Rand Paul, Libertarian or Tea Party Agenda?

On April 7th, Rand Paul announced his campaign for the United States Presidency. For many, this seems like a victory in the making. His attractive fiscal policies and non-intervention foreign policy seems to be what would make him a good president. The point of contention becomes his stance on controversial topics such as immigration, abortion, and civil liberties. We know the name, we know the affiliation but who is Rand Paul and what kind of president would he be?

Before we understand where Rand Paul stands on current issues that the presidency faces, we must understand him as a person and candidate. Dr. Paul has a religious background as an Episcopalian and grew up in Pennsylvania. Dr. Paul attended Baylor University and Duke University Medical School until graduation in 1988. He pursued a surgical internship and medicine into 1994 when he began his entry into politics. [1] He was no stranger to politics as his father Ron Paul, is a familiar household name. Dr. Paul's official entry into politics came after his involvement with the Tea Party Movement in 2008, and his run for Kentucky U.S. Senator in 2009. One of his key attributes has been his many encounters with controversy, and his history with flip-flopping on his stance.

One of my largest issues with Rand Paul is his identification with the Libertarian party. Libertarians promote maximizing autonomy and freedom of choice. Paul's stance on multiple key issues clash with the very ideals of the true libertarian ideology. His inability to separate his faith from his political platform is alarming.

Listed below is a link to OnTheIssues.com and a compiled list of direct quotes from Rand Paul on his positions. Based on his position towards women in multiple facets, where will he stand for over 160 million of the citizens he will represent?

OnTheIssues-Rand Paul

Civil Rights:

Q: What about the "war for women"?
PAUL: Well, you know, I think we have a lot of debates in Washington that get dumbed down and are used for political purposes. This whole sort of war on women thing, I'm scratching my head because if there was a war on women, I think they won. You know, the women in my family are incredibly successful. I have a niece at Cornell vet school, and 85% of the young people there are women. In law school, 60% are women; in med school, 55%. My younger sister's an ob-gyn with six kids and doing great. You know, I don't see so much that women are downtrodden; I see women rising up and doing great things. And, in fact, I worry about our young men sometimes because I think the women really are out-competing the men in our world. I think the facts show that women are doing very well, have come a long way. So I don't really see this, that there's some sort of war that's, you know, keeping women down. [2]

This is a perturbing statement because it blatantly ignores issues that are currently being addressed in Federal as well as State governments. One of the most publicized problems is the wage gap. By insinuating that women are "out-competing" men, we are ignoring one of the major issues in the work force. Men are still being paid on average 22% more than women. On average, women only make 78% of what a male earns in his salary, performing the same job. This does not account for the larger gap for women of color and minority background either.[3] Dr. Paul's failure to acknowledge that women still face relevant struggles is evidence to show that his presidency will not be used to advance any interests of women in the workforce. The very problem that plagues American is present in the White House as well. There is a 13% gap between male and female earners in the White House.[4] The saying "Not in my back yard" may apply however it's going on in their backyard so why would it cease in ours?

The issue not only becomes fair wage, but the hiring practices of businesses as well. Dr. Paul has also publicly stated his opposition to affirmative action. Without practices in place to protect the hiring interests of minorities, how can we assure a level playing field? 

Violence Against Women Act:
In 2013, Congress sought to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 which included:

Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :

1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old. [5]

Dr. Paul voted "No" on the re-authorization of VAWA. When answering his constituents as to why he voted no, he elaborated that the act included; "legislation would increase benefits available under VAWA to specifically include victims of stalking and “cyberstalking,” as well as same-sex couples, and illegal immigrants who are victims of any sort of violence."

Paul's reasoning behind rejecting VAWA stems from the inclusion of gender non-conforming individuals as well as illegal immigrants. The very same people that he would represent, but do not advance his interests.

Same Sex Marriage:

Paul supports the CC survey question on banning same-sex marriage

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same sex marriage" [6]

Although Dr. Paul has agreed to leave the legislation of same sex marriage up to the states, he has been quoted as saying that same sex marriage “offends myself and a lot of people.” Which begs the question of the protection of the LGBT community. If Dr. Paul is unable to separate his personal feelings towards same sex marriage with the legality behind it, the lines of separation of church and state not only blur, they are erased.

Contraception

[During an appearance at the College of Charleston], a young woman in the audience asked if Paul, who sponsored an anti-abortion bill in 2013 that defines life as beginning at fertilization, is opposed to Plan B, the emergency contraception commonly known as the morning-after pill.
A number of social conservatives--plenty of them in Iowa--have condemned the morning-after pill as an on-demand abortion drug, sometimes confusing the contraceptive with RU-486, which can be used to induce abortion.
Noticeably uncomfortable with the question, Paul first gave a terse answer: "I am not opposed to birth control," he said. After a pause, he elaborated. "That's basically what Plan B is. Plan B is taking two birth control pills in the morning and two in the evening, and I am not opposed to that." [7]

Dr. Paul voted in support of an anti -abortion law proposed in 2013, that would propose an amendment to what defines "Personhood". If States were to adopt the re-vamped meaning of personhood, access to certain types of birth control such as IUD's would be limited or barred. Personhood measures would ensure that the law interprets life beginning at fertilization therefore deeming the fetus a full-fledged person. 

Abortion:
Attached is a questionnare filled out by Dr. Paul in 2010 when seeking the Senator seat for Kentucky:
Political Action Committee- May 18, 2010

Dr. Paul has made his stance on abortion very clear. Until recently, abortion under all circumstances was considered to be immoral and should be banned when describing himself as "100% pro-life". Since his survey in 2010, he has committed to the stance of leaving abortion to the doctors discretion in medically life threatening cases such as ectopic pregnancy.

Dr. Paul has stated that he would leave the discretion to the doctor, and also in the case of same sex marriage to the discretion of the state. However, in his 2010 survey, his specifically supports the removal of state and local tax funds to the "abortion industry", which would remove funding from all local clinics that provide abortion services. He instead would like to allocate funding to clinics that provide "abortion alternatives" and do not even discuss abortion as an option. Does that sound like freedom of choice or coercion? Local clinics do not only provide abortion services, but a wide range of necessary medical care that would then be denied due to the removal of funding.



Dr. Paul's identification with the libertarian party is misleading and should be a large concern on behalf of women. His platform specifically excludes any resolution to the current issues that women face. As a president, Paul's representation should broaden beyond the christian male, but instead is exclusive to those who are already at an advantage.