Guest Post by Ron Paul
The Supreme Court undid one of its worst mistakes last week when it overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion. The Constitution reserves to the states the authority to write and enforce laws regarding murder. Since the question of whether or not to legalize abortion revolves around whether abortion is murder, it is not a federal issue. Roe was thus an illegitimate usurpation of state authority.
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision last week will not stop the federal government from using the tax dollars of those who believe abortion is murder to fund abortion and family planning both in the United States and abroad. Those opposed to abortion, and in favor of constitutional government, must continue their efforts to end all federal funding of abortion.
Some state governments, such as in Texas and Mississippi, have adopted laws against abortion that are “triggered” after Roe is overturned. Now, additional pro-life state legislators and activists are no doubt planning to push other states with pro-life majorities to pass legislation outlawing abortion.
States where the majority favor legal abortion are no doubt planning to pass pro-abortion legislation. Some of these states will pass laws providing enhanced financial support for lower-income women to receive abortions. Pro-abortion activists are also planning to provide help to women from states where abortion is outlawed to travel to a state where they can legally “terminate” their pregnancies.
Pro-lifers should not respond to pro-abortion state laws by trying to pass an unconstitutional law making abortion a federal crime. Instead, they should work to change attitudes and build a culture of life. One way to do this is by supporting crisis pregnancy centers. These centers help pregnant women in difficult situations see that there are alternatives to abortion. Sadly, the crisis pregnancy centers are among the “woke” mob’s targets for cancellation. If the left were truly “pro-choice” they would not try to shut down privately run pro-life pregnancy centers.
Many libertarians believe that outlawing abortions violates a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. However, the nonaggression principle, which is the philosophic foundation of libertarianism, prohibits committing acts of aggression. Murder is certainly an act of aggression. Therefore, even though all humans have a right to bodily anatomy, this does not justify abortion.
No one ever asked an expectant mother, “how’s the fetus?” Instead, people ask about the baby. This implicitly acknowledges the unborn child’s humanity and thus the child’s right to live. The denial of this right has warped our constitutional system. More importantly it has contributed to the devaluing of human life that is the root of much of America’s moral crisis. A society that devalues life will not respect liberty. Therefore, all who value liberty must protect the right to life. This does not just include ending abortion. It also includes rejecting the militaristic foreign policy that kills innocents in the name of “freedom and democracy.”
Just as pro-life conservatives should be antiwar, progressives should reject the violence government commits against its own citizens via taxation, income redistribution, and the fiat money system that robs average Americans to benefit politicians and elites. Rejecting the use of force, including government force, will lead to a society that values and protects our lives, liberty, and property.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
The problem with mankind, is their complete lack of understanding of the laws of unintended circumstance. The fact is in life, usually everything has the opposite effect that you would think it would.
I am sure that there are people who actually believe this ruling will result in a more moral society, but the actual result will be the opposite. The people who use and support abortion, are immoral people to begin with, and making it more difficult for them to kill their children will result in a higher birth rate among the immoral segment of the population.
You have a point. It seems you are saying you advocate that the law be immoral in order to potentially mitigate other aspects of immorality? When accommodation of immorality is made, immorality gains every time, witness easily the last 60+ years of Western Society.
Yes, I am aware of the age old debate of whose morals, who decides, etc. That is what lead us down the road we have been on in this cycle of the ages towards (and, it seems, for most into) depravity and perdition. This is an age old problem of repeating cycles and humanity’s problems with itself, especially when refusing to consider where the moral sense arises.
Morality is not the issue. It is not anyone’s place to impose their vision of morality on anyone else. That is what individual sovereignty is all about.
The issue is, that people never seem to realize that the world runs on a different set of laws than people think it does. Mankind’s idiotic attempts to improve things always backfire.
For instance the thing that destroys civilizations is prosperity, not poverty. Charity for the most part harms people more than it helps them because it destroys their self confidence and self respect.
IMO, people who choose abortion as birth control are basically psychopaths, who are devoid of compassion and personal responsibility. The fact that they are not passing on their DNA seems to be more of positive than a negative.
I too believe it is not my place to force my set of morals on others. Question: if/when you cast a vote for or against abortion, what will your vote be…for or against?
All votes are moral votes.
There is only one morality. God’s Morality.
Everything else is just a different form of immorality.
The law and punishment cannot be separated from a moral code. Are you saying we should not punish murder, rape, or theft because those constructs are based on a moral code?
Or if you say they are based on something else, then what are those crimes based on?
The Supreme Court issued a pair of seismic rulings last week on abortion and gun control. Now it’s climate change’s turn.
The court is expected to rule this week on whether the Environmental Protection Agency can continue to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases using the Clean Air Act.
The decision in West Virginia v. EPA — which comes as scientists warn that the world is running out of time to avert catastrophic global warming — could severely limit the federal government’s ability to combat warming.
And depending on how broad the court’s ruling is, it could also drastically weaken the government’s power to regulate anything…
“The worst thing that can happen is that they say that it violates the non-delegation doctrine,” he said. “[That] it’s a constitutional violation.” That doctrine essentially says that Congress cannot grant its legislative authority to other bodies. If the court says the EPA’s regulatory efforts violate that principle, or if it overturns what is known as the Chevron deference — the idea that if the legislative guidance to the agencies is not explicit, federal courts must defer to the interpretation of the experts at those agencies — the regulatory agencies themselves are in trouble.
https://www.grid.news/story/science/2022/06/27/the-supreme-court-might-throw-a-big-wrench-in-the-epas-attempt-to-fight-climate-change/
Taking a giant crap on gun control, abortion, and climate change in a tw0-week period.
“Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”
Got to love Ron Paul.
How? I’d love to read an article explaining how.