HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 4, 2003
Pro-Life
Action Must Originate from Principle.
As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been
concerned with the rights of unborn people.
I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time.
The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the
critical link between moral and political action.
Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other.
I have become increasingly concerned over the years
that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track,
both politically and morally. I
sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach
to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts.
The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.
Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to
overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade.
Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using
political convenience rather than principle.
There is nothing wrong per se with fighting winnable battles, but a
danger exists when political pragmatism requires the pro-life movement to
surrender important moral and political principles.
When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral
underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life,
liberty, and property. Commenting
upon the link between our most important rights, Thomas Jefferson said
“The God which gave us life gave us at the same time liberty.
The hands of force may destroy but can never divide these.”
M. Stanton Evans further explained the link between our form of government and
the rights it protects when he wrote, “The genius of the Constitution is its
division of powers-summed up in that clause reserving to the several states, or
the people, all powers not expressly granted to the federal government."
Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the
very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the
inalienable right to life. In this
way, our constitutional system closely links federalism to the fundamental moral
rights to life, liberty, and property. For
our Founders it was no exaggeration to say federalism is the means by which
life, as well as liberty and property, are protected in this nation.
This is why the recent direction of the pro-life cause is so disturbing.
Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal
system, such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal cloning ban, and
the Child Custody Protection Act. Each
of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the
federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of
our most precious rights.
Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally
retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that
federalism was designed to guarantee. To
undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which
the protection of our inalienable right to life depends.
The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence
Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually
directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists!
This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of
federal law. By supporting this
legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for
abortionists- showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have
gone.
Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the
current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma.
While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I
realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal
law is constitutionally retained by the states.
The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the
Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade.
Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and
putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the
Founder's view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life,
liberty, and property.
Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and
proclaim them proudly. We must take
a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and
accepts the close relationship between them.
Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to
overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this
would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion.
State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like
abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction
and not encroach upon it. The
alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a
constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.
For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms
that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder's vision
of federalism as an essential component of the American system.
Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism
that protects the right to life.