The United States Constitution established a carefully limited federal government and Ron Paul actively defends the government it established. He says that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, that prior to Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion was left to the states, and that, if Paul had his way, abortion would again be left to the several states to permit or outlaw as each individual state determined.
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
In a post at ronpaul.com, Paul is described as holding
that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
Is Paul correct? Is it necessary to set aside the Constitution to defend innocent life? Read more »