What do Paulites and R2Kites have in common...

My dear wife says this post is only for readers who know what R2K is, have watched Ron Paul in a couple of the debates, and are familiar both with Woody Allen and Peggy Noonan's essay exposing him. Others would do well to skip it. PS: If you like Baylyblog and love Ron Paul, save yourself some grief and don't click through...

Ron Paul is to national politics what R2K is to the salt and light of the Church. Both Paulites and R2Kites have never seen a battle they want to fight. So instead they come up with sophisticated reasons why Little Round Top is the wrong hill to defend and Colonel Chamberlain's bayonet charge was over the top. The wrong man led the wrong troops in the wrong charge using the wrong weapons at the wrong time and the wrong location.

In fact, watch these men closely and you find the only battle they're willing to fight is the battle opposing battles. But of course, I use the words 'battle' and 'fight' quite loosely because both require courage. I don't write this to demean them, but so readers will see the connection between their techniques, commitments, and character.

They're the skinny boy in the corner of the schoolyard shouting "Nanny nanny boo-boo" at the real boys over on the baseball diamond trying to catch the ball, swing the bat, hit something, and run. Over in the corner of the playground with his back to the wall is R2K's favorite cultural icon, Woody Allen, making jokes about how he refuses to play baseball because baseball is a stupid game with stupid rules played by stupid boys. But of course, he did try to play baseball once, and when the ball was flying toward his face, he misjudged where to put his mitt, he took his eye off the ball, and the ball hit him square in the face, and it really really hurt. He's never forgotten it and now he makes fun of boys who play baseball.

All the boys who play baseball think he's a coward, but he's always surrounded by the other boys who got punched in the face with a baseball and decided never to play baseball again. They laugh at his jokes. Then there are the girls who never wanted to play baseball and don't know a coward when they see one, and they think he's kinda cute and sweet. They pity him for being an outcast and one day that pity will cause them to allow him to kiss them.

Here's my modest proposal. Let the R2Kites go out and sidewalk counsel outside the abortuaries and write legislation against assisted suicide and lobby against the pornographers and run for appointment to the county planning commission and enlist in the Marines. You get the idea. Let's see them do the good works they're always arguing the church shouldn't do because it's not the right person at the right time in the right place with the right weapon. Then, when they're awarded a Purple Heart for valor in battle, we may listen to them. But as long as they're over in the corner of the playground making passive aggressive jokes and refusing to put a mitt on, let weaklings and girls pay attention to them.

We have work to do.

Similarly, let Ron Paul stop running for national public office. That's the wrong battle at the wrong time with the wrong weapons and the wrong man. The man who sits in the Oval Office needs to be a man who knows how to do and say something other than how very deeply he's convinced that every battle is the wrong battle at the wrong place and wrong time fought by the wrong men with the wrong weapons holding those weapons in the wrong way. I mean, really! How can anyone not see what's going on with this man?

He's asked about things like sodomite marriage and murdering babies conceived through rape and the starvation of Terry Schiavo and all he can do is whine about how conflict is so very difficult and if we'd all learn to fight the way he does--ECPs and states rights and all that--the world would be a better place. 

Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do;

Nothing to kill or die for, only liberty for you;

Imagine all the people, living in harmony,

you-who-who...

You may say I'm a dreamer; but I'm not the only one.

I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one.

Ron Paul shouldn't be on the platform of the presidential debates until he's shown us how to do something other than whine about how awful conflict is; and how if all of us would just learn to avoid conflict the way he does, the world would be as one.

Ron Paul should run for governor of Texas and show us his courage where he thinks all these battles SHOULD be fought. And if he gets a Purple Heart there, that's the time for us to think about giving him a national platform.

For now, all I see is a man who never met a battle he liked. And in this the Paulites and R2Kites are exactly the same. (TB, w/thanks to Doug Wilson and Kamilla)

Comments

Our family attended a Rick Santorum rally yesterday. There were a few pro-sodomy protestors outside (fantastically attended crowd inside) as well as a few Ron Paul folks with signs. They seemed on very good terms with one another and intermingled at points. I must confess to having a slightly mischievous streak so on the way out I called out to one of the Paul folks that I loved Ron Paul's opposition to abortion. I think that caused a bit of discord with the folks around him.

Santorum isn't perfect (no man is) but he and his family have been savaged for his principled stand on abortion and sodomy privileges and he hasn't buckled. I like a man who can fight.

Since when is baseball manly?

