Also Kung Fu Lunchbox

Hipaulcrisy and the freedom-lovin’ freedom-haters

Why are Republican prudes still desperate to control your sex life? (via Alternet.org)

My understanding of Paul’s stand on abortion and his hypocrisy therein:

He’s opposed to abortion despite being a supposed libertarian. Then he claims the states not the feds should decide abortion law despite his being opposed to abortion in the first place. So, someone going from one state to another for an abortion would be okay with him so long as the states get to decide.

He claims the federal government allowing abortion is tyrannical and tantamount to the Nazis committing holocaust against certain races, the feeble, handicapped etc. But allowing the states to decide is A-okay either way.

He claims a fetus at any stage is a viable person, which is biologically (and philosophically) incorrect which you would think he’d understand with a medical degree under his belt and having delivered so many children. His Christian fundamentalism is obviously overriding his alleged libertarianism and knowledge of science here. He’s a theocrat and it shows in his opinions on a few other hot-button matters the linked article touches upon.

He’s opposed to abortion but would allow morning-after pills and an exception to allow for abortions after rape. By his claims of personhood at the moment of conception, why would those exceptions be allowable?

Despite being a libertarian, he obviously doesn’t think women have the right to choose what happens with their bodies (regardless of whether they are pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere inbetween). In fact, he’d prefer to see women legally punished for having abortions, not just restrict their right to have one.

Sadly, on this matter (but obv. not others), Paul seems to be just another hypocritical Christian Conservative Republican who wants to regulate what goes on between people’s legs.

To further explain my perception of hypocrisy in Paul’s platform:

IMHO, the federal govt., by allowing abortion choice is securing freedom that states could/would restrict. It is left to the individual to decide whether they think it is proper to terminate a fetus, as it is their family, life, livelihood and body in question. Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one. It is the same principle by which civil rights are secured by the federal government since certain states would limit them. (Don’t like interracial marriage? Don’t get one!)

It’s not forcing a decision on people but rather securing freedoms and choice in keeping with the larger spirit of the Constitution and the supporting explanatory Federalist Papers.

Paul’s claims, like others, that there are some matters the 9th and 10th amendments wouldn’t allow the federal government to wade into, simply seems to be a way to justify allowing racism, theocracy, legislated morals and more consumer-abusive laissez-faire business practices that are seemingly antithetical to the lip service those politicians pay to liberty, freedom, justice etc.

The majority of what the federal government does isn’t specifically defined in the Constitution but when a politician wants to legislate morality and faith and there are fears profits might be curtailed, suddenly the 9th and 10th amendments conveniently come up in conversation under very narrow definitions.