Hereâ€™s a prime example of how self-defeating and blind single-issue political activism is.Â 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 Statesâ€™ Rights as a moral and proper channel for pro-life activists.
The piece begins with an assault on what it calls â€œLibertarian pro-lifer revisionism.â€ And what constitutes this revisionism?Â The argument that an over-centralized Federal government created the abortion problem.Â The weapon of choice to repudiate this alleged revisionism cannot itself be called revisionism.Â Itâ€™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.Â The anonymous author attempts this frame-up by indicting the people of the States for a crime they never committed.Â It wasnâ€™t the Supreme Court that imposed abortion on the people, it was the State governments â€“ or so argues the ARTFA:
The states began â€œlegalizingâ€ 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 â€œvirtual abortion on demand,â€ none can be trusted.Â But that willingly ignores that many States did not.Â 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.Â Specifically, it was caused by DCâ€™s usurpation of the peopleâ€™s sovereignty.Â But our anonymous author rejects the restoration of State sovereignty as a means of ending abortion because it would not end all abortions.Â 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 Godâ€™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?Â He thinks heâ€™s got a knock-out punch with his attempt to equate the pro-life movement with abolitionism.Â And by insinuating that a â€œhigher lawâ€ 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.Â
He then targets Ron Paulâ€™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 heâ€™s saying here is that Ron Paulâ€™s proposed legislation restoring State sovereignty regarding abortion is not an absolute ban on the practise, and therefore must be rejected.Â I cannot think of a better example of the best being the enemy of the good.Â In other words, since liberal States would most likely continue to allow abortion on demand, Paulâ€™s bill is actually an endorsement of abortion â€“ hence the term â€œrequiring the federal judiciary to officially tolerate child killing in the statesâ€ â€“ completely overlooking the obvious fact that it was the Federal judiciary that imposed its pro-abortion ruling on the States that once prohibited it.Â
Well, news flash, folks: New York, Massachusetts, California, and all the other left-liberal enclaves are lost to conservative, Christian values.Â Doesnâ€™t it make more sense to use the legal means that one can use to save those that you can save?Â What kind of morality demands that you let all die because you refuse to save only some?Â
And letâ€™s not forget that what the author demands, a national prohibition or nothing, is not going to happen.Â In George W. Bushâ€™s first term, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the Chief Executive, and the majority of the Supreme Court.Â When will that opportunity return?Â No time soon.Â And since nothing was done to end abortion then, what difference would it make if it did return?Â The reason abortion wasnâ€™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.Â 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.Â If they really did end abortion at the national level, theyâ€™d lose one of their most effective campaign slogans.Â Winning elections and remaining in power are all that matter in Washington DC.Â Unborn babies are just cannon fodder to politicians, whether â€œproâ€ or â€œantiâ€ 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 acknowledgesÂ DC as sovereign.Â Â 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.Â Anything else means our handlers remain in charge.