States’ Rights: The only hope for the unborn

Here’s a prime example of how self-defeating and blind single-issue political activism is.  In a hit piece entitled, Ron Paul: is pro-choice state by state, American Right-to-life Action not only slams Ron Paul, but goes so far as to attempt to de-legitimize States’ Rights as a moral and proper channel for pro-life activists.

The piece begins with an assault on what it calls “Libertarian pro-lifer revisionism.” And what constitutes this revisionism?  The argument that an over-centralized Federal government created the abortion problem.  The weapon of choice to repudiate this alleged revisionism cannot itself be called revisionism.  It’s more like a fairy tale intended to frighten its listeners away from the one political institution that could achieve the goal of limiting abortion, and that is the sovereign States of which the people, not the Federal judiciary, are sovereign.  The anonymous author attempts this frame-up by indicting the people of the States for a crime they never committed.  It wasn’t the Supreme Court that imposed abortion on the people, it was the State governments – or so argues the ARTFA:

The states began “legalizing” child killing with 19 states permitting abortion for various reasons in the seven years before Roe (MS, CO, CA, OR, NC, NY, AK, HI, WA, FL, AL, AR, DE, GA, KS, MD, NM, SC, VA) including a number with virtual abortion on demand like New York which allowed abortion through six months.

The anonymous author is trying to convince us that since some States had “virtual abortion on demand,” none can be trusted.  But that willingly ignores that many States did not.  Russell Hittinger, who teaches in the School of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America, has already analyzed the pre-Roe practice and regulation of abortion. While there were states that had legalized it, almost all of them stopped short of the anarchy imposed on all by the Supreme Court:

To be sure, reformers and repealers won a few legislative victories prior to Roe. In 1967, Colorado liberalized its law. But it placed restrictions on abortion that were much more severe than anything permitted by post-Roe federal courts. Reform legislation also passed in North Carolina (1968), but with the rejection of mental health exceptions. California (1967), Georgia (1968), and South Carolina (1970) changed, but did not repeal, their abortion laws.

So, yes, abortion is a problem caused by the Federal government.  Specifically, it was caused by DC’s usurpation of the people’s sovereignty.  But our anonymous author rejects the restoration of State sovereignty as a means of ending abortion because it would not end all abortions.  And with such an impractical approach, he can only attempt to rally others to join him in his all-or-nothing crusade with blatant sensationalism:

No side deal that human beings make between themselves can exempt them from obligation to enforce God’s enduring command, Do not murder. So even if the U.S. Constitution explicitly stated that for appropriations and representation reasons most blacks would be counted as three-fifths of a person, or if it explicitly stated that the states have the right to decide whether to authorize the killing of Jews or unborn children, such provisions would be unjust and should not be defended under some perverse understanding of governmental principles but should be opposed by all.

Get that?  He thinks he’s got a knock-out punch with his attempt to equate the pro-life movement with abolitionism.  And by insinuating that a “higher law” trumps the Constitution and State sovereignty, just as Lincoln and other centralizers have done, a pro-lifer blindly undercuts his best weapon by delegitimizing it. 

He then targets Ron Paul’s bill that would have explicitly affirmed the sovereignty of the State governments in the matter of abortion:

Ron Paul then insists upon enormous Planned Parenthood-sized loopholes that would permit every single abortion committed in the fifty states to continue, many millions over his career, by requiring the federal judiciary to officially tolerate child killing in the states, which is where almost all U.S. abortions occur.

What he’s saying here is that Ron Paul’s proposed legislation restoring State sovereignty regarding abortion is not an absolute ban on the practise, and therefore must be rejected.  I cannot think of a better example of the best being the enemy of the good.  In other words, since liberal States would most likely continue to allow abortion on demand, Paul’s bill is actually an endorsement of abortion – hence the term “requiring the federal judiciary to officially tolerate child killing in the states” – completely overlooking the obvious fact that it was the Federal judiciary that imposed its pro-abortion ruling on the States that once prohibited it. 

Well, news flash, folks: New York, Massachusetts, California, and all the other left-liberal enclaves are lost to conservative, Christian values.  Doesn’t it make more sense to use the legal means that one can use to save those that you can save?  What kind of morality demands that you let all die because you refuse to save only some? 

And let’s not forget that what the author demands, a national prohibition or nothing, is not going to happen.  In George W. Bush’s first term, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the Chief Executive, and the majority of the Supreme Court.  When will that opportunity return?  No time soon.  And since nothing was done to end abortion then, what difference would it make if it did return?  The reason abortion wasn’t ended when Republicans had the chance was because the abortion issue is just too good of a tool for firing up and manipulating the voters.  Republicans can make fine-sounding speeches against abortion and even make symbolic gestures in limiting it, but they are not about to kill the goose that lays golden eggs every election cycle.  If they really did end abortion at the national level, they’d lose one of their most effective campaign slogans.  Winning elections and remaining in power are all that matter in Washington DC.  Unborn babies are just cannon fodder to politicians, whether “pro” or “anti” abortion.

