The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

[phactor]

well, it would be show for the most part. ultimately the cts get the final say on what is a fundamental right under the due process clause of the 14th. no matter what congress says, the court could always overturn (assuming there is standing to challenge the law, which is a whole other can of worms that isnt really relevant right here).

Also, from what I've read this would limit the courts power on overturning the bill (The Sanctity of Life Act), Thats what the pro-lifers like about it.

What I get is that "life begins at conception" grants the fetus 14th admendment rights, which includes a right to life. Later the same bill reduces the powers that the courts have when overturning the decision.

Here's something I found at "Students for Life of America" obviously a pro-life student group. This is in response to Ron Paul's bill.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul is the most pro-life candidate. He introduced HR 2597 The Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 on June 6, 2007: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2597

What does HR 2597 do? It does everything the pro-life movement is working towards.
o It establishes legal personhood for preborn children from the moment of conception under the 14th Amendment.
o It tells each state they have the authority to set the penalty for abortion though without “exceptions” since it applies legal personhood at conception.
o It tells federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, that they can no longer take up abortion-related cases.
o It tells state and federal courts that they’re no longer bound by any abortion-related federal court ruling, including Roe v Wade.
o The Sanctity of Life Act is basically The Right to Life Act (which establishes legal personhood at conception) plus The Pledge Protection Act (which passed the U.S. House last session and told the US Supreme Court not to take up any pledge of allegiance cases).

So, when HR 2597 The Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 passes, it won’t matter if we have a majority of pro-abortion justices. It means little when other candidates say they’ll appoint strict constructionist (i.e. pro-life) judges, since Congress can ban abortion regardless of how many pro-abortion justices there are on the U.S. Supreme Court. We don’t need to wait for anymore pro-life justices.

http://207.210.78.162/wp/2007/07/23/ron-paul-takes-a-stand-for-life/



Also from what i've read it limits the Supreme court and other courts from over turning the bill.

Sorry I'm just trying to understand this better.

We need a lawyer or 3 in this thread.

 

[Coolio]

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Bible

What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?

Absolutely nothing! The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:
- Ex 21:22-25:
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth ...

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

Desperate for a biblical basis for their beliefs, some antiabortionists cite obscure passages, usually metaphors or poetic phrasing, such as:
- Psalm 51:5:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is sexist, but does nothing other than to invoke original sin. It says nothing about abortion.

The Commandments, Moses, Jesus and Paul ignored every chance to condemn abortion. If abortion was an important concern, why didn't the bible say so?


Does God Kill Babies?
- Psalm 137:9:

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Far from demonstrating a "pro-life" attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage, starting with the flood and the wanton destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, progressing to the murder of the firstborn child of every household in Egypt (Ex. 12:29), and the New Testament threats of annihilation.

Space permits only a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:

* Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
* Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
* Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
* I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
* 2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
* 2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
* Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
* Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
* Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
* Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
* Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
* Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Then there are the dire warnings of Jesus in the New Testament:
- Luke 23:29:

For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a "scriptural base" for their claim that their deity is "pro-life." Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate, with one medical study finding a spontaneous abortion rate of almost 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history!

 

[continuousbeing2]

^^^

Yes its very helpful. Are you a lawyer or in law school?

I'm just wondering why some many efforts have been made to extend the 14th admend. to include the fetus. These type of bills are always coming from pro-lifers. If the constitution says a person has a right to life and this is extended to a fetus I would assume that it would have the same rights as a person at least in the constitution. Wouldn't this allow the fetus to be protected by a state or the federal government?

In this article (focusing on a similar bill)

"The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution has scheduled a Dec. 12 hearing on a bill (HR 522) -- sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) -- that would extend the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" guarantee to include a "right to life" for "each born and preborn human person""

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/58467.php

To me it appears that this bill intends to prevent abortion by extending the 14th admen to the fetus. Am I reading that wrong? How wouldn't declaring a "life" as occuring at the moment of conception not grant it the rights of the 14th?

Anyways I need to try to go to bed.

yeah, i am a law student. as for the bill, like i said above, it is ultimately up to the courts to determine what does and does not fall with in the ambit of the 14th amendment. congress does not make that determination.

also, i am unsure of what it would mean to have a fetus fall under the equal protection clause. equal protection deals with having equality across people. it doesnt force nor prevent the government from doing something to all classes, it just says you cannot discriminate against classes (a very very broad explanation). for example, the most important fundamental right under EP is voting. the government cannot allow white people to vote and not black people. that is an equal protection violation. theoretically, and voting is not the best example here so lets use public education, the government could say no public education for anyone and it would not be an equal protection violation.

