Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 24, 2002

The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion.
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social-political problem
of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion
significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless
attitude toward liberty.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt
determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance
of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized
society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the
slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the
real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal
problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling,
a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a
Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several
states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the
issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states
can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse
some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 4965 takes a different approach, one that is not only
constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will
vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that
the language and reasoning used in this bill do not further the pro-life
cause, but rather cement fallacious principles into both our culture and
legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “…such
a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a
bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide…” The
question I wish to pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life
begins at conception the main tenet of the pro-life community? By stating
that we are drawing a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I
fear that we are simply reinforcing the dangerous idea underlying Roe v.
Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which
members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

The belief that we as a society can decide which persons are
“expendable,” leads us directly down a slippery slope of violence and
apathy toward humanity. Though many decry such ethicists as Peter Singer
of Princeton, who advocates the “right” of parents to choose infanticide,
as well as euthanasia, his reasoning is simply a logical extension of the
ethic underlying Roe v. Wade, which is that if certain people are not
“useful” or “convenient,” they should be done away with.

H.R. 4965 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in
both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that
a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of
the womb is. By depending upon this false and illogical “distinction,” I
fear that H.R. 4965, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe
v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of
saving innocent human life, and should therefore be supported. I fear,
though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the
opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

I wish to conclude with a quote from Mother Theresa, who gave a beautiful
and powerful speech about abortion on February 3, 1994, at the National
Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC: “…From here, a sign of care for the
weakest of the weak- the unborn child- must go out to the world. If you
(in the United States) become a burning light of justice and peace in the
world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country
stood for…”

May we see bills in the future that stay true to the solid principles the
founders of this country stood for, rather than waver and compromise
these principles.