In her short legislative career, State Representative Kim Pearson has made a name for herself by blocking a late term abortion bill that a majority in the pro-life community desperately wants to see passed. Pearson argued that the measure to prevent a well known late-term abortionist from opening a practice in the state did nothing to protect innocent life. She believed that the bill gave tacit permission to kill babies before the 20th week of pregnancy.
Even before her first term began, the freshman legislator made headlines when she suggested that the Iowa Supreme Court Justices who remained following November’s retention elections should be impeached. Pearson, who ultimately did file articles of impeachment against the four remaining judges, did so base entirely on the court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien, the case that struck down Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act.
Yesterday, Pearson announced that she was supporting Congressman Ron Paul for president, a move that undermines many of the positions she has taken during her first year in office. While Pearson wanted to impeach the justices for their decision in the Varnum case, Congressman Paul has said that the judges had every right to rule as they did on the case.
In March, when a reporter asked Paul if the Iowa Supreme Court had the right to rule the way it did in the Varnum case, Paul said, “I defend that constitutionally.” When the reporter clarified his question and asked a follow up, Paul added, “Oh yeah, oh sure, every state has that right.” When another reporter asked Paul about his position on the issue of gay marriage Paul stated, “It’s a personal, spiritual matter and individuals should make that determination.”
Pearson is also at odds with Paul on the issue of abortion. As mentioned above, Pearson blocked a bill that would have prevented late-term abortions in Iowa after the 20th week of pregnancy. Paul, on the other hand, somewhat reluctantly supported the late term abortion ban in Congress.
Paul and Person are on the same page on how to handle the issue, but the difference lies in how they apply their standard when it comes time to vote. Pearson blocked and voted against the effort to pass pro-life legislation, while Paul supported it. In a speech on the floor of the House, Paul said that he “he decided to err on the side of life.” Pearson did not.
Paul also has a number of other positions that would normally turn off a social conservative. Paul voted against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He believes that states can legalize gay marriage if they so choose. He even supports a state’s right to legalize prostitution, as well as drugs like marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
Pearson isn’t the only one of the three controversial freshmen who fought against the late term abortion bill, called for the impeachment of four Iowa Supreme Court Justices, and now supports a candidate who seems diametrically opposed to those positions. Last week, Rep. Glen Massie also endorsed Paul’s campaign.
Like Paul, Pearson and Massie both claim that they want to strictly adhere to the Constitution. However, when it comes to the social issues that they both have focused on throughout their first term, Paul’s record stands in opposition to everything they have fought for.
Paul on Iowa Supreme Court Ruling
Paul on other social issues during 2012 Fox News Debate
Photo by Dave Davidson
blog comments powered by Disqus