as far as what a "right to life for each born and preborn citizen" means, it sounds to me like rhetoric. ultimately, constitutional rights are not absolute. defining a fetus as a person and saying they have a right to life does not mean that there is no way for abortion to be legal. it just means that any law restricting the right is subject to a higher level of constitutional scrutiny. this means that the stated ends of the legislature must be compelling and the means used to reach them must be narrowly tailored and necessary. there is a still a chance that, even if the courts accepted a fetus as a person within the meaning of the 14th, that it would not prevent all abortion. think about the death penalty. that woud infringe an absolute right to life, but it is allowed.

in response to your next question, about limiting the jurisdiction of the courts to hear a certain kind of case. yes, congress does have the power to determine the courts jurisdiction. it is one of the enumerated powers. but, if congress goes too far with it they are looking at a separation of powers violation which gives grounds to strike down the limit. its called court stripping. and, no matter what, a court ALWAYS has the power to decide its own jurisdiction. even if congress completely removed jurisdiction, the court can still decide if its jurisdiction is limited. its kind of counter intuitive, but its just a further part of the checks and balances. just because congress says the courts cant do something doesn't mean they are right.

 

[bingalpaws]

Ummm have you not noticed the federal government swooping in and arresting medical marijuana users in Cali? Its bullshit but it happens. California can't legally say "Hey Feddies, you can't do that!"

well said.

now for the people who just don't feel 100% sure about the way they're reading these laws/acts, can someone clearly say why:
- if states allow med mj, but fed does not, and fed still comes and arrests,

yet
- ron paul says states will have their own abortion decisions,

however,
- ron paul wants a federal amendment that would effectively say (enforcement, however, is important too, though just the addition of it seems pointless w/o plans to enforce) a fetus is a human at the moment of conception


Ultra bolded question #1:
What ultra solid proof is there that I should be 100% comfortable (from a pro-choicer p.o.v.) that my right (well I'm a guy, you know what I mean) for abortions will remain?

after hearing a solid, super mega convincing answer to ultra bolded question #1, I've got super red bolded question #2:
: Why then, if the states have full decision powers, is there a SHRED of need to drop in that little fact (of his opinion) that life begins at conception!?





The lack of straight answers to these sucks because up til yesterday I hadn't really seen a flaw except that I *knew* he disagreed with me on this issue, however I didn't think he'd do anything about it.

 

[mulberryman]

^^ It would seem that he's trying to have it all, trying to say abortion should be banned but by the feds but allowed by the states. Under this type of system, doctors providing abortions would become very expensive and would most likely operate on a personal house-call basis, indeed very similar to California and other states' prescription cannabis programs. The big problem here is that the people who most need to have access to abortion procedures, such as those that live in impoverished overpopulated areas, would no longer have access to them, while the wealthy wouild, as usual, be above the law.

 

[mulberryman]

Banning abortion would also further the healthcare crisis in this country. People think of 'healthcare crisis' as people not having access to medical care, but its actually that hospitals cannot afford to operate, especially in those same impoverished and overpopulated areas where abortion rates are highest. Abortions will still occur wethter legal or not, just as sure as I may have took a couple puffs off a friends joint this morning. Even professional 'house-call abortions' would greatly increase the risk of subsequent infection, landing more poor people in ER's that will likely never be compensated for their services, as people will get medical care, even if they can't afford it, one way or another. The keyword is necessity. The human natural individual instinct to survive is always more likely to supercede any feelings of social responsibilities. This is also why 'volunteer medicaid' is doomed to fail as well, since, except in well-to-do areas, there will never be enough volunteers, and people will simply have to recieve medical attention on an emergency basis only. Not a one single political issue of our time can be seen as in a vacuum, everything is interconnected. If people only get medical attention in ER's, and then can't pay for it, the hospitals close, the people now trave greater distances to suburban hospitals, crme rates increase, abortion rates increase, the most trouble cities get larger, both in population and area, air polution, dependence on foreign oil, federal and state defecits, all increase under "conservative" leadership. Have the last 8 years taught us nothing? There's a thousands solid reasons for a progressive political outlook, not the least of which is ensuring the survival of the human race.

 

[Blacksoulman]

once again you are not distinguishing enforcement vs. definition.

Punishment and enforcement is left up to the state if it occurred within state boundaries.

The feds have a federal penalty for marijuana. This is why the fed overrides state marijuana enforcement. The feds do not have a federal penalty for murder within the state and no federal juristiction.

Can you provide a case where the Fed took over a state murder?

 

[mulberryman]

^^ I'm sure there must be numerous cases involving serial killers one could provide as examples. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be inclined to think an FBI agent would have all the jurisdiction he or she'd need to nab a murderer.

