Abortion and the Centralization of Power

In his latest column Ron Paul describes how the “pro-choice” agenda not only kills unborn life, but also distorts the market and puts private health care providers at risk. He also points out how the centralization of power under one administration plays into the hands of future administrations which will be able to abuse that increased authority to commit further mischief.

Restricting Freedoms and Choices

by Ron Paul

As the financial sector continues its tailspin despite efforts to bail out Wall Street, among the few gainers in recent stock trading have been those companies looking for a new “shot in the arm” with government funding from the next administration.

With its strident rhetoric toward reestablishing the so called “pro-choice” agenda, the incoming administration has threatened a whole host of policies that would not only reduce restrictions on abortion, but would actually force people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it.

As a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies I am very disturbed by the continued efforts of those on the left to establish absolute rights to abortion. However, even more distressing is the notion that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize life-ending procedures such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

In addition to the news that those who will benefit from federally-funded stem cell research have seen an uptick in their financial position as a result of the election, comes news from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that many health care facilities under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church may be shut down as a result of the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” for refusal to perform abortions.

Not only does this Act seem to have growing support in Congress, the President-elect and his Administration have indicated support for this legislation. Since many people cast their votes in a way that they believed would help to improve and increase availability of health care, this is an ironic twist.

Of course, the government takeover of health care began a long time ago, but we should be wary of how far that takeover will go if more private providers are forced out of the marketplace. If enacted, The Freedom of Choice Act and the potential for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will go to show that the incoming Congress and Administration are far more dedicated to a government takeover than they are to affordable and available health care. Moreover, these approaches show no real concern at all for the free choices of taxpayers and health care providers who wish to be free from giving assistance to immoral activities.

These facts should also serve to remind social conservatives that they are better to leave the legislative remedies for important social issues at the level where they constitutionally belong, namely at the discretion of state and local officials. The centralization of power that seemed so attractive to many conservatives just a few years ago no longer seems pleasant at all in light of a more liberal-minded majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House.

This should be a good lesson for future conservative majorities, namely that the centralization of power never results in anything more than the most temporary of “gains” for those who are committed to traditional moral principles, and the power one administration consolidates for itself must inevitably be handed over to the next administration, which will use that increased power for its own agenda.

  • Pingback: chanel replicas high quality()

  • Your blog is great and i also know Allen always adds balsamic vinegar to his soup.

  • Hiya, I’m truly glad I’ve found this info. Today bloggers publish only about gossips and web and this is actually frustrating. A very good internet internet site with interesting content, that is what I want. Thanks for keeping this web-site, I’ll be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can not uncover it.

  • I pay a quick visit daily some web sites and websites to read posts, except this blog gives quality based posts.

  • Next we should instead find certain content material, your internet site is going to considerably rely on the details you lather onto it.

  • Pingback: The Doctor Is In - Occam's Knife()

  • Pingback: centurion clocks()

  • Pingback: Boats Motors()

  • Pingback: samsung mini laptop()

  • Pingback: how to get rid of blackheads()

  • Pingback: Potato And Leek Soup()

  • Pingback: Final Countdown()

  • Pingback: rewfarasfvmsdr()

  • Chris Sandage

    And Jake is right about people that think there’s no difference between babies and chicken eggs. Denial that human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic value is, I think, at the root of this issue.

    The logic is very simple, unborn human beings are human beings. When we kill unborn human beings, we’re killing a human being. Is there anything wrong with killing a human being? If so, on what basis do we determine that there is something wrong with it? Animals are alive too; and what about vegetation and microbes, they’re also living. How do we prevent the holocausts that occur when we breathe in and step on the grass?

    Rebellion agianst God results in moral absurdity. I recommend Christ and repentance; fixes all the fuzzy logic and comes with eternal benefits.

  • Chris Sandage

    The differences between an unborn child and an otherwise born person are summed up by the acronym SLED: Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency. None of these are adequet reasons to deny the unborn child personhood.

    No one would say that a newborn baby is inhuman because he is smaller, less developed, in a different environment, or more dependant on other people than a six year old, but that’s where pro-abortion logic takes us. It’s arbitrary de-humanization so people can irresponsibly and immorally have their children executed.

    They’re not just performing procedures on unwanted blobs of tissue, they’re murdering unborn babies by the million and it should be stopped. I don’t care if you’re a professing Christian or not, you should be indignant about babies being murdered.


  • al

    Art –

    Gerald G. Jampolsky M>D> is obviously an idiot… and supporting his brethen at the abortion clinics.

    BeingJe wish – he believes that ‘the spirit only enters the body after the baby is fully-born’ (‘Partial birth abortions do not count to those people’).

    That is one of the reasons why about 85% to 95% of abortionists (abortion performing clinitians) areje wish. As Christians find the concept repugnant and ‘murder’. It is also interesting that manyje wish abortionists refuse to do abortions on jewish babys/mothers.

    Jerry Jampolsky is obviously following in what Yuri Bezmenov (K GBdefector) stated was the plan for ‘demorilization’ in International Communism taking over the USA.

    Look up ‘Yuri Bezmenov on Youtube… for his famous interviews..

    also a supplimentary site: http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2008/07/mind-control-course-in-miracles.html

    The Prime Minister of Australia is now seeking to force Australia into communism proper with communisms ‘regionalisation’/’salami tactics’… creating the ‘Asia-Pacific Union’ – The US will be next with communist BarackHusseinObama (Who is according to his Indonesian School records an Indonesian Citizen and Muslim (hence too his name). Look up Barry Soetoro on the internet!

  • Jake

    Some of you guys are pretty dogmatic. I understand that you strongly belief that abortion is murder and life is sacred, whether from a religious standpoint or a moral one, or both. But I don’t understand how you can act outraged or surprised that other people do not share your viewpoint. Some people think all life is equally sacred and would say you shouldn’t chicken’s eggs are a form of abortion. Some people don’t think human life is intrinsically sacred in the first place. There are a whole host of opinions on this moral issue, and the fact of the matter is you shouldn’t want the federal government to legislate on either side of it.

    A lot of you seem to truly think that your pro-life stance is more than a personal expression of morality, and that the government should legislate it, yet express shock and outrage that hardcore pro-choicers want the very opposite. I think Dr. Paul would agree, it’s best if the federal government doesn’t pick sides in moral debates.