>>baseball manly?

I thought talking about bull riding or ice hockey or tackle football might scare the libertarians off, and I sure wasn't gonna mention hunting...

Fair points against r2k, fair and righteous digs for Dr. Paul on homosex, Schiavo and abortion/rape. Fair warning that I shouldn't have clicked through. Trouble is, in the one real battle Santorum found himself in, he didn't whine that it was difficult to know how to handle the Toomey/Specter race. Nope, he valiantly fought for the enemy. Manliness, as Piper and Wilson reminded us this weekend, is taking responsibility. Santorum gave us Specter, and Specter gave us Obamacare. He's no hero. He's Benedict Arnold.

Is there possibly another, more manly, reason to support Paul on this issue? While his personal position is stupid (not ignorant, but stupid), can I support him because I believe that if his policies were put in place the number of abortions would actually be reduced? The closer we get the voters to the issue of life the more often they choose to protect it.

With great love and respect,

al sends

Hoo boy. The fight against pomosexuality and abortion are important issues, but they are dwarfed by the issue of the size, scope and reach of the federal government. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all committed to increasing government, not shrinking it. The GOP may well win the white house and all of congress, but they won't hold it. Eventually the democrats will take it over again, and then Mitt Romney, just like Bush, will hand over the keys to an overgrown monster of a government, the influence of which will then be in the hands of people who really can't drive.

Besides, there was a time in which Bush had the white house and the GOP controlled the congress. How much progress on abortion did we actually make? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on...both of us? Wait, how did that go? ha ha

Well esteemed Bayly brothers, I was afraid my answer might cause you some consternation. Thanks to J.Kru for coming in taking those minds you are out of off of me.

Hey dear brothers, don't worry about blasting me on this. It's fine and helpful (actually). But a couple clarifications.

First, I wasn't trying to promote Santorum, but to expose what I see as the character of Ron Paul as demonstrated by a couple issues I thought our readers would see clearly.

Second, we may think a man who votes "no" on everything is a leader and courageous, but as I've tried to point out above, withdrawing from the battle and prognosticating on why "no" is always the right response may not be courage at all.

Third, if a man lacks courage and always votes "no" explaining how wrong it is for government to do anything at that level where he serves and votes "no;" and if everyone agrees government should do something that actually is the pursuit of justice and mercy for the oppressed; then why not ask that man to leave the level where he serves and garners kudos for voting "no" and go serve on the level he claims to believe he can keep his Constitutional principles and vote "yes?" Which is to say I don't believe Ron Paul is a leader of men and that's why it's so easy for him to serve on the national level and to run for national office. Regardless of what he says he wants to do to keep the federal government from stopping the slaughter of millions of little babies, and to keep the federal government from banning sodomite marriages, and to keep the federal government from stopping the murder of Terry Schiavo, and to keep the federal government from doing all those evil things that are the wrong battle fought by the wrong man at the wrong time on the wrong level; I'd be a lot easier to convince if you could show me some track record of the right battle at the right time in the right place on the right level with Congressman Ron Paul having been wounded in the process.

Something like the Apostle Paul's close of Galatians where he says something llke, "From now on, don't mess with me. I'm the one with the scars."

Love,

So then who would you recommend? Granted I would appreciate if RP had taken stronger stands on issues than he had. I see no better man out there.

Here's one place where Ron Paul took action, engaged a battle, and did more than vote "no":

Along with Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Dan Burton (R-IN), and seven other members of the House, last year Paul filed a lawsuit against President Obama for the illegal war against Libya, waged without congressional approval in violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. It's not much, and it doesn't touch on abortion, sodomy, etc. But it shows that Paul does more than just vote "No."

>>Santorum gave us Specter, and Specter gave us Obamacare. He's no hero. He's Benedict Arnold.

Actually what that means is Santorum gave us Roberts and Alito. Exercising responsibility doesn't always mean things are that simple. Besides ultimately it was Pennsylvania's voters that gave us Specter.

>>Trouble is, in the one real battle Santorum found himself in

Oh, and that statement is so far removed from reality that it hard to know what to make of it other than to cast doubt on the remainder of what was written.