And keeping the ruling class in power is all that will result if pro-life activists hog-tie themselves within the present power structure that acknowledges DC as sovereign.   The only path that can ever end abortion in the places where we live is the restoration of State sovereignty, that is, local self-government.  Anything else means our handlers remain in charge.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

13 thoughts on “States’ Rights: The only hope for the unborn

  1. Harold Crews

    A new strategy is needed. To continue pursuing a failing one with the hope that something will turn out differently is insane.

  2. Andrew T.

    Great piece!

    Big Government cannot be relied on to protect our unborn. It certainly doesn’t do a great job of protecting the born, either.

  3. warrior

    A very convincing article. I have sacrificied many hous and dollars for epty words. Maybe it is time to try a new approach.

  4. Weaver

    States’ rights seems to be the way to save the most lives yea.

    At a later date the issue could always be made federal again via an Amendment prohibiting abortion.

    And any state that legalises abortion is going to see a higher number of customers from banned states, making abortion less popular in the states it’s legal in. No one is going to want to become known as the baby butcher center of America, and whoever is closest to most of the pro-life states will likely see the largest influx, maybe that’d be Maryland at first and then it’d slowly move up as each state bans abortion…

    It’d be far easier to campaign against abortion state by state rather than in the country as a whole.

    And, if every state banned it, there’d always be Canada and Mexico, as well as international waters etc.

  5. Harold Crews

    The problem is that with abortion as a national issue, the terms of the argument are defined by the msm. If it is broken down into states, then that affords us (prolifers) half a chance to get our arguments heard. Who can you talk to? Your state house representative/state senator or your Congress critter?

  6. HarrisonBergeron Post author


    Right. It will not be eliminated everywhere, no more than the War on Terror will eliminate terror. But I think our anonymous strategist at ARTLA has an answer: “If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify invasion.”

    Same kind of thinking that drives the Neocon WOT. Are we to inflict hell-fire on peoples whose governments allow sin? That’s bin Laden’s thinking.

  7. HarrisonBergeron Post author


    Exactly. DC is simply too detached from the people to promote our moral values. We have a much better chance at the local level.

  8. roho

    Seeking the truth from the Top-Down, has failed as the MSM proves everyday, and the truth always exists from the Bottom-Up. I/e The Jena 6 locals tell a far different story than the MSM.

    Likewise, change must begin at the bottom moving towards the top. Depending on Leviathan to change anything simply empowers it, and tells the creature which carrots to dangle in front of the citizen for manipulation.

    Many States working with a comon goal to make the Feds irelevant is the key. Confederations of like thought passing referendums on State Ballots, and simultaniously bombarding the Feds with neverending lawsuits!

    Iminant Domain should have been the line in the sand for ALL States in the Southeast if nowhere else!

  9. Harold Crews

    Perhaps if the abortion=abolition comparison is correct we should free the wicked from their erring ways (and their property while we’re there)? The best way to see what is right is done is to make it pay afterall. If it was righteous and noble once, why not this time too.

  10. Weaver

    “If a neighboring country legalized the killing of Christians, Jews, children, or any class of person not convicted of a capital crime, it thereby commits an act of war that would justify invasion.”

    War on Drugs? War on Terror? You ain’t seen nothing yet:

    War on Death! China commits an abortion so we bomb it. India commits an abortion so we bomb it. Iran thinks of committing an abortion so we bomb it.

    Killing babies in the name of saving babies. Now this is the kinda war McCain would like.

    But yea, on a more serious note, I don’t hold the issue as highly as I do some. It’s important, but I’m not committing murder by, say, voting for Lou Dobbs – I’m actually committing a higher good by defending the order and my people.

  11. Andrew T.

    You’re not committing murder by voting for Lou Dobbs. But you’re voting for a sociailist.

  12. Paul


    I believe the author of that piece – although I’m not positive – is a pastor and talk-show host in Denver, CO named Bob Enyart, who works closely with American Right to Life and ARTL Action, which is their political organization.

    Here is his show where he and Steve Curtis (Pres. of ARTL Action) discuss that Ron Paul article: “ARTL on Ron Paul & the Lib Party”

    And another where he debates a libertarian candidate for the U.S. House from Missouri: “Libertarian Candidate Craig Exposes Ron Paul”

    If you want to let Bob know where he’s off-base, I know he’ll be happy to talk to you. Here’s his contact info:

    Bob Enyart Live
    Call Bob Enyart live weekdays from 5-5:30pm ET at 1-800-8Enyart or 303-463-7789

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>