Why I Hate Ron Paul: Part 1, Abortion

“A calloused attitude toward the unborn permits a calloused attitude toward the newborn, the elderly, and the deformed-as well as toward all principles of liberty. We should be neither surprised nor shocked that we hear frequent stories of newborns being thrown in ditches to die. Vocal support for infanticide and euthanasia is now common. “

– Ron Paul, Freedom Under Siege (pg. 156)

Ron Paul has written (or hasn’t written) some incredibly disgusting shit over his career. The above quote, taken from his 1988 ‘manifesto’ “Freedom Under Siege”, is way up there on that list. Instead of burying this offensive, meandering rag he chose to put it back into print in 2007; clearly a man with impeccable judgment. Cover to cover, it is one astonishingly inane correlation after another, sprinkled with incendiary remarks and topped off with a heaping dose of quasi-detailed policy- otherwise found only in the far reaches of the internet. (or here if you want to take all the fun out of it.)

From the sense I can make of this, Ron Paul is under the impression that legalized abortion is to blame for our apparent tailspin into a society that flushes newborns with abandon and runs old folks down for fun.  I’m being a little hyperbolic here, but not by much.

The World According to Ron Paul

In Paul’s conception of a post-Roe/Wade, baby ditching, elderly hating, McCarthy-less world, infanticide and euthanasia are being discussed and supported around America’s dinner tables. It’s not just Satanists or those obnoxious terminally ill people that support those things either; the opinion is that of the majority, it’s “common” - like polio or fiction reading. Paul’s impression of the world is either adorable or diabolically evil. When the Supreme Court ruled on Roe, it was 1973- a whole forty years ago. Suddenly, people were free to admit how much they’d always hated the neediest parts of the population after spending the last millennia pretending to be nice. It was a relief to finally stop pretending to care about the welfare of the destitute elderly or about our grandmother’s birthday. People rejoiced when the very first person was able to point at a man in the wheelchair and ridicule him for his privileged position in life. Women were thrilled they could stop pretending to be incredibly mentally ill and just kill their newborns if they felt like it. America’s formerly impeccable moral fabric was torn asunder, spit on and melted down to make rock and roll records; all because those meddling Supreme Court Justices went and gave women control over their own bodies.

Ron Paul’s Alternative History: A Utopian Fan Fic

Ok, so, Paul doesn’t directly come out and say we’ve lost our way because of Roe v. Wade, that was my interpretation, but he slithers around and implies it as best he can. He claims we, the collective we, have “a calloused attitude” towards infants, the elderly, the handicapped and liberty because we’ve lost our “respect for the spiritual value of human life.”  Calloused is a relatively banal adjective, I think Paul must have lost his thesaurus, I believe the word he was looking for was “homicidal.” I don’t normally associate infanticide, involuntary euthanasia or murder period with being ‘calloused’. Ignoring pleas for toilet paper from the next stall? Yes, calloused. Committing because I was asked asked? No. The word falls short. I also don’t especially feel inclined to murder anyone because I don’t value them “spiritually”, either; I’d be hanging out with McVey by now if that were the case, I don’t believe in the “spiritual” anything.  I manage to control my murderous impulses, all on my own, without a svelte, muscled messiah guilting me up there on his high horse or the threat of being burned alive for eternity.

Back to the whole societal Gomorrah thing- Based on the nostalgic tone of the preceding hundred pages, I can’t imaging Paul is implying it’s been all been downhill since the 18th century but he describes the last forty or so years as “the same period of time” that we lost “our respect” and, consequently, our moral compass. Unless I misread his textual implication, he blames this on legalized abortion. He directly relates the ‘calloused attitude’ theory to the existence of abortion because, obviously, prior to 1973, infanticide didn’t exist and ‘euthanasia’ wasn’t even a word yet.

It must be nice to have a scapegoat to ride into every town on.

I can entertain the notion that a world with legalized abortion is less respectful of ‘spiritual’ value of life than one without it, I’m ok with that. What I cannot over look is the absurdity of connecting abortion- legally half a century old and barely out of the closet- with a crime that is as old as time and was incredibly common in this country clear up into the Victorian Era and has never really disappeared. Apparently Paul doesn’t consider regulated nursing homes and familial responsibility a win for the elderly, the almshouses and asylums we historically dumped them must have been more humane. What about the mentally handicapped and physically ‘deformed’? I can’t remember ever seeing a modern sideshow exploiting ‘deformities’ for laughs (barring the TLC Network) and I don’t think the sweeping societal reforms for care of the mental handicapped or our evolution into a society that is far more sensitive towards them is a step backwards from a society that, fifty years ago, was dumping them wholesale into massive institutions and using them for cheap laughs.

To cut the sarcasm for a moment: I’m pretty fucking offended by Paul’s insinuation that life was much better for old folks before 1976, or for that matter, before we started entertaining the idea of allowing them to end their own lives if they so choose. I’m really fucking offended that he blames abortion for the evil society he sees when he looks through his rose-tinted glasses. His theory doesn’t hold up under the most basic counter-arguments and it completely fails against more substantial things like facts, logic or, my favorite, science. Warm, fuzzy, comforting science.   

Ron Paul VS Science Part 1: Infanticide

If Paul’s theory on infanticide, for example, was even mildly reliable then statistics would show where there is anti-abortion sentiment and corresponding law, the infanticide numbers would be smaller than in comparison with the rates in some god-forsaken pro-choice country.