J. Kru,

I agree that the size of the federal government has gotten out of hand, but this issue certainly does not dwarf abortion and sodomy. Keep in mind that those two sins are explicitly condemned as "abominations" in Scripture, while big government is not. It is important to remember causality here: abortion isn't bad because it gives excessive power to our government; rather, giving excessive power to our government is bad because our government is one that slaughters its citizens. A good and just authority ought to be powerful (think Isaiah 9:7). Once again, I agree that our government does not merit the power that it is grasping for itself, but that's not the primary issue. The primary issue is sin. Ron Paul does an excellent job fighting big government, but to think that this ought to take precedence over sodomy and abortion is straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Sincerely,

>>Ron Paul does an excellent job fighting big government

Good comment generally, but this excerpt has me scratching my head. Precisely what has Ron Paul accomplished in fighting big government down through all these years? This is why he almost never mentioned his work on Congress during the debates.

Love,

Ron Paul makes an excellent show of fighting Big Government. His record is extremely consistent on that front.

Abortion is an issue of souls, sin, life and death. The church has so thoroughly abdicated its place as light and salt that we're all left scratching our heads, debating the relative merits of various political solutions to a horror that is so awful as to be almost beyond description.

Is there a political solution to this problem? Which prince should we put our trust in? Does he have a strong enough horse? Is his chariot made in America?

I would love to see the Federal Government cut off at the knees. It doesn't deal with the sin of abortion directly, but it's not a bad start.

My question is... How on earth does one go about doing it? I've been encouraged by Doug Wilson's reminder that eventually, the spending will have to stop simply because fictions can't last forever.

Today in these United States fictions appear to have a half-life of 24,000 years. Then too, there are many fictions I'd hope we'd be praying for the demise of much more fervently than we pray for the collapse of the Fed.

Love,

>>> The fight against pomosexuality and abortion are important issues, but they are dwarfed by the issue of the size, scope and reach of the federal government...Eventually the democrats will take it over again, and then Mitt Romney, just like Bush, will hand over the keys to an overgrown monster of a government

Multiple times now I begin to be influenced by such reasoning.
Then I see a bloody little hand, torn from its wrist. And I think, how could any embezzlement, theft, dishonesty come close to the heinousness of this? How could any war be more unjust than this? How could any principle be more sacrosanct from violation than this?

"...and abortion are important issues, but..."
"...and abortion are important issues, but..."
"...and abortion are important issues, but..."
"...and abortion are important issues, but..."
"...and abortion are important issues, but..."

My wife and children are being attacked by a wild-eyed murderer wielding a knife, going for their throats, and that's an important issue but it's dwarfed by the fact that I've really got to pay down my credit cards first or I'm going to go into default and my family will be taken over by the government?

Is it ever ok to curse?

On the Ron Paul sitting on the sidelines. I am quite stunned at this line of reasoning. A lone prophet stands on his solemn oath, to protect and defend the Constitution, while all around him his colleagues spit on the Constitution. And you suggest he's a weakling and ineffective? Really? Mercy, you sound like Job's friends talking to Ezekiel, you know, that wimpy guy who never got anything done, just stood on the sidelines droning on and on about the coming judgment. But what did he REALLY do anyway? You have plenty to beat Dr. Paul up with, (though still nothing in the neighborhood of what can be used to beat up the guy who voted for millions in subsidies to Planned Parenthood and helped put Specter in office) and I am profoundly disheartened by his folly on the issues I mentioned. But to challenge the man's masculinity when he has stood literally alone for so many years is just silly. Not any stick is good enough to beat the r2k crowd, not if that stick has been the most honorable politician in Washington in and for decades.

Amen and THANK YOU, Daniel. I'm so stinking tired of the issue of abortion being compared to overstuffed gov't and possible unjust war. It's such a cop out, plain and simple. The ability (or inability) to protect life in the womb in so incredibly base, that if a people can't even do that, they hardly deserve anything else that is beneficial or profitable to their land.

By "base," I mean "basic."

Actually, the inability to protect life in the womb *is* incredibly base :-)

I agree completely. It's the same thing with the death penalty. I get sick of people arguing against the death penalty because we could put one innocent man to death and ignoring the fact that we put 1,200,000 innocent children to death every year.

