Clarification on Sanctity of Life Act

[Throwback280s]

I am a huge proponent of Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. I think it'll be a key measure to help bring the evangelical base to our side as well. However, I've heard some conflicting analysis of what this bill would do. Most people seem to say it simply renders court jurisdiction null and kicks it back to the states for them to ban it or not.

However, the bill actually defines human life from a federal level. It says "Human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" and "the term 'person' shall include all such human life." With this portion understood, doesn't that mean the state governments wouldn't be deciding on whether to keep abortion on demand legal; rather, the states would be deciding what kind of punishment to enact for murdering a federally-defined unborn person.

That's the gist I and others have gotten from it. I think if this is actually the proper analysis of what this bill would do, Ron Paul is without a shadow of the doubt the greatest Pro-Life champion running for president. And it'll ignite the evangelical base if they are educated on this.

Below is the summary of the Sanctity of Life Act, 2007:



Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .

Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

[0zzy]

I've heard pro-choice against this cause it'd "ban abortion altogether"
I've heard pro-life against this cause it'd "only leave it up to the states, and the constitution already supports life."

[Throwback280s]

Im thinking its closer to the former.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I am a huge proponent of Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. I think it'll be a key measure to help bring the evangelical base to our side as well. However, I've heard some conflicting analysis of what this bill would do. Most people seem to say it simply renders court jurisdiction null and kicks it back to the states for them to ban it or not.

However, the bill actually defines human life from a federal level. It says "Human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" and "the term 'person' shall include all such human life." With this portion understood, doesn't that mean the state governments wouldn't be deciding on whether to keep abortion on demand legal; rather, the states would be deciding what kind of punishment to enact for murdering a federally-defined unborn person.

That's the gist I and others have gotten from it. I think if this is actually the proper analysis of what this bill would do, Ron Paul is without a shadow of the doubt the greatest Pro-Life champion running for president. And it'll ignite the evangelical base if they are educated on this.

Below is the summary of the Sanctity of Life Act, 2007:

how can you define life without a Constitutional amendment?

[foofighter20x]

You've missed the point of the scope of the bill.

While it declares that human life exists from the moment of conception, that's only going to be applicable to federally owned and administered areas of the country and to how the court makes determinations on cases that come before it.

I'm pretty darn sure that he's got it in that bill that the States will be able to determine their own abortion laws and that the jurisdiction of the federal courts will be prohibited from reviewing those cases arising under those state laws unless a strictly U.S. Constitutional basis can be found to contest them.

[foofighter20x]

Also, the findings of Congress in that bill do not become law were it to pass.

What would be law is whatever lines have a ` before them.

[CMoore]

Ron Paul said at one point that abortion is a very personal matter and is so personal that it should be decided at a very local level. That shows some sensitivity on his part toward the question. If you have a one-size-fits-all approach to abortion and if that approach is to label it "murder" without regard to the circumstances, then you will have situations where 13 year olds will have to bear the child of their mother's boyfriend, or their step-father, or their uncle, or some other predatory male. A woman would be forced to carry to term the child of her rapist, or a woman would be forced to carry to term a pregnancy which could kill her. Pregnancy and childbirth are still among the leading killers of women of childbearing age. Women actually die having children even in 2007. Why are there people out there who insist on putting the life of the fetus above that of the mother? I know Dr. Paul is opposed to aborting a fetus that is close to full term, but I get the sense that he is a little more flexible regarding early term pregnancies. However the rabid anti-abortion folks would part company with him there, I think.

[Ron Paul Fan]

So basically it's like the DoMA and the MPA all rolled into one, except for abortion and not gay marriage. Dr. Paul was for both of those and he's for this. Stop the tyranny of activist judges! Overturn Roe v. Wade! How can you protect liberty if you can't protect life?

[Throwback280s]

To me it's very clear. The law says life shall begin at conception. And the nation is to deem that the unborn are considered "persons" under the law. This pretty much puts a congressional mandate/precedent for all the states to ban or at least severely limit abortion on demand.

And Ron Paul is not just against late term abortions. He's against killing any unborn which he has said begins at conception. I think it has to do with his philosophic belief in human duality: that we have both a physical body and a soul that begin at conception.

I think this is a fantastic opportunity for Paul to defeat Guiliani and Thompson if this is the case.


BTW, for the case of rape and incest, that only amounts to 1% of all abortion cases. So it's more of a scare tactic to employ to keep abortion on demand going. I understand the concern for the raped and incest. But what does that tell individuals born of rape and incest? That they are somehow subhuman to the point where other children cannot be killed but they can? That seems absolutely terrible to put so many human beings into that situation.

[CodeMonkey]

To me it's very clear. The law says life shall begin at conception. And the nation is to deem that the unborn are considered "persons" under the law. This pretty much puts a congressional mandate/precedent for all the states to ban or at least severely limit abortion on demand.

The States are responsible for their own murder laws though, except for places like D.C. which get their local law from Congress. This kind of finding by Congress would have no effect on state & local laws around the country, except that if I understand it correctly it would overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to enforce their own laws.

[Delivered4000]

Defining life to start at conception at the federal level is too much IMO, especially for a libertarian

[CodeMonkey]

Defining life to start at conception at the federal level is too much IMO, especially for a libertarian

It is unquestionable that life begins at conception. The fetus is alive as much as the plants in my garden are. Doesn't mean I should be charged with murder when I change my landscaping. The question is whether that form of life has legal rights, and that absolutely needs to be defined at any level that creates and enforces laws, or else we end up with double standards like we have now. However, the definition at each level can only apply to laws at that level.

[Delivered4000]

It is unquestionable that life begins at conception. The fetus is alive as much as the plants in my garden are. Doesn't mean I should be charged with murder when I change my landscaping. The question is whether that form of life has legal rights, and that absolutely needs to be defined at any level that creates and enforces laws, or else we end up with double standards like we have now. However, the definition at each level can only apply to laws at that level.
I guess I thought it meant that it should have legal rights at conception. You're right though.

[CMoore]

And you guys wonder why Ron Paul's support is largely male.... Look around at the crowds and the meetup groups. You see mostly males. I am a woman and I support him, but if you expect him to get elected, he is going to have to get SOME votes from women. What woman wants to see her life behind the 8 ball? Who knows when she might just be one of those 1%? No woman of childbearing years can really afford to support someone who is not at least flexible on abortion, and no such person has ever been elected to the presidency.