Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Ron Paul has his own religious beliefs that lead him to oppose abortion, even of a fertilized egg. That’s his right to believe things like that, but when it comes to government policy, the fact is that Americans have the legal right to get an abortion. The problem with Ron Paul’s attitude is that he wants to use the power of government to enforce his own particular religious beliefs about abortion.
For example, Ron Paul is intent on inflicting his religious beliefs about reproductive health on Peace Corps volunteers. Peace Corps volunteers are among the best that our country has to offer to the rest of the world, but Ron Paul wants to force them to accept second rate health care for the time of their service. Ron Paul has introduced legislation into the House of Representatives that would forbid the government from transporting Peace Corps volunteers to receive abortions, essentially forcing them to give birth, even if they have been raped, if they are serving in a country where abortion is not available.
It’s shameful for Ron Paul to abuse the sacrifices made by Peace Corps Volunteers by withholding health care services from them in the midst of their sacrifice.
(Source: Library of Congress)
(168 votes, average: 2.92 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
72 queries. 0.988 seconds
Top Article Last Week
December 31st, 2007 at 11:07 am
I had not heard of this bill. Can you provide a link?
The most recent PC policy I have heard of says any pregnant volunteer is automatically returned to the U.S. and makes a decision about the pregnancy once on U.S. soil. The general philosophy is that Peace Corps volunteers have the same rights as other U.S. citizens.
There are two issues here about a volunteer giving birth in country. One is the availability of adequate health care in the host country and the ability to maintain the health of the volunteer during a pregnancy. The other is that in some countries children are considered the sole property of the father and the mother has no custodial rights. The world is full of stories about mothers who never saw their children again after the children were kidnapped to foreign countries by fathers who wanted the children to be raised as Moslems.
Did Ron Paul express any reason for supporting legislation like this?
December 31st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
The legislation was H.R.4984.
Ron Paul’s reason for the legislation is that he personally, for religious reasons, is opposed to abortion. He’s also an anti-government ideologue, with a one-size-fits-all-agenda. Whatever the problem, he says, government shouldn’t do anything about it.
January 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
The legislation was introduced 2/29/1984, no cosponsors, and died in committee. It is now reverberating in the blogosphere as one more idiot thing he did as a congressman.
Here is one list with particularly good links:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6678
March 31st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
He opposes it because it uses tax payer money to transport a volunteer to get an abortion. He’s opposed to all government spending that is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. It has nothing to do with his beliefs. Paying to transport a woman back to the U.S. to have an abortion isn’t authorized by the Constitution. I was a Peace Corps volunteer and am pro-choice. A volunteer could be transported one time to get an abortion. If it happened again she would be administratively separatered from the Peace Corps and be sent home. Currently the government only pays the transport for a vounteer to get an abortion. She has to pay 100% of the cost of the abortion herself. The government pays nothing. A Peace Corps volunteer can also not give birth in country. If she’s pregnant and wants to give birth or not have an abortion they send her home and the government pays for the trip home. So this isn’t such a radical idea. Given that abortion is so controversial I also don’t think the government should be paying for them. Paying to send a volunteer to get one is still subsidizing some of the cost to get the abortion. If the bill were to pass she would still be free to cover her own transport back to the States or a regional city where the procedure was possible and medical standards are adequate.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
How is paying to transport ANY volunteer back to the U.S. in line with the way Ron Paul claims to understand the constitution? If he really thought it was against the constitution he would prohibit ALL transportation of Peace Corps volunteers and abandon them ALL, not just the pregnant ones.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
[…] example, go have a look at his feelings about the Peace Corps. This is the only reference to the Peace Corps I can find that he was delt with, but I feel safe […]