Sincerely,

Don’t be too sure Ron Paul is sound on the size of government. True to the theme of this blog post, he’s wimped out on the two biggest issues, both constitutionally and financially, when he has a chance to publicly proclaim an unpopular position and it won’t even hurt his chances of becoming President (which are zero regardless):

“And last year, when PBS asked him how he’d balance the budget, he detailed his cuts to overseas spending and cabinet departments, and then said, “You don’t have to go and cut health care or medical — or Social Security — in order to start getting our house in order.” When the interviewer claimed Paul had “talked about dramatically scaling down or reforming Medicare and Social Security,” he corrected her — “Well, I haven’t talked a whole lot about that” — and reiterated his desire to cut military spending and allow young people to opt out of Social Security. When the interviewer essentially repeated the question, again claiming that he’d spoken of making serious changes to Medicare, he again corrected her and emphasized his opt-out plan.” (National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289163/ron-paul-weak-entitlements-robert-verbruggen?vm=r)

I agree that all things being equal, abortion etc. are far worse than the size of government. But I'm looking at where we stand - the government is so big and exerts so much influence that we are close to the point in which whatever the heads in government want society to look like, they can just make happen. Give a tax break here, an incentive there, fund this, de-fund that, etc. We have abortion legal in the US because the government-run courts said it was legal. We have gay marriage b/c the government-run courts said we have to. We have Planned Parenthood murdering hundreds of thousands of babies because the governemnt sponsors them and frees up their funds to go do that. We have all this because previous generations of politicians thought that they ought to empower the federal government to do these things.

The Federal government is actually PROMOTING sodomy and baby-murder, and when the Fed promotes, things happen. If you cut away power from the Fed. gov't., then it has less ability to impose the trendy values that will be around in 2035 on the people of 2035. If our fore-bearers had thought more carefully, we would not HAVE an abortion issue.

You can have Santorum limit abortion funding for 4-8 years, or you can have Ron Paul cut off the government's ability to fund abortions for 50.

I'm surprised you would say this. You two have been "prophets" of the PCA/Reformed world, calling people to say "no" to the new trends and issues that the church is slowly changing her mind about. On how many issues has RP voted "no" which were actually voted down? How many of those issues should have been voted down? "No" is a very important vote.

Women deacons? No.
Abortion? No.
Ordain homosexuals? No.

Because if you don't balance the budget, you eventually don't have a government. And then you have no way to enforce the rule of law. And then it doesn't matter that you voted against abortion, because there's nobody to enforce the law anyway.

We're not arguing about balancing the budget, we're arguing as to whether or not the United States ought to continue to exist, and what might come after it.

I hardly thing Ron Paul is pro-choice. He has a consistent pro-life view. But he has an alternative method of putting it into practice. For all the pro-life voters in the last 30 years, has a single thing changed? Have we limited or erased abortion?

Keep doing the same stupid thing, and then get the same stupid results. You can be as outraged as you want, but your outrage isn't changing anything until you change the law.

J. Kru- I do not believe that abortion for those who have been raped is pro-life. Now, you can say that Romney and Gingrich hold the same view, and that's fine. But that doesn't make Ron Paul more pro-life on this primary list than anyone else. Oh, and switching to pure pragmatism will always point to wisdom and the fear of God instead of man, right? I'll remember that the next time I spank my son three times in one day and he still is disobeying. After all, it just doesn't work in our household.

Also, you trumpet "Get rid of the Fed" all you want with regard to how it will never help get rid of abortion. But I find it interesting the Roe was implemented federally where it once didn't exist federally.

"I'll remember that the next time I spank my son three times in one day and he still is disobeying. After all, it just doesn't work in our household."

Your sarcasm is not lovely. And your illustration is poor. If you can't discern the difference between federal laws and spanking, may the Lord bless you, and have a nice day.

"But I find it interesting the Roe was implemented federally where it once didn't exist federally."

Yes. That's because the judicial branch of the federal government thought that it had the right to create a right to murder your children. Only a powerful government can do this. So you can blame Roe on all the Mitt Romneys and Rick Santorums of the past.

How many babies do you think were killed in this unjust war? The Federal government now places women in combat situations. Sometimes they die. And some of them - a small percentage - are pregnant. I was in the military, and trust me: men + women + stress + isolation = babies. So the United States is sending infants to combat, and some have been killed as their mothers were killed.

Why would the government ever do this? Because it's big and powerful.

No, women and children in your neighborhood are being attacked by a wild-eyed murderer who shoots them with his gun. The problem is, in your land, such murder is legal. It has been made legal by the supreme court of your land. And now you take a symbolic stand and vote for candidates who are against murder, and think they will magically overturn the law. If you can't get him arrested, you ought to face facts and somehow keep the man from getting bullets.

>>I was in the military, and trust me: men + women + stress + isolation = babies.

Not necessarily but it is a better argument for excising women from operational units than anything else.