 

[bingalpaws]

once again you are not distinguishing enforcement vs. definition.

Punishment and enforcement is left up to the state if it occurred within state boundaries.

The feds have a federal penalty for marijuana. This is why the fed overrides state marijuana enforcement. The feds do not have a federal penalty for murder within the state and no federal juristiction.

Can you provide a case where the Fed took over a state murder?

that still doesn't even touch upon why he wants to have a federal definition of life at conception

 

[bingalpaws]

^^ I'm sure there must be numerous cases involving serial killers one could provide as examples. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be inclined to think an FBI agent would have all the jurisdiction he or she'd need to nab a murderer.

that's exactly what I'd assume, but I'm not lawyer, so I'm just gonna stick to the main point - why on earth distinguish a definition for life beginning at conception if there's no point to a federal definition?

 

[foodisgood]

Well that would be the million dollar question of why go through all this trouble. Hoonestly there is no way for any of us to know his actual intentions and why this piece of legislature exists.

 

[mulberryman]

^^ For show most likely. Doesn't he represent a largely "pro-life" constituency? Having such an active voting record is part of the reason why members of congress often make poor candidates for president. Just look at all the flack Hillary gets for voting for giving the president authority against Iraq, and now against Iran too, more recently.

 

[Blacksoulman]

The feds can only intervene in a murder under certain conditions as defined by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#United_States

The example of serial killings would only become federal if they occurred accross state boundaries.

The human life definition is an attempt to persuade the state to deal with abortion as they do murder with out forcing them to do so. It is a biased definition that could persuade some states to go down that path. If you think your state would never do such a thing, you have nothing to worry about. If your state is easily influenced by federal government or has a majority of prolifers, then move to a different state.

 

[bingalpaws]

again, not a lawyer, but I don't see how a doctor performing abortions in two different states would fail to meet serial killer criteria then.

 

[bingalpaws]

furthermore, if federal defines life at conception and states choose to ignore that, will they face other retribution? Reduced funds for things and whatnot? Didn't that happen to certain states that wouldn't adopt some lower bac% for drunk driving, they were threatened to have highway funds pulled? So could this easily end up just becoming "fine, you can choose to do them, but you'll get so little funding that, in reality, you really can't make that choice and have it be best for your state"?

And, if we do agree it's 'just for show', then he's still trying to mislead one camp. If he's saying states can choose he's pandering to pro-choicers, and putting that definition in is for pro-lifers. That's still not a very flattering situation lol.

 

[phactor]

Well we are never going to agree on this, so I'm just going to drop it. I had my father who is an attorney look at the wording of the bill and he confirmed what I have been saying.

For other examples of similar bills look at:

The Smith Bill
The Fetal Pain Bill
The Right to Life Bill

all attempt to extend the 14th admen rights to the fetus.

Bingalpaws really asks the correct question though. Why would a state's rights candidate try to act on the federal level?

I mean this guy disapproved of federal funding of Katrina relief, yet he's willing to do this?

 

[phactor]

And, if we do agree it's 'just for show', then he's still trying to mislead one camp. If he's saying states can choose he's pandering to pro-choicers, and putting that definition in is for pro-lifers. That's still not a very flattering situation lol.

Well he is a politician, also he knows many libertarians are pro-choice as well.
:D

Anyways I'm pretty sick of Ron Paul at this point

 

[Blacksoulman]

Bingalpaws really asks the correct question though. Why would a state's rights candidate try to act on the federal level?

I mean this guy disapproved of federal funding of Katrina relief, yet he's willing to do this?'

The Act removes Federal funding for abortion just as he disapproves of federal funding for other federal programs like FEMA. Even if they extend 14th amendment rights, what is the federal government going to do about it? They have no penalty for state murders. Only when murder becomes federal. This act makes it not federal.

"I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence... All acts of violence under our Constitution are dealt with at the local level... The more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues... I believe strongly this should be at the local level...I am absolutely against the federal government funding abortion."
-Ron Paul


and yes, he is pandering to pro-lifers, but he sets a limit on his own beliefs unlike the other candidates.

 

[phactor]

Dude I've said what I needed to say. We aren't going to convince each other.

As Bingalpaws pointed out even if it is true what you are saying (which I don't believe it is) there is nothing to prevent him from using federal powers if need be. Case in point, Bush's intervention in California.

I don't trust a man who believes that abortion is a sin against god wouldn't do this. No matter what he says. He's in an election right now and is trying to gain support.

Even so he doesn't have a chance, his ideas are just way to radical conservative for this country.

 

[mulberryman]

Does the federal gov't actually fund abortions? I really doubt this...