-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Using Ron Paul’s abortion position as a jumping off point, Joe Carter makes the case against applying federalism to life issues, arguing that doing so attaches greater significance to the rights of governments than the rights of individuals. In no particular order, a few quick rejoinders.
First, Ron Paul has voted for national pro-life legislation. Of particular relevance to this discussion, Paul voted for the partial-birth abortion ban, the first federal law against an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade. Despite having concerns about the bill conceding too much ground to supporters of abortion and evan some constitutional objections, Paul explained that he decided to err on the side of life. So it is simply mistaken to say that pro-life federalists generally or Paul in particular won’t ever take any federal pro-life action.
Second, Carter seems to assume we have a pro-life federal government in place that would stop the pro-choice states from running amuck. That assumption seems to me to be in error, and Terri Schiavo is not a very good example for the federal-state dynamic on life issues more generally. In many cases, federal pro-life proposals like the human life amendment are politically untenable symbolism that allow politicians to assume a pro-life posture without saving a single life. By contrast, the increase in state pro-life legislation after 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision contributed to the drop in the number of abortions during the 1990s, even when pro-choice Democrats ran the federal government.
Indiana just passed a law de-funding Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider and one of its largest abortion advocates (note that it was party to the above Supreme Court case, a legal challenge to Pennsylvania’s pro-life laws). Federal legislation de-funding Planned Parenthood failed. I can see a theoretical universe in which some states are denying the rights of the unborn in the same way some states once denied the rights of blacks, but we’re not living in it. Greater federalism would make our country’s abortion policy more pro-life than it is now while demands for federal action will, under present political circumstances, result in nothing being done.
Third, governments don’t have rights. Governments have powers, and under our constitutional structure the federal government only has the powers that the people and the states give them. Constitutionally limited government, and thus federalism, isn’t just about procedure. It is about the same principle that informs the pro-life position: the rights of the people come from God and the powers of government come from the people. In the long run, the probability of government-sanctioned injustice is greater when government is allowed to do whatever it wants, and even whatever political leaders personally believe is right, without regard to enumerated powers.
Daniel Larison also responded.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/05/09/abortion-and-federalism
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 5.9.11 @ 7:07PM
Dr. Ron Paul On Abortion:
Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Report on Medicaid payments to abortion providers. (Apr 2009)
Joe Carter | 5.9.11 @ 9:15PM
Joe Carter makes the case against applying federalism to life issues,
Well, no, that really wasn't my point. Actually, my point was very similar to yours when you say, "governments don't have rights. Governments have powers, and under our constitutional structure the federal government only has the powers that the people and the states give them."
I am merely making the case that government doesn't have the right to allow the killing of innocents—whether in the womb, in the hospital, or in the home—and citizens don't have the right to give the state that power. That is true whether we are talking about the state or federal level.
All American American| 5.9.11 @ 11:18PM
Then basically what you're saying is abortion is government-sanctioned murder?
W. James Antle III | 5.10.11 @ 1:26PM
But even insofar as your argument is true, it does not resolve the question of what other governments or levels of government may do when a government allows the killing of innocents. And it does not establish, given present political circumstances, that we are really talking about the lives federalists won't save.
Scott| 5.10.11 @ 12:32AM
The fundamental problem when it comes to the issue of abortion is that there is, at the present time, no way to conclusively determine when human life begins.
If it could be incontrovertibly proven that life begins at point X, then all abortions after point X would be murder, and it would be well-nigh impossible to argue against banning them, probably with the exception of the life-of-the-mother cases. Any abortion before point X would be a medical procedure being done to a non-human being and it would be very hard to ban those.
The problem is that when point X is is a matter of opinion and not likely to be resolved any time soon. I know of pro-choicers who have tried to use that ambiguity to argue that it should be left to the individual, but that is, in fact, an irrational position and prone to abuse: there are all sorts of people who view members of all sorts of groups as not human, or sub-human, or whatever, and we don't give them free rein to do what they will to those groups. Deciding who is human and who is not is a societal, not individual, level decision.
But the fact remains that there is no indisputable point X and that reasonable people can reasonably disagree; I myself can come up with reasonable justifications for point X being at either conception, commencement of brain function, or viability outside the womb. Given this genuine ambiguity, a one-size-fits-all approach seems as dubious now as it did when the Supreme Court did it in Roe v. Wade.
If leaving it to the individual is irrational and having the national government impose a solution is dubious, what's left other than to leave it to the states?
Nick| 5.10.11 @ 1:36AM
Scott,
WRONG!
It is an undeniable scientific fact that human life begins at the point of conception.
Before the sperm enters the ovum, no human life. Once a sperm enters the ovum, Bam!, human life. This has been known for a long time.
The sperm carries 23 chromosomes from the father and combines with the 23 chromosomes, from the mother, in the ovum. The human zygote now has 46 chromosomes, with a completely unique DNA sequence from his parents.
The fetus (Latin for unborn baby) is seperate from the mother. This is why the unborn baby has to develope in the amniotic sac, to keep the mother's immune system from attacking the baby as a foreign invader.
Again, this is not conjecture or opinion, but, scientific fact.
Scott| 5.10.11 @ 10:25AM
I personally happen to believe that human life begins at conception, but if it's an undeniable scientific fact, then why do people, including scientists, deny it?
What you're sort of touching upon is the tricky point: when does life become human life?
One of the smartest guys I've ever known, a scientist and a historian of science, argued that, from a legal perspective, the start of brain activity should be used as the point when human life begins, since termination of brain activity is used as the point when human life ends. After all, if a person is declared brain dead, it isn't considered murder to stop life sustaining measures.
That would put it at about 6 weeks after conception. Coincidentally (or maybe not), that's not too far off from when St. Thomas Aquinas thought ensoulment occurred (40 days).
Nick| 5.11.11 @ 12:19AM
Steve,
The fact of when, precisely, human life begins is not a matter of belief or faith. It is a scientific, determinable, specific point in time.
Again, before the sperm and ovum unite, no human life. After the sperm and ovum unite, Bam!, a unique human life, with his own DNA, is created.
Why would scientists deny it? Are scientists not human? Are they incapable of lying, or deceiving themselves? Have you read nothing about the global warming hoax? Pro-abortion advocates are ideologues, and will reject any truth to justify the evil of abortion.
Choosing "brain activity" as the point at which human life begins, or ends, is completely arbitrary and unscientific. The zygote, once it starts dividing, meets all the criteria for the definition of life. The unborn baby (fetus in Latin) has been feeding and growing long before detectable "brain activity" begins.
Also, remember that Terry Shiavo was not "brain dead" when she was dehydrated to death (a horrible way to die.) She was in a persistent vegitative state. This wasn't considered murder, either. Thus, showing that Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968,) was being prophetic.