The whole relationship between "unjust war" and abortion was sorted out some time back here.

>>you sound like Job's friends talking to Ezekiel, you know, that wimpy guy who never got anything done

Dear brother, you may be right in lampooning my calliing into question the courage of Ron Paul. But if so, why the cowering on abortion? On sodomite marriage? On Terry Schiavo? I mean, really. Are we blind to the awful significance of his mincing words on these first things?

And I haven't faulted him for not getting anything done. I've faulted him for not showing us ability to get other men to follow.

Love,

>>"No" is a very important vote.

Yes, but alone it is not leadership when what's under debate is the office of chief executive.

Love,

Is the link to the Peggy Noonan article correct? When I click on it I find a Peggy Noonan article dated Oct 12, 2001.

Beloved brothers, You are quite right on those three great failures, and they surely must be evidence of a deeper failure. But again, no one followed Ezekiel either. Ron Paul is leader enough that the people of his district send him every two years to Washington, and his leadership is sufficiently potent, or at least potentially potent that the MSM is scared to death of him, and he has outlasted Rick Perry, Michelle Bauchman, Jon Huntsman, and Herman Cain. He will almost certainly outlast Santorum as well. And he exercised sufficient leadership to have his name on every state's primary ballot, unlike every other mainstream "conservative" candidate. For all the failure, this is a man who is making a serious run for the presidency while saying, nay, teaching things more radically true to the Constitution and the founding of this country than any man in a hundred years. Would that, as so many of others have pointed out, all that "success" were grounded in teaching others about the sanctity of God's image rather than the gold standard. I agree.

Oops, correction. I should have said more radically true to the Constitution and the founding of this country than any other Republican or Democratic candidate. I have in the past voted for men I believe wiser, more biblical and more sound on life issues than Dr. Paul. I've never voted Republican in a presidential race, and I likely won't this time either. I have, however, voted for Dr. Paul, one of very few living people I would guess. He ran Libertarian in 1988.

>>For all the failure, this is a man who is making a serious run for the presidency

Not really. He's admitted he knows he won't get the nomination. And he may or may not outlast Santorum. At least with Santorum we don't get the indulgence of sodomites and the childish tone. Small items though if someone is infatuated with the false ideas of libertarianism.

>>Ron Paul is leader enough that the people of his district send him every two years to Washington,

So that makes him the equal of Maxine Waters. The MSM isn't scared of him, they know he's simply making a gesture and represents no genuine threat to the policies they embrace.

"Santorum gave us Spector"? Not that I know ab out, & I lived in PA while Santorum was in the Senate.

-Dan Reuter

Since it's come up a couple times, I'll tell you the reason Santorum endorsed liberal Specter instead of conservative Toomey: personal ethics trumped politics, which I think good. Specter had been highly supportive of Santorum despite their difference in views, and Santorum couldn't have opposed him without gross ingratitude.

"In 1994, when two-term Congressman Rick Santorum was running against incumbent (chosen in a 1991 special election) Democratic Senator Harris Wofford, his campaign was in the doldrums, even in a heavily Republican year.... Santorum was in trouble, and Arlen Specter came to his rescue. I remember visiting the Santorum headquarters in Philadelphia that fall, where it was apparent that Specter operatives had taken over the campaign and were running it very effectively indeed. Santorum won 49%-47%--better, he can point out, than any Republican presidential candidate has done in Pennsylvania since 1988, but a nail biter nonetheless. Specter knew that Santorum would be a much more conservative senator than he was, and he surely knew that senators from the same state and of the same party often have difficult and sometimes poisonous relationships. Wofford was a guy he could live with. Nonetheless he pitched in and went all out for Santorum.

In those circumstances, it would have been gross ingratitude for Santorum to have endorsed Toomey in 2004." (Michael Barone: http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-did-santorum-endorse-specter-2004/287596)

"Your sarcasm is lovely."

You're welcome. Your smugness and arrogance, equally so.

"And your illustration is poor. If you can't discern the difference between federal laws and spanking...."

It was an analogy. An imperfect one, yes, but I thought you would have enough understanding to see the nuance with regard to pragmatism. Apparently not.

I find Ron Paul's position and veracity on the issue of abortion severely weak and faithless. The "beauty" of the position he takes is that he doesn't look foolish to those in the world. "Get government out of my body? Out of my homosexual union? Shoot! Where do I sign up, Dude?" He has the so-called admiration of the right because of his stance on smaller gov't, and then the admiration of the left because of his non-stance on moral issues. It really makes me want to puke.

