picture taken from NY Daily News
Two things prompted me to write this post. Both revolve around Republican Presidential debates. First off, for full disclosure, I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian-Republican. Secondly, while I like the TEA Party message of lower taxes and less government intrusion, I find some of them (which I call the Sarah Palin TEA Party) hypocritical because they want less government intervention, but with some exceptions. Though I do like the TEA Party message.
The main news coming out of the last three Republican debates haven't been what the candidates have said, but rather, what the audience did. The last three debates have been criticized not for the policy issues of Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, but for what the audience yelled.
At the CNN/TEA Party Debate Ron Paul was asked by Wolfe Blitzer about a hypothetical man who didn't have health insurance but fell into a coma. Under President Paul, Blitzer asked, will the man be left to die? Right before Dr. Paul said, "No." A couple of people in the audience yelled, "Yes!" Mind you, Dr. Paul yelled out "NO!" after this, but the media reports the next day read "Ron Paul Would Let Man Die." I almost expected them to call him "Dr. Death."But Paul said no. To be fair, a few articles I read did defend Paul. Other articles decided to take the one man (or two) who yelled, "Yeah!" and said, "The TEA Party audience would let a man die." No one questioned it. After all, it fits into their Tea Party-profile: heartless racists who would let a man die. But we have to remember, it was only about one or two people. When I heard it, I thought they were joking so I laughed. I still do think they were joking. And just because of one person, an entire movement is demonized.
Then there's the latest controversy revolving around the debate audience. At last week's Orlando Fox News/Google Debate a gay soldier asked the candidates about the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The question was given to Rick Santorum. When the soldier finished he was booed by a few members of the audience. Again, it was painted by the media as "Republicans Boo Gay Soldier" and claimed that the Republican Party is despicable because they booed a gay soldier because he is gay. Actually, it was only a few people who, according to witnesses, were told to be quiet by those around them. Also, the boo came after he asked the question. So it wasn't booing the fact that he was gay, it was booing the loaded question he asked. Look, I'm all for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but I have to admit, it was a loaded question. Again, a handful of people are painted as representative of a whole group.
Now here's my favorite. Mainly because there is no explaining this. There is no brushing off the audience response in this case. It was the MSNBC/Politico Debate at the Reagan Library. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was just a couple weeks in the race and this was his first debate. In it he was asked about his support of the death penalty. His response to the question was an affirmation in the belief in capital punishment and that it works. This time, the ENTIRE audience gave Gov. Perry a big round of applause. Not just one or two people. The entire audience.
Why is this my favorite? It's because Perry describes himself as the pro-life candidate. In fact, in the last debate in Orlando, Perry actually said, "I will always err on the side of life." Really?? You're pro-life and will always stand for life? How about the 234 lives that were executed in Texas under your administration? Yes, I know that there's a difference between an innocent fetus in the womb and a convicted murderer. But it is still a life. God did not say, "Do not kill unless he is a murderer." According to Christian theology, we are all guilty of sin and ALL deserve death. Some denominations make no difference between mortal and venial sins and say they're all the same. To God, and hopefully to the Christian, all life is sacred. No matter what. Just because a person didn't respect others' right to life, doesn't mean that that person's right to life is forfeited.
Another issue I have with Perry's stance is that the governor has expressed his belief that he is skeptical of government. He doesn't trust government on many issues, but somehow he does think that you can trust the government on who can and can't be executed. To me, this is the ultimate trust of government: deciding life. If we pro-lifers are to believe that only God, the author of life, can take life, then why do we think that it's O.K. for the government to do it? God's law is greater than man's law, you say. This includes, "Thou shall not kill." The same government who is having trouble delivering mail!
But this doesn't change anything. Gov. Rick Perry is still the "most pro-life candidate" in the race.
I ended up seeing the Fox News/Google Debate with the College Republicans. I saw the MSNBC/Politico debate with the Campus Libertarians and that was a fun experience since I typically agree with them more than not. However, watching the debate with the Campus Republicans made me feel like a Democrat. And trust me, I'm the furthers thing from a Dem. One thing that struck me was that I had to defend Dr. Ron Paul as a pro-life. Yes, that Dr. Ron Paul. The Christian Republican OBGYN who delivered more than 4000 babies. I had to defend him because to some there, he wasn't pro-life. Never mind the fact that Dr. Paul continues to introduce legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade, which he says Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so. He is still pro-choice. (Here's a link to the We the People Act, which Dr. Paul wrote and introduced.)
Now, Dr. Paul's philosophy is pretty straight forward. If it isn't in the Constitution, the federal government shouldn't be doing it. He appeals to the Tenth Amendemnt: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Pretty much, "If it's not here, let the states decide it." And this is his stance on issues like gay marriage, drugs, and even abortion.
Most pro-lifers believe that we need a federal amendment to the constitution because anything less would be pro-choice and supporting abortion. However, following that logic, if we don't have a federal amendment or federal ban on all murder, you are pro-murder. Did you know that? There are no federal laws against the typical murder. It's up to each state to make those laws themselves. We already trust the state with outlawing murder, can't we give them abortion too?
Then there's also the fact that it could be easier for pro-life groups to concentrate on local laws. It's always easier for activists to work locally than to go change things in Washington. If we were to give it back to the states, activists in Florida can lobby Gov. Rick Scott and the Republican legislature and probably outlaw it. More conservative states would already outlaw it leaving activists to work on the more liberal states. Within 20 years, at most, abortion would be outlawed or almost.
Personally, I think there's a reason why many politicians are against this: They depend on abortion to get elected. Republican politicians know that once abortion is no longer an issue, they will lose a large voting bloc. So they claim that they'll do something, but never do. They don't want to let go of the one-issue voters. It's tragic because they are playing politics with the lives of millions of innocent children.
The Republican Party has to make a couple decisions: will it be pro-life in every sense of the word, or will it continue to be pro-some-life? Will they continue to cheer for executions while calling an obstetrician pro-choice? Will they decide, it's time to listen to the Constitution and save the lives of these innocent people, or will they continue to play politics as usual?
One thing is for sure, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
