Restricting Freedoms and Choices

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

As
the financial sector continues its tailspin despite efforts to bail
out Wall Street, among the few gainers in recent stock trading have
been those companies looking for a new “shot in the arm”
with government funding from the next administration.

With its strident
rhetoric toward reestablishing the so called “pro-choice”
agenda, the incoming administration has threatened a whole host
of policies that would not only reduce restrictions on abortion,
but would actually force people who wish to avoid participating
in the procedure to support it.

As a physician
who has delivered over 4,000 babies I am very disturbed by the continued
efforts of those on the left to establish absolute rights to abortion.
However, even more distressing is the notion that taxpayers should
be forced to subsidize life-ending procedures such as abortion and
embryonic stem cell research.

In addition
to the news that those who will benefit from federally-funded stem
cell research have seen an uptick in their financial position as
a result of the election, comes news from the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops that many health care facilities under the auspices
of the Roman Catholic Church may be shut down as a result of the
so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” for refusal to perform
abortions.

Not only does
this Act seem to have growing support in Congress, the President-elect
and his Administration have indicated support for this legislation.
Since many people cast their votes in a way that they believed would
help to improve and increase availability of health care, this is
an ironic twist.

Of course,
the government takeover of health care began a long time ago, but
we should be wary of how far that takeover will go if more private
providers are forced out of the marketplace. If enacted, The Freedom
of Choice Act and the potential for increased federal funding of
embryonic stem cell research will go to show that the incoming Congress
and Administration are far more dedicated to a government takeover
than they are to affordable and available health care. Moreover,
these approaches show no real concern at all for the free choices
of taxpayers and health care providers who wish to be free from
giving assistance to immoral activities.

These facts
should also serve to remind social conservatives that they are better
to leave the legislative remedies for important social issues at
the level where they constitutionally belong, namely at the discretion
of state and local officials. The centralization of power that seemed
so attractive to many conservatives just a few years ago no longer
seems pleasant at all in light of a more liberal-minded majority
in both Houses of Congress and the White House.

This should
be a good lesson for future conservative majorities, namely that
the centralization of power never results in anything more than
the most temporary of “gains” for those who are committed
to traditional moral principles, and the power one administration
consolidates for itself must inevitably be handed over to the next
administration, which will use that increased power for its own
agenda.

See
the Ron Paul File

November
18, 2008

Dr. Ron
Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron
Paul Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare