Why I picked Ron over Rick, Part 1 - Abortion

I have a lot of respect for former senator Rick Santorum. As a devout Catholic and long-time pro-life activist, not to mention a former resident of Pennsylvania, I appreciate everything Santorum has done to advance family values. So do most people in my immediate political circles. Thus friends and family just assumed I would be supporting Santorum in Republican primaries.

I would be if Dr. Ron Paul had not entered the race.

Truth be told, choosing between Ron Paul and Rick Santorum is the most difficult choice I have ever made as a politically active Catholic. Santorum was key to passing the ban on partial-birth abortion. He also did yeoman's work for the family of Terry Schindler-Schiavo, who I am honored to count among my friends. Of course, like many social conservatives, I still struggle with Santorum having supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey, but no politician is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. (Including, I believe, Ron Paul over same-sex marriage.)

Having struggled with these issues, here is the number one reason why I came to believe that Ron Paul is the best candidate to advance social conservatism in the United States: Dr. Ron Paul's pro-life stance on abortion arises from his background as an ob-gyn rather than his experience as a politician


Ron Paul brings a unique perspective to the pro-life cause. He has personally delivered over 4000 babies. He also - early in his career - witnessed an abortion. This experiencing of accidentally walking into the wrong operating room while an abortion was in process is something that has bothered him throughout his medical career. This experience led Dr. Paul several years later to write the book Abortion and Liberty in 1979 - a book in which Dr. Paul argues: "Abortion destroys innocent life, and liberty is of minor consequence if life itself is not protected."

Of particular interest to me as a social conservative were the following two paragraphs in which Dr. Paul explains how his concern over the lack of protection for life in the womb influenced his decision to enter politics:

Nine years ago, after coming to the conclusion that our country and our liberties were threatened by economic and international chaos, I entered politics. Eager to develop a consistent philosophy, I read avidly those who defended the free market, personal liberty, and non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. Most who wrote on these subjects either ignored or endorsed the trend toward abortion. As a medical student I too tended to ignore the “problem” and did not take a strong position on abortion. As the laws changed, I witnessed the carnage. With my interest in politics, I studied the issue of natural rights and came to the conclusion that protection of life, liberty and property is the only legitimate function of the state.

There is now little debate that human life does exist prior to birth. Even some pro-abortionists have conceded that point. But if this is so, that life is entitled to the protection of the government. Instead—but consistent with the political trends we are witnessing in all other areas—the government acts perversely by using funds to do the exact opposite of the intended purpose of the state—to destroy life instead of protecting it. The acceptance of abortion, the growth of bureaucratic government, double-digit interest rates, and the loss of freedom are all inter-related. They are all the result of a lack of understanding and concern for natural rights bestowed on us by our Creator. Our economic and social problems have a common cause: the blatant disregard of basic human rights.

 I do not necessarily agree with all of Dr. Paul's positions on each of the issues, but in regards to the sanctity of life and the duty of the government to protect it - we are in full agreement. Moreover, I feel secure knowing that Dr. Paul approaches the issue as a medical specialist whose practice has been devoted to preserving this sanctity. In over 21 years of pro-life activism, I have met many politicians and medical doctors who advocated the pro-life position. I felt great betrayal when several of these politicians, including some whom I helped elect, switched to the pro-abortion side when they thought it would advance their political career. I have yet to meet one pro-life doctor who made the switch, even when abandoning their pro-life convictions would have advanced their medical career.

Every pro-life doctor I have met has shared something along the lines of Dr. Paul's following assertion: "Abortionists never claim they enjoy their work. But I thoroughly enjoy delivering babies and am especially delighted to help find homes for infants not wanted by their parents."

Not that I believe Rick Santorum would ever personally switch sides in the abortion debate. However, his support of pro-abortion incumbent Arlen Specter over pro-life challenger Pat Toomey, when the Republican establishment clearly wanted Specter over the wishes of local family values voters, has given me pause. I admire Santorum with being a champion of family values within the Republican establishment. But he is still an establishment politician who is expected to toe the line. Though Santorum now claims his decision was made over the possible future appointment of Supreme Court justices, at the time the Republican neo-con establishment needed Specter's vote to continue prosecuting an unpopular war in Iraq. And Santorum had already expressed presidential aspirations once Bush was finished his second term in office. So while I do not suspect Santorum of lying, I do wonder if he is engaging in some revisionism when he states his decision was motivated out of concern for judicial appointments. I still feel this may have been one instance where Santorum's desire to appear loyal to the neo-conservative establishment trumped his social conservative convictions.

In contrast, Dr. Ron Paul has consistently bucked the establishment to follow his convictions.