I also find your response to how Roe came about completely evasive and blame-shifting. I am well aware about what the Supreme Court did in '73, but I think it is awfully simplistic to think that the ONLY solution to this problem is handing it over to the states. A rather callous one, at that.

Eric,

That's a far worse argument than the other bad one I typically hear- that he did it because Specter promised to not stand in the way of conservative supreme court nominees, which promise Specter denies ever making. This argument suggests that the pro-life people who put him in office were due less loyalty to that cause than Specter was. Phooey. His duty was to the babies, which is why he should have backed Toomey. That would have been leadership, rather than you scratch my back I'll scratch yours.

Dan, when Specter was about to lose the Republican primary, as a sitting Senator, to a rising, committed pro-lifer, Pat Toomey, Santorum threw his support not to the pro-life guy, but to the guy who would give us Obama care.

David,

No, it doesn't make him the equal of Maxine Waters. What kind of argument is that? I suggested that "getting things done" that the Baylys hold up in this piece as a sign of leadership, would have to include getting elected. That others get elected may mean that they have some success as leaders, without answering the question of where they are being led. And I'd be interested in a source for Ron Paul admitting he's not in the race to win. Can you please post that?

>>His duty was to the babies, which is why he should have backed Toomey.

No, his duty was to the babies which is why he should have maximized the chances of confirming justices who would overturn Roe v Wade. Which is what he did.

>No, it doesn't make him the equal of Maxine Waters.

As an argument for leadership it does. Lots of dysfunctional folks get reelected in their house districts every two years.

>And I'd be interested in a source for Ron Paul admitting he's not in the race to win.

I watched him with my own two eyes in a live appearance somewhere between Iowa and Florida. Which, to his credit, was an honest answer.

I'm curious. IF Paul ran as a third party against either Obama/Romney or Obama/Gingrich, would you consider voting for him? I'm seriously thinking about casting a protest vote should my choice be the moderate Mormon or the serial adulterer. I also believe Paul would do more for abortion than those two. Not that he would ban if federally, but would give it back to states to decide. I don't believe the other two would do a thing.

As of now, I plan to vote Santorum if he's still in the race when the NJ primary comes. I just don't think he'll be in it at that point.

First, Santorum and Toomey/Specter. For the same reason that RC Jr cites, I believe the only defensible argument for Santorum's support of Arlen Specter was the possibility of getting conservative Supreme Court justices that would lead to overturning Roe v. Wade. While I still find it hard to believe that the wiser choice wasn't to support an honorable man across the board, including and especially on pro-life matters, like Toomey, I could kinda, maybe, get myself to see Santorum's position (assuming that's truly his position) ... but it's still tenuous given Arlen Specter's long history of destructive advocacy and voting record in the Senate.

Second. Ron Paul. I would agree with all the critics that Ron Paul’s position is not as principled or as clarion clear and consistent as it should be on pro-life issues. We could debate whether he should be considered pro-life or not (I am sure that he’d say he should). I’d rather focus on whether the policy positions he advocates would move us forward in this area … and whether we have a higher likelihood of making progress in this area by supporting Ron Paul or another candidate (on a multitude of other issues, I don’t even believe there’s an argument that Ron Paul is the only candidate who represents real, substantial and positive change to the status quo).

There appears to be 3 main strategies relative to abortion at a national level. The first is a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. This is very cumbersome and for all practical purposes, impossible. The second is to have unborn children be defined as persons and thus obtain 14th amendment protection for them. This would also be difficult and appears to not even be supported by today’s conservative justices.

The final strategy is to overturn Roe v. Wade. There are two approaches to overturning Roe v. Wade. The first is naming enough conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. The second is for Congress to act to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in these matters which practically overturns Roe v. Wade. Most activists and legislators have pursued the former strategy. Ron Paul has pursued the latter (As an added bonus, Ron Paul’s bill also defines life as beginning at conception … and as I’ve stated before on this site, I know it’s not as strong a bill as it could and should be). The key is that both result in the same end state.

We’ve been betrayed by “conservative” justices before. My confidence in success following path #1 is very low. Do I believe we’ve got a better than even shot at winning with path #2. I don’t know. I do know that I have more confidence in Ron Paul following through in support of this approach than I do any of the other candidates doing anything substantial on this issue.

Pages

Add new comment