This is a guest post, submitted by Heath C, a liberty loving, pro-life man from Central Georgia. He also write over at I am the Grandchild. (For years we have heard, “we are writing checks that our grandchildren are going to have to pay.” Well I AM THE GRANDCHILD. That time is no longer generations away it’s now.)
If I told you that a person:
1. Voted to use tax payer money to fund Planned Parenthood (number one provider of abortions in America)
2. Voted to pass legislation used to criminalize and indicted Pro-Life peaceful protesters
3. Endorsed Pro-Abortion candidates over Pro-Life Candidates
4. Has voted in the past to federally fund contraception (birth control) 1
AND you consider yourself pro-life would you vote for that person?
Would you call that person a conservative or liberal?
Anyone want to take a guess at who this describes?
Itâ€™s probably not who you are thinking it is. People are probably quick to think of a â€œliberalâ€ candidate/politician. Someone who has openly said they support a womanâ€™s right to choose. Romney or Obama is a likely first thought.
Well youâ€™d be wrong!
You would never consider it to be the person who casts himself as the â€œsocialâ€ conservative, the most â€œprolifeâ€ candidate, or the defender of religious freedom. The person who is described above is Rick Santorum!
He has based his whole conservative image on social issues. Why? Well he knows that his record on fiscal issues, limited government, lower taxes, and privacy issues are liberal NOT conservative 2
So he has hung his hat on courting the Evangelicals and Catholic religious conservatives. He has pandered and catered his message to massage their ears! And they (I should say we because I am an Evangelical) have bought it!
However when you examine his record here is what youâ€™ll find:
- He voted for funding planned parenthood â€“ His defense is that it was included in a much larger spending bill. Well herein is part of the problem. He is for spending in general. If he didnâ€™t mind spending taxpayer money he would have voted no on that principle aloneâ€¦but to go further if he was SO adamently prolife there is NO WAY he could vote for any spending bill that included funding Planned Parenthood. He will also try to say the money from the government doesnâ€™t go toward abortions. Understand the term fungible and how it works. 3 Basically, if you only have $100 and you need gas but you also want groceries but you couldnâ€™t afford both you are forced to make an either or decision (I like food Iâ€™d get food and walk). Now say I gave you $100 and tell you to get some food with my money. You can now afford things that you couldnâ€™t before. You may not ever spend the money I gave you on gas but you are now able to afford gas. The same is the case with government funding of Planned Parenthood. Let alone the fact that the government is giving ANY support to ANY private organization at allâ€¦ESPECIALLY one that is providing services that are against the conscience of a large percentage of US citizens.
- The legislation is The Abortion Clinic Access Bill 4 and Rick Santorum voted Yay. If heâ€™s against abortion so much why in the world is he voting for access to the clinics? Furthermore, many prolife groups warned that this bill would be abused and end up getting peaceful demonstrators arrested. Well it has.5 If you are prolife do you want people to have access to clinics or have them closed down? I am confused.
- Does the name Arlen Specter ring a bell? It should. He was a liberal prochoice Republican from the same state as Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania. There was a more social and fiscal conservative choice (Pat Toomey) that was in the Republican primary in 2004 against Specter. Santorum, however, endorsed the liberal prochoice candidate. WHAT? Why would a prolife candidate endorse a prochoice candidate if prolife issues are so important to him? Specter won in a close election less than 1%. Hereâ€™s more fuel to the fire. Specter later switched to the Democratic Party and cast a crucial vote in the Senate to pass Obamacare. Oh and by the way Toomey may sound like a familiar name to you now because he beat Specter and the democrats in 2010 mid-term elections.6 Imagine if Santorum had endorsed Toomey could that have affected less than 1% to feel comfortable with Toomey over Specter? Now ask yourself, would Toomey have voted for the 1st Amendment trampling (forcing Religious institutions to provide contraception to their employees) and the abortion funding Obamacare? The answer is NO! Santorum essentially helped Obama get through his healthcare legislation by supporting Specter.
- He previously voted to continue funding for Title Xâ€¦which funded contraception. Title X is the only existing federal grant program that is completely devoted to providing comprehensive family planning and other related preventive health services to individuals.7
I could keep writing on all the other anti-gun legislation, Endowment of the Arts etc but you get the picture by now.
