Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Congressional Issues 2010

Congressman Ron Paul on Abortion

As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time.

Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle by Rep. Ron Paul

Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life.

Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty

I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

Statement of Faith - Ron Paul Statement of Faith

Pro-Life Politics?

March 28,  2005  

The Terri Schiavo saga has made millions of pro-life Americans understandably upset about the state of our culture, our courts, and our legislatures.  Many worry that legal niceties have trumped morality, leading us down a slippery slope that cheapens life. 

My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician.  I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.  The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us.  The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.

Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say.  But morality is not inherent in politics.  As law professor Butler Shaffer explains, politics is about obtaining power over the lives of others through government force. Thus politics is a rejection of the sanctity of life.  So it is a mistake to assume that a pro-life culture develops through political persuasion or government power.  Respect for human life originates with individuals acting according to their consciences.  A pro-life conscience is fostered by religion, family, and ethics, not government.  History teaches us that governments overwhelmingly violate the sanctity of human life rather than uphold it.

The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision making by states.  Yet modern America seeks a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on government. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population. 

This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however.  It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens.  Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.  It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level.  Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us.  Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.  A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person.  For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture.  A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.

Pro-life Politics? - U.S. House of Representatives

Pro-Life Politics? by Rep. Ron Paul -

"Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue."
~Steven White

Ron Paul's Abortion Rhetoric | The American Prospect by Steven White

Federalizing Social Policy - Why there should be no federal law against abortion

April 6, 2005

Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the life and legacy of Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II was one of the great religious leaders of modern times, and an eloquent champion of human freedom and dignity. Unlike all-too-many misguided religious leaders, the Pope understood that liberty, both personal and economic, is a necessary condition for the flourishing of human virtue.

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.

Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Pope’s stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia.

Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States.

In conclusion, I am pleased to pay tribute to Pope John Paul II. I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.

Honoring Pope John Paul II

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty.  Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people.  In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy.  Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained.  This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy.  Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society.  The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it.  But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

Theology, Not Politics

As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this `medical' procedure.


Washington, DC:  Congressman Ron Paul continued his fight this week against the United Nations and its global government ambitions, authoring two amendments to a State department funding bill that would hobble the UN by cutting off its main source of funding: American taxpayers.

Paul’s first amendment would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for payment of UN dues, an important step toward withdrawing America from the UN altogether (Paul’s popular bill, HR 1146, would not only withdraw America from the UN, but also evict the organization from its New York headquarters). 

The second amendment directs the administration to withdraw the United States from UNESCO (the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), a virulently anti-American and anti-western UN offshoot.  UNESCO is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece for the usual globalist causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; UN control of federal land in America; cultural relativism; and global taxation, just to name a few.

Paul Continues Fight for US Sovereignty

UNESCO stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty.  In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; and UN control of federal land in America through so-called World Heritage sites.

Why Do We Fund UNESCO?

HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”  Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-abortion activists.  It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views.

The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom

The problem the country faces is that social issues garnered intense interest and motivated many to vote both for and against the candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny fraction of the issues dealt with at the national level.  And since the election has passed, the odds of new legislation dealing with social issues are slim.  Getting a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long shot despite the promises.  Remember, we already have a Supreme Court where seven of the nine members were appointed by Republican presidents with little to show for it.

Though the recent election reflected the good instincts of many Americans concerned about moral values, abortion, and marriage, let’s hope and pray this endorsement will not be used to justify more pre-emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore deficits, endorse the current monetary system, expand the domestic police state, and promote the American empire worldwide.

The Crucial Moral Issue-- Respect for Life

It has been said that a society is defined by how it treats its elderly, its infirm, its weak, its small, its defenseless, and its unborn.

The moral issue surrounding abortion and the right to life is likely the most important issue of our age.  It is imperative that we resolve the dilemma of why it’s proper to financially reward an abortionist who acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest and prosecute a new mother who throws her child into a garbage bin one minute after birth.  This moral dilemma, seldom considered, is the source of great friction in today’s society as we witnessed in the recent election.

This is a reflection of personal moral values and society’s acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling.  In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, people’s attitudes changed regarding abortion.  This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings-- especially Roe vs. Wade.  The people’s moral standards changed first, followed by the laws.  It was not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion.

I’ve wondered if our casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on both sides in the Vietnam War, and its association with the drug culture that many used to blot out the tragic human losses, contributed to the cheapening of pre-born human life and the acceptance of abortion as a routine and acceptable practice.  Though abortion is now an ingrained part of our society, the moral conflict over the issue continues to rage with no end in sight.

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways.  First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life.  Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government.  The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion.  Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process.  The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level.  Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters-- with more federal legislation offered as the only solution.  This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems-- for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state.

The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions.  The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage.  The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values.  The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands.  The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny.  Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone.  They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us.  It’s just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn.

To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro-moral values is too much of a stretch for thinking Americans, especially conservative Christians.

Where To From Here?

Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo

TST: Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises

For the pro-life cause to truly succeed without undermining the very freedoms that protect life, it must return to principle and uphold our Founder's vision of federalism as an essential component of the American system. Undermining federalism ultimately can only undermine the very mechanism that protects the right to life.

Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle by Rep. Ron Paul

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban - U.S. House of Representatives

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban -

Deficits at Home, Welfare Abroad

There is no constitutional authority for Congress to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith.

Your Taxes Subsidize China

Ron Paul on Abortion -

Paul is strongly pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion".

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul - New York Times

Ron Paul - Abortion and Stem Cell Research (from the Ron Paul Library)

Paul also says that abortion is the tool by which the State achieves "a program of mass murder." A staunch pro-lifer who writes books on the topic in his spare time, he thinks States should decide the matter (read: allow states to overturn decisions like Roe v. Wade to allow new laws to protect the rights of what the Christian right calls "unborn people"). Under Paul's proposal, States could conceivably pass laws that bar women from obtaining abortions, including in cases of rape or incest, and even when the woman's life is at risk. Any person that values the right of any woman to choose what she will and will not do with her own body should take caution – Paul is to the extreme right of the political spectrum on this issue. I understand that Presidents do not decide abortion policy, but we have yet to see what Bush's Supreme Court appointments will yield in terms of abortion rights in the years to come. Any presidential candidate that would move to allow States to eradicate women's rights doesn't deserve the attention and praise he's getting from the Left.

ZNet |U.S. | Don't Believe the Hype (Ron Paul is Not Your Savior) [left-wing, pro-abortion magazine]