Right?

Hardly.

I drudged through the internet looking for infanticide rates in countries with shitty abortion policies but I was hesitant to present data from war-torn or 3rd world countries (and the majority of countries with crap abortion policies are just that) and call their infanticide numbers relevant or accurate. Another blogger was kind enough to do the domestic research for me and I think it sums up the ridiculous anti-logic of the abortion-infanticide corollary pretty nicely by proving the exact opposite of Paul’s theory. States with less access to abortion? More infanticide. States with more access? Less infanticide. Hey Ron, researching the facts took me about 20 minutes, how long did it take you to make them up?

Maybe I’m being uncharitable. Maybe, just maybe, Paul got his statistics all mixed up and made a mistake. I can’t see any other explanation for positing something so incredibly untrue. I’m sure he wasn’t intentionally making shit up to suit his dogma- that would be unethical.

Ron Paul V. Science Part 2: Child Abuse

Without any statistical proof or so much as an anecdote, Paul moves from one improvised theory to another. He actually has the temerity to link the existence of legal abortion to child abuse. Yes, child abuse. It probably sounds insane to you to call abortion a cause of child abuse instead of a preventative; don’t worry, that’s because it is. I had a hard time closing my mouth when I read that one. Once the rage subsided, I decided to fire back as hard as I could and, to me, the biggest, shiniest gun of them all is science. Few things are more useful for destroying imaginary facts, though unfortunately, not for the policies based on them. I couldn’t find a single reliable study that backed up Paul’s theory or many studies on the connection period. I assume the shortage is due to what utter waste of time it would be for anyone interested in legitimate science.

Of the studies I dug through, I did manage to find two that actually addressed the link. One was credible and the other was so dizzyingly flawed I couldn’t believe that organizations all over the web were citing it (Ok, yes I could but I was still pissed about it) I’ll refer to the latter as ‘pro-life’ and to the former as ‘credible’ – for clarities sake. The ‘pro-life’ study is from Bowling Green State University and was headed by Priscilla K. Coleman.

Red Hates Manipulative Science

The ‘pro-life’ study affirms Paul in a round-about way by concluding that women who’ve had an abortion are more likely to abuse their kids; ergo- abortion acceptance equals child abuse. The study itself is typical, Coleman et al. used the laziest and most unprofessional methodology they could (look out for the article detailing it later.) and it looks a lot like it was put together by individuals with an agenda that desperately needed some scientific support. Or possibly by an 8th grader, but I don’t want to insult 8th graders by suggesting that.

After I had lost every last iota of my hope for humanity, I found the aforementioned ‘scientific’ study.

I’m going to preface this by saying I’m not comparing the two studies, the cause and effect that is being studied is different. The pro-life study’s hypothesizes that women who have had an abortion are more likely to abuse their subsequent kids. The scientific study’s hypothesis is that less access to abortion equals more child abuse. While I can’t hold these two studies up next to one another, I can offer this one up to you as proof that Paul’s theories all seem to fall to shit under the smallest bit of scrutiny from legitimate sources.

The ‘scientific’ study examined the correlation between child abuse and abortion availability. Their findings in a sentence:

“Contemporaneous abortion restrictions are generally positively associated with child maltreatment report rates.”

The study investigated the effect of roadblocks to abortion availability and the rates of child abuse that corresponded with that availability. Unsurprisingly, there is a correlation between lack of abortion access and abusing ensuing unwanted kids, who knew?  I’ll avoid detailing the study because I don’t need to, it’s the product of good scientific method but I encourage you to read it for yourself to decide that.

If Paul got his way and abortion disappeared completely, it’s probably safe to assume that child abuse numbers would skyrocket. I wonder what Paul would blame it on then.

Translating Nonsense Ideas into Nonsense Policy

It’s not enough for Ron Paul to be against abortion for personal reasons, he has to go the extra mile and make out of pocket comments that have no basis in truth or science. I guess the extra kilometer would be his abortion policy, an exercise in hypocrisy that’s happy to bend his political principals to parallel his dogma. The ‘abortion’ page on the website is made up almost entirely of a moralistic reassurance that he is pro-life, despite the libertarian thing, and he plans to keep America that way. The only glimmer of real policy insight is two measly bulletin points (and an infuriating commercial). From the website:

“Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

The first time I read that, I came away under the impression that President Paul would leave abortion decisions up to individual states (which I’m not cool with, but at least it wouldn’t be hypocritical). Everyone I’ve spoken to about it was under the same impression. If that were the case, it would be consistent with the rest of his policy. That language sure is ambiguous enough to leave the question up to debate, huh? Then I found this.

“To summarize my views – I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

In his Personhood Statement, Paul makes it clear that he would fight harder than any president before him to overturn Roe V. Wade and make abortion illegal nationally by getting a federal Life at Conception law passed; the only decision left up to the states would be deciding how long the offender rots in jail. Notice how quickly the “state’s right to decide” disappears in favor of his personal beliefs? How very libertarian of him. I wonder how quickly the rest of our rights would disappear in a country tailored-to-fit President Ron Paul.

cross-posted to: angryabouteverything.wordpress.com

Disclaimer: This post was written by a Feministing Community user and does not necessarily reflect the views of any Feministing columnist, editor, or executive director.

Join the Conversation