Hereâ€™s my point if he wasnâ€™t so spend happy he never would have indirectly, THOUGH knowingly, voted for Planned Parenthood or Title X. If he was really wanting Abortion clinics closed not easier access; he wouldnâ€™t vote for legislation that leads to the prosecution of peaceful protesters. AND if he was the conservative prolife politician he casts himself has he wouldnâ€™t vote for these OR endorsed Specter out of conscience. Santorum has no problem spending money even when the bills contain pro-death appropriations.
The truth is he is a big government spending Republican who is neither consistent on Fiscal conservatism nor Social conservatism. He isnâ€™t against over spending just Democrats overspending. If and when itâ€™s Republican deficits and debt ceiling increases he doesnâ€™t mind spending. 6 out of 7 times while in Congress he voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling.8
We have a candidate who has NEVER voted for raising taxes, unbalanced budgets, or spending increases. Who has also NEVER voted for funding Planned Parenthood, Title X, did not vote for the Access to Abortion Clinics bill OR endorsed Pro-Choice candidates.
In this election we donâ€™t have to make the often vexing decision between social conservative vs. fiscal conservative. We have a candidate that embodies BOTH.
RON PAUL has introduced a bill in the Congress that would effectively end Roe vs. Wade with a simple majority of votes and a presidential signature. The Sanctity of Life Act would return jurisdiction to the states and overturn Roe vs. Wade. This bill would save millions of lives immediately while we work on a Constitutional amendment and/or getting judges in place to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The changes at the Federal level are still years awayâ€¦and difficult (thatâ€™s part of the problem of big centralized government. It is difficult to change once something is enacted.) Why not do stop gap measures in the meantime until the latter is accomplished. Most states would vote to make abortions illegal and immediately end them. WE DEFINITELY wouldnâ€™t have all the states funding abortions!9
Ron Paul is the conservative option to Rick Santorumâ€¦on both SOCIAL and FISCAL issues!
Thank you!!!!!!! May this be spread across the entire nation! Thank you for being a thinking, investigating Catholic!
Now, I’m sure Santorum is actually pro-life, though, as you say, he is apparently more strongly for big government than against abortion. But at best, with Mr. Santorum, we’d essentially get a GW Bush clone, big spending, immoral expensive warring, and some nods towards the pro-life cause.
With Ron Paul, we’d get SO . MUCH . MORE !!
God bless you, and God bless your efforts to educate Catholic voters! I’d give you a hug if I could.
Wait didn’t Ron Paul also vote for legislation that helped the abortion industry??? Also didn’t he vote “against” legislation that would help catch online child predators! Didn’t also vote “against” restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions? That is just a few… to me he isn’t a choice for pro-life cause president either. I thank you for pointing out Santorum’s flaws as that was eye opening. So can the real Pro-Life candidate please stand up!
Please show me which legislation Ron Paul voted for that helped the abortion industry. I’d like to take a look at it.
Yes, he voted against legislation that would help catch online child predators, with the reason given that parents ought to be responsible for what their children are accessing on the Internet he also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional. Couple that with the fact that Dr. Paul supports very much the Principle of Subsidiarity, (the principle holds that human affairs are best handled at the lowest possible level, closest to the affected persons) so why have a far reaching law when this can and should be handled by the parents. We also know (or should) that when the government gets involved with things, they usually muddle up the issue and nothing really changes.
The quote I found regarding this issue:
As far as voting against the interstate transport law, he did so, because he does not believe abortion should be ruled on at the Federal level, but at the state. Further, Dr. Paul has introduced legislation that would allow for the issue of abortion to be given back to the states, where, it would be easier to pass legislation to either reduce or ban the procedure all together. Ideal, no, but currently, abortion would be outlawed in something like 30 states if given to the states, instead of legal in all 50 states. I’d take that in a heartbeat.
You are right that none of the candidates are perfectly pro-life. However, Dr. Paul walks the talk, he doesn’t say one thing and vote another way. Also, if we are talking “pro-life” we need to see that is isn’t just about abortion. We need to see that pro-life should mean the dignity of all human life. The other candidates, with their desires to go to war, promote torture, and pass laws the encroach on our freedoms are certainly far from seeing the human person with any sort of dignity.
Actually, I read the original comment to this article, and Dr. Paul DOES support a federal amendment to define personhood as beginning at conception. After that, abortion would be basically the same as murder, though as with murder, it would still be up to the states to define exactly what the punishments are.
Dr. Paul will sometimes vote against legislation proposed to restrict abortion if he believes it is unconstitutional. I find that refreshing. He is pretty much the only politician that doesn’t only refer to the Constitution selectively, whenever it supports his position, and ignore it when it doesn’t.