This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level.
He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much.
I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing.
CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.
Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, because Ron Paul generally favors state powers and is against federal powers. It has nothing to do with his personal opinion on abortion.
He's made this clear several times, but most people don't seem to understand it.
Sigh, there is certainly a point being missed here. Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? If someone argued that it should... they'd rightly be acknowledged as anti-Islam, because freedom of religion is a human right, and rights aren't just rights for the federal government, but for all the state governments.
Rights are inviolable. If Ron Paul believes states should be able to violate certain rights, he is opposed to those rights. Which is fine: it's a perfectly coherent position that there is no right to privacy and self-determination. But call it what it is.
I would like to attempt a thought experiment and see if you could buy this scenario:
Imagine if Ron Paul becomes President (yeah, right, but hang with me) and he does give states the right to do all kinds of things within the constitution. (Side note: I think banning the practice of Islam is unconstitutional due to the first amendment)
So let's say that some Southern states ban abortion and ban gay marriage. That sucks but there is some elegance here that you didn't notice. California is not about to ban abortion or gay marriage, in fact now they have fully promoted gay marriage, and legalized marijuana. Colorado has done all that and decided to exempt themselves from all of the SOPA stuff as well (they aren't as under Hollywood's thumb as California is).
While it sucks for those gay couples in the south while they grow up, it should be obvious that they (and others that support these rights) will move to a new state. A state can't hold those couples in their state and refuse them to leave and states can't go to war with each other. So now you have two groups of people: those people in more "civilized" places like California and Colorado are happy and those people in the traditional south are happy too.
There is an elegance in letting complex, controversial issues be decided at lower levels and leave the top level government only worry about states violating a core set of rules. And you better believe that a constitutionalist like Ron Paul would enforce state adherence to the Bill of Rights. I would hope that at least that part would be indisputable.
I agree it can be messy. I agree that some people don't get what they want immediately (they might have to relocate). But at least they don't have to leave the country. At least they still eventually find like-minded people and influence their own local governments to get what they want.
Another point I want to make is that marriage is not a right explicitly guaranteed by the constitution and neither is having an abortion or smoking weed. And you'll only hear a libertarian note that the 9th amendment acknowledges rights outside of those explicitly guaranteed. So while you believe that these are rights (and I agree with you) not everyone does, and more importantly, not all of the Judicial branch does.
Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam?
Actually... Paul's "We the People Act" seeks to expressly place state laws on religion, sexual orientation and abortion outside of any possible constitutional review (essentially it's a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, targeted at the issues that provoke the most frothing at the mouth from social conservatives). So if he gets his way, yes, a state could pass a law banning Islam and there'd be no recourse.
He also wants to make it legal for states to legalize marijuana, despite that fact that he (I assume) would personally oppose the use of marijuana.
His personal opinion on the particular issue isn't what's motivating him, it's his opinion that it should be up to the states to decide, not the federal government.
More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).
this is incorrect, the bill you are referencing merely allowed states to ban abortion if they so desired and removed federal funding from abortions; this is very different than trying to force through a federal ban.
HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1]
"Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life."
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the text of this before now.
It's interesting how interpretations are so easily drawn, because while you cite the "Deems human life" as synopsis, I draw "each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state" as justification that it simply allows states to have more sovereignty.
That said, I agree that the language, which I don't personally agree with (or have much opinion on) would likely tie the hands of states trying to enforce or enact pro-choice legislation.
He has a personal opinion, but this does not drive the policy he advocates. Likewise, he may not want people to drink alcohol on Sundays, but he would not outlaw such behavior.
megablast said he wants laws... against abortion and CWuestefeld pointed out that, although he doesn't like it, he doesn't support federal laws against it.
And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same
pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and
preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions
on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through
legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
It's very difficult to interpret that as anything but being anti-abortion at the federal level. Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
This is false. Such an official definition would probably be only symbolic. The thing is, the federal government does not have any general police power.
Even if, by their definition, abortion were murder (and there's a lot more defining to be done before we could arrive at that conclusion), it really wouldn't matter. Consider that today, we would define all living people as "alive" (duh), the federal has no laws forbidding murder! Any murder charge is the result of state laws (other than in national parks and in DC, but those are a different argument).
The only way this could affect real life legalities is in the way it interacts with the 13th Amendment. But since that's got the goofy doctrine of incorporation, there would be no net change unless the Supreme Court were to recognize the right with respect to this new/clarified definition. And that just puts the ball right back into the SCOTUS court, which is where it sits today anyway.
(I upvoted you because I think it's worthy of discussion, but this is the way the answer is going to fall out in the end)
This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level.
He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much.
I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing.
CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.