whether state or national of course) to confer authority to change the price of gold.48 49 Ron Paul's notion that permitting abortion is a state's right is similarly meaningless. And as framers of constitutions have no actual power to supersede the laws of physics, economics, or morality, neither can they confer to a state the "right" to revoke the fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and property.
  • Paul Defends Killing Kids with Chemical Abortifacients: In his own book, Ron Paul wrote:

"So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice." -Ron Paul, Liberty Defined50

  • Paul Passes the Buck: President Harry Truman famously said, "The buck stops here."51 God won't and pro-lifers must not give a pass to Ron Paul nor to the federal government to look the other way when American states authorize child slaughter as 19 did prior to Roe v. Wade. No side deal that human beings make between themselves can exempt them from obligation to enforce God's enduring command, do not murder.  So even if the U.S. Constitution explicitly stated that, for appropriations and representation reasons, most blacks would be counted as three-fifths of a person, or if it explicitly declared that the states have the right to decide whether to authorize the killing of Jews or unborn children, such provisions would be unjust, not truly enforceable, and should not be defended under some perverse understanding of governmental principles, but should be opposed by all. Politicians like John McCain and George W. Bush have begun following the example of Ron Paul and avoiding responsibility for fundamental issues of human rights by simply saying, "That's a state's issue."
Summary:

Ron Paul's legacy is apparent. When politicians run for mayor and they are asked about children being dismembered in the womb they reply that abortion is not a matter of city statute. When politicians run for governor they say abortion is a federal issue. When they run for president they say abortion is a state issue. They pass the buck. Ron Paul style. Paul is teaching a generation of politicians how to pass the buck regarding human rights and the slaughter of the innocent. When Paul makes his moral equivalence argument that just as Roe is invalid, "a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid," he trivializes the slaughter of millions and shows he has been seduced by legal positivism which is moral relativism in government. Process does not trump principle. Yet Paul undermines the most fundamental moral principles when he claims that abortion is a states' rights issue. There is no right, anywhere, to decriminalize child killing. No constitution can bestow such a "right" and no one and no country nor political subdivision could ever in truth have the right to decriminalize killing children. Because human rights trump states' rights, Ron Paul should not give a false sense of security to a state which legitimizes genocide, suggesting that state should expect to operate free from forceful intervention. To illustrate Paul's bankrupt view of governance, he would have amended the Weimar Constitution to oppose a national ban on concentration camps, and he would have justified this by arguing that such a ban would have been just as invalid as the Holocaust. We urge obstetrician Dr. Ron Paul to humble himself before the greatest Physician, who conceived not only delivery, but reproduction itself. We pray that Paul will acknowledge that process does not trump principle, for no agreement among men could ever justify any part of America tolerating the intentional slaughter of innocent children in the States.

Footnotes: