Monday, October 29, 2007

On Ron Paul's Scary Cross-Over Appeal

I am increasingly concerned about the relative popularity of republican candidate Ron Paul amongst progressive and liberal people. This Saturday I went to a peace rally and marched down the streets of downtown Chicago. Of course, such a rally was bound to be rife with people pushing presidential candidates. The ones that I saw the most of were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Hell, Ron Paul's people even had an aerial banner! The general feeling that I got from these pacifists, hippies, liberals, and general anti-war types was support for this anti-war constitutionalist. Dr. Paul is a dangerous candidate precisely because of his growing cross-over support. Here is a some of the scary stuff I found over at his campaign website:

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

I have already discussed my concern with his popularity amongst liberal television personalities. But I should also say that I am concerned with the depoliticization of reproductive rights issues. I did a little bit of research and had a hard time coming up with a position on women's issues and LGBT issues on the part of ALL of the candidates. Why are liberal folks turning their back on Roe v. Wade? I know it is a messy political area but we need protection now more than ever and I have to say, none of these candidates are really sounding very good to me.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Cortney,

I understand your concern. You should know that Ron Paul is not interested in government intervention with regard to abortion or other personal issues. This is his primary goal -- to get the Federal government out of our personal lives. This includes your privacy, your body, tracking your Internet use, wiretapping your phone, gay marriage, marijuana, sexual preferences, etc.

He believes that if the government is going to play a role in abortion, that it happen at the state level, and not at the federal level. If abortion remains at the federal level, there is a good chance abortion may in the future be outlawed for everyone, no matter what state they live in.

If the states get to determine this instead, chances are there will always be a state you can travel to that allows abortion. If you leave this to the fed to decide, it's an all-or-nothing situation for all states, with no states doing anything different on their own.

Cortney said...

I have always liked that idea too. I think that if states had more power we would see a huge divide in the nation over these seemingly binary issues. Let all of the red states have their crazy laws and let the blue states have their's and see what happens....

However, I still feel for the people who cannot simply up and move to a state that matches their politics.

I don't know...it is a compelling argument that you make.

Anonymous said...

I grew up in Waukegan, IL in the 1980s and had to drive across the WI border to get a drink when I was 18. I could also go to Mexico to do the same, but WI was much closer.

Now we don't have any state flexibility and all states are the same: it's not legal till you are 21. This was the Fed's doing.

In many countries, the drinking age is 18 and even 16. We have the highest drinking age of any country. The fundamentalist Christians really have a tight grip on things here, to the point where we are a bit radical.

The same thing can easily happen to abortion. Or gay marriage. Or... you name it.

If the Fed is denied the power to make these decisions, there will at least be some place you can go within the US that sanctions it. And that sure beats going to Mexico.

Cortney said...

I am all for limiting the power of the federal government. But your example of drinking age is actually really great because it used to be that you could find a nearby state where the law is different but now it is the same across the nation. The same could be true to the age for driver's licensing.

MALCONTENT said...

Cortney,
HI...IF GETTING RID OF THE Neocons, corporate welfare for the military industrial complex, a secretive spying government, wasteful foreign aid, excessive taxation, and the centralized bank of the Federal Reserve takes a man that would also NEGATE OUR """right""" to "RAPE 'EM AND SCRAPE 'EM" .... I SAY .. "Go for it!!!" All you women have a choice.. the choice is ... whether or not to have sex... cause if you CHOOSE to have sex, THEN you also have the responsibility of bringing forth new life if you become impregnated... that is where PRO CHOICE lies... I AM PRO CHOICE... the choice is sex or no sex... and if sex .. take responsibility for the consequences .... selfish COW ..

Cortney said...

I usually do not publish comments that do not engage the issues and create an intelligent, thoughtful dialogue. However, the above commenter proves the feminist point that often anti-abortion types are also anti-woman. The vitriolic woman hate in this comment makes me sick but it just proves my point.

Caustic Storm said...

""MALCONTENT said...

Cortney,
HI...IF GETTING RID OF THE Neocons, corporate welfare for the military industrial complex, a secretive spying government, wasteful foreign aid, excessive taxation, and the centralized bank of the Federal Reserve takes a man that would also NEGATE OUR """right""" to "RAPE 'EM AND SCRAPE 'EM" .... I SAY .. "Go for it!!!" All you women have a choice.. the choice is ... whether or not to have sex... cause if you CHOOSE to have sex, THEN you also have the responsibility of bringing forth new life if you become impregnated... that is where PRO CHOICE lies... I AM PRO CHOICE... the choice is sex or no sex... and if sex .. take responsibility for the consequences .... selfish COW ..""

Can I choose not to be raped as well? Because that would be amazing.

Cortney said...

Another great point. Thanks!

perk23 said...

In 2007 Ron Paul introduced the HR 1095 bill in the legislature that is summarized by Congressional records:

Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2007 - Prohibits a federal official from expending federal funds for any foreign or domestic population control or population planning program or family planning activity (including any abortion procedure).

I would say he wants the government to actively be anti-abortion and anti-contraception.

Cortney said...

Wow. That is even worse than I originally thought. Colbert and Jon Stewart were actively supporting this man! That fact needs to be better publicized, I mean how many women in America are actually anti-contraception even if they are anti-choice? Thanks for that information.

Anonymous said...

Hi, it is Malcontent again.( I know it says Anonymous, but I did not record my password the other night ... DUH.. so I can't get in as Malcontent) I must say I am calmed down now. I will stick to the topic, seeing as how the topic as I see it is that ONE issue overrides all others. That issue for you is the right to have an abortion- (oh and by "Rape em and Scrape em" I was making an attempt at dark humor.. sorry it flopped.)- and so for you, all the good that Paul wants to do is overshadowed by that ONE issue... his stance on abortion. This is a question to you and all your readers: Let's say there were two candidates... Candidate A would work to bust up monopolistic corporatism, work to reverse the Supreme Court's decision in the 19th Century to recognize a corporation as a PERSON, stop government spying on innocent people, stop CORPORATE welfare and tax breaks, stop drug companies from advertising, re-open the JFK assassination investigation, re-open the 911 investigation, change Microsoft's ability to own their operating system as copyrighted code RATHER THAN a patented invention - which would give everyone the right in 2007 to develop a Windows operating system because it would now be OUT OF PATENT, bust up the monopolistic record companies, make Payola in radio a severe felony, legalize all recreational drugs and let the states sell them in special stores, legalize safe sex prostitution so it would be safe for both the prostitute and the customer, limit the amount of influence corporations could have on Congress, disallow corporations from writing legislation for their puppet congressmen, use hemp, prairie grass and any other cost effective vegetation to make ethanol and veggie oil diesel, destroy the IRS, Federal Reserve (central bank), withdraw our troops from abroad and protect our own borders from illegal immigrants that flood the job market and lower wages for the middle class – (and some of those illegals are also gang members and criminals), begin manufacturing goods here instead of in sweatshops overseas, begin exporting our goods to other countries rather than the other way around.. BUT this Candidate A would be pro life…. AND THE OTHER CHOICE would be Candidate B…. this candidate would continue Bush’s policies, and he would pledge to send our troops wherever we “needed” a “preemptive war”…. And he would be a congressman that had a history of being a corporate puppet, and he favored more manufacturing overseas, etc….in other words, he would continue the status quo, BUT he was pro choice…. The question is, would that ONE issue of abortion / pro choice overshadow all the others ?? WHICH WOULD YOU VOTE FOR ???

Cortney said...

Choice is certainly not the only issue I consider when voting. However, a candidate's stance on reproductive rights usually has a whole lot in common with that candidate's stance on women's issues in general. If a candidate does not think that women deserve basic civil rights and access to contraception than that is a HUGE deal to me! So yes, I would vote for the candidate that recognizes the full legal rights of women as human beings over all other issues because as a feminist I see how women's status as second class citizens is closely related to a myriad other human rights atrocities. (Wealthy, white) men, in general, seem to have a very hard time understanding what it is like to have your basic humanity denied by the law as it had been in this country for a long time. That is why taking away a right that seems trivial to you seems ENORMOUS to me.

Anonymous said...

why should the federal government pay for abortion? why should my money pay for your abortion? why should tax payer subsidize it? take responsibility with your sex life and body.

Cortney said...

The federal government should provide adequate health care services for all citizens. Abortion should certainly not be as necessary as it seems to be right now. If young people had access to contraception and information about it I believe we would see the need for abortion drastically reduced. You are encouraging people to take responsibility for their bodies and sexuality but how can they do that without adequate and accurate information? Also, why do you think that pregnancy is such a grand punishment for those whores who dare have sex? I would just really prefer to think that all children are wanted and cared for children rather than children of a forced pregnancy.

If you really want to have more information on this (and I doubt that you really do) check out this website because she says it so much better than I ever could.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/01/22/why-im-pro-choice/

Anonymous said...

abortion is not a minor issue for ron paul. this man is scary dangerous. he has writen two books on why women should not be in control of their bodies. here's an excerpt from him:

""Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.""

Nice how he uses a metaphor saying that pregnant women are like HITLER. WTF?

How is it a libertarian stance to fight for the government's right to FORCE a woman to be pregnant against her will. HOW is that protecting our rights? There is no parallel to this for men, which is why the majority of anti-choicers are men. What if the government was FORCING him to carry a parasite in his body, which could endanger his health (physical and psychological) against his will?

C.J. Smith said...

How come no one is asking why many European countries are more sexually liberated then the U.S. yet had far less abortions and unwanted pregnancies? American has the highest rate per capita of unwanted pregnancies in the developed world.

Anonymous said...

I am posting in 2011, I see your original post is from 2007. Ron Paul had some evry intersting views severla years ago. Yesterday I went on his campaign website and I was apalled at what I read. He has either turned much more conservative and controlling or was always that way but now letting it all out. I thought I was for many things eh was for but after reading the sections on abortion rights, christianty & 2nd amendment I am thinking he is a very scary man.

Anonymous said...

Blah, blah, feminist blah. Stop playing the victim. If you want something, go out and get it. Carry a gun. Learn self-defense. I shot a man for trying to rape me. Being networked with other people that have been raped, I've come across several women that have kept their children because that child didn't have a choice and it takes a heroine--a REAL WOMAN--to make that choice for that child.

I'm assuming you have no children. If you ever decide to, you're views with completely change. The abortion issue has always been a paradox--if someone, even a doctor, harms the unborn, they are charged with murder. Fine, let the woman have the choice. You go out and talk to women that have decided to terminate and ask them how they felt before it happened and how they feel now.

So,you have a Master's in Women & Gender Studies. Now, tell me, how many times have you actually gone out and researched real people?