Ron Paul & Roe v Wade

By Edward Welch

Ron Paul is a hot topic these days for daily internet users. He calls himself a “constitutionalist” – in other words – his political policies adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution. Foremost in these policies is that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion.

Using this as a backdrop, Ron Paul asserts that he’s a pro life presidential candidate. From this perspective, it’s important to understand what a Ron Paul presidency might mean to Roe v. Wade. Reading The Partial Birth Abortion Ban (Reference One) – strong language about Roe v. Wade offers insight:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people,the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.”

Ron Paul is basically saying that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional – that Roe v. Wade is not legal, and should have never happened. Additional insight into Ron Paul’s views of Roe v. Wade and abortion can be seen in Federalizing Social Policy (Reference Two):

Ron Paul Speaking:

“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.”

Here, Ron Paul again asserts that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because it’s not a “constitutional issue”. This leads us to an important question – who does have jurisdiction over abortion? Who should decide if abortion is wrong or right? Who determines if pro life, or pro choice voters are supported? Additional examination of the same document reveals more insight:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“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.”

With little doubt, Ron Paul is asserting that the 50 states would individually determine the issue of abortion. Thus, one would assume that Ron Paul would not take a solid pro life (anti-abortion) stance – nor would he take a pro choice (pro abortion) stance either.

What does this mean for Roe v. Wade under a Ron Paul presidency? United States Presidents have only indirect power of such issues which are reflected in the United States Supreme Court Justices he appoints. In a Ron Paul presidency, it could be assumed he would appoint “constitutionalists” such as himself – building further support for overturning Roe v. Wade within the High Court.

E Lawrence Welch


Reference One

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban,

By Ron Paul,

Link – The Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Reference Two

Federalizing Social Policy,

By Ron Paul,

Link – Federalizing Social Policy

Mr. Welch received his formal education in the area of Finance & Accounting from Oklahoma State University. Since that time, he’s added numerous areas of expertise to his repertoire – including politics, marketing, search engine optimization (SEO), online retail, general business, computer programming, international trade, marriage, love and more. You can visit his political blog – And Another Thing or take a look at his new blog is Financial Pizza. He also owns and operates an online retail holster store – Pyle Mountain Holsters.

Article Source:

Ron Paul for President 2008