Ron Paul's unconstitutional votes

[ronpaulitician]

One particular vote in Paul's history that just doesn't make any sense to me is HR760.

Here's Paul's explanation for this particular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html):


Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.
Not only does Paul admit the bill is unconstitutional, and that it abuses the commerce clause, but he also realizes that the bill may not be in the best interest of his pro-life view.

Why did Paul vote for this bill? If he's willing to compromise his interpretation of the Constitution to save "innocent human life", why hasn't he proposed any bills that would save all human life, by banning abortion?

Are there other votes like this cast by Ron Paul that are inconsistent with his interpretation of the Constitution?

[KingTheoden]

One can make the argument that the bill was meant to make a statement because the courts would eventually overturn it, but in the meantime the law would raise awareness of what partial-birth abortion is so that states would criminalize it. Ron Paul has been purely consistent while in Congress; I have followed him for years and any deep study of his record shows how principled he is.

[TheConstitutionLives]

"why hasn't he proposed any bills that would save all human life, by banning abortion?"

- "Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."

Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring, "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the evangelicals' pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul's pro-life bill.)"

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070227.html

[ronpaulitician]

One can make the argument that the bill was meant to make a statement because the courts would eventually overturn it, but in the meantime the law would raise awareness of what partial-birth abortion is so that states would criminalize it.
Paul casts votes to make a statement, even if those votes are for unconstitutional bills?

[GreenApples]

why hasn't he proposed any bills that would save all human life, by banning abortion?

Because it should be a states issue. People on the local level should decide.

You shouldn't have a central government making a decision on a complicated issue like this that comes up with a one case fits all law. People are different in every state and they are the ones with the voice on how they want to live. I think he understands that very well.

[carla8478]

Do you have the session of congress or the vote number? All I found for HR 760 had to do with setting up National Heritage Areas across the United States, whatever those are.

[Original_Intent]

He introduced the Sanctity of Life act in 2005.

I think that it is clear that he voted for this bill solely to save innocent lives, and as you point out in his quote, he opposed much of the reasoning used in the bill and felt that it played into pro-choicers hands.

If you want more details as to why he did it, I believe you would have to get the answers from Dr. Paul himself, as anyone else saying would just be idle speculation.

Ron Paul also has a 0% rating from NARAL, indicating a 100% pro-life position.

[ronpaulitician]

- "Furthermore, unlike most Republicans, Paul's commitment to the life issue is more than rhetoric. For example, during the 2005 congressional session, Rep. Paul introduced H.R. 776, entitled the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005."
Thanks. That at least resolved part of the problem. (full text of Sanctity of Life Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-776)) However, this was introduced in 2005, whereas HR 760 was introduced in 2003. It also doesn't solve the fact that Paul knew HR 760 was unconstitutional, yet still voted for it. HR 776 does not appear to be unconstitutional (at first glance), so does seem like a proper way to handle the issue. (Not that I am in agreement with it.)

[ronpaulitician]

Do you have the session of congress or the vote number? All I found for HR 760 had to do with setting up National Heritage Areas across the United States, whatever those are.
Here you go. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:1:./temp/~c108ovQ2Js:e2787:)

[tnvoter]

I've heard him say, I believe he may have said it on fox's hannity interview- He believes in "Life, Liberty, "etc and that you can't have Liberty if you allow the first part: Life. Rights for the developing is constitutional in his opinion.

[ronpaulitician]

Because it should be a states issue. People on the local level should decide.

You shouldn't have a central government making a decision on a complicated issue like this that comes up with a one case fits all law. People are different in every state and they are the ones with the voice on how they want to live. I think he understands that very well.
Then why did he vote to allow the federal government to ban partial-birth abortions?

[GreenApples]

Here's Paul's explanation for this particular vote (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html):



You ask why he voted for the bill, but his explanation is right there. :confused:

He wants to save human life, he probably should of just voted against it, but I think that is the good Doctor coming out in him rather than the good Politician in him.

Instead of the Angel and Devil on each of his shoulders he has a Doctor and Founding Father.

Looks like the Doctor voice in his head got to him. :o Nobody is perfect. Even a champion makes a few mistakes.

[Harald]

I read the Ron Paul statement about it.
He said that he did it to compensate for the damage done by Roe v. Wade. [need to find the source]

Though I don't think that excuses him. As soon as you start finding exceptions to following the constitution there is no stopping.

I was disappointed by that vote, but not enough to stop supporting RP.

I was disappointed even more by the SCOTUS not overturning it on constitutional grounds.

The same people that overturned Gun Free School zones ban based on 'interstate commerce', found it possible to find that the same commerce clause allows banning partial birth abortions.

I really hope that this is an isolated incident.

[Brandybuck]

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it.
There's your answer right there.

An analogy: Murder is a states issue. But imagine the supreme court had ruled that murder is a federal issue, and that states could not ban it. Now a bill comes before congress to ban murder. What do you do? You vote for it!

[X_805]

I love how one of the few times he may vote unconstitutionally, it's for saving life (at least how he sees it I believe).

I truly do wonder what the founders of our nation would have said about abortion.

[ronpaulitician]

Looks like the Doctor voice in his head got to him. :o Nobody is perfect. Even a champion makes a few mistakes.
Agreed, but bills like this make it harder to defend him against critics who question his defense of the Constitution. I'd like to prepare myself for similar bills where Paul voted according to conscience instead of according to the Constitution.

[ronpaulitician]

I was disappointed by that vote, but not enough to stop supporting RP.
Same here. Just like the Founding Fathers were flawed human beings, I fully expect Ron Paul to be a flawed human beings.

I really hope that this is an isolated incident.
Me too. This particular vote was brought to my attention by someone who is not on board with Paul's views. He brought up Paul's votes against free trade agreements as well, but that's an empty argument, since free trade agreements are the antithesis to the concept of free trade. He also brought up the fact that Paul wants to deregulate substances he likes (marijuana) but wants to regulate substances he does not like. I haven't been able to find any votes by Ron Paul to regulate certain substances though.

[ronpaulitician]

I truly do wonder what the founders of our nation would have said about abortion.
I believe it's possible that they would've given the unborn more rights than slaves.

EDIT: That sounds a lot harsher than intended. It just means that I believe the Founding Fathers were as flawed as we are, and that I personally do not (yet?) believe that the unborn should have all the rights that the "born" have.

[Bob Cochran]

I've heard him say, I believe he may have said it on fox's hannity interview- He believes in "Life, Liberty, "etc and that you can't have Liberty if you allow the first part: Life. Rights for the developing is constitutional in his opinion.
Careful..."life, liberty..." come from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.

[Misesian]

Agreed, but bills like this make it harder to defend him against critics who question his defense of the Constitution. I'd like to prepare myself for similar bills where Paul voted according to conscience instead of according to the Constitution.

I agree, I was hoping to find some Constitutional reason that he voted for this bill rather than just saying it was to save lives.

It's hard to argue this one against the Ron Paul opponents who will hold this one on him as far as his strict adherence to the Constitution.

[DjLoTi]

Partial birth abortion...

You're pregnant for 9 months or so.. and as soon as it starts coming... you abort it. I mean... it's really not a cool thing to do. Just IMO..

[Seer]

It seems to me that the only way that Roe can be overturned is for the issue to go back to the court. This bill would bring it there (it did, but Roe remained the law). It's not good for states to challenge Roe, becuase that shifts the legal fees from the feds to the states, when it's flawed federal policy that caused the need in the first place.

As for Paul's bill to promote the sanctity of life, just because he introduces it doesn't mean he'd vote for it. When he gets requests in his home district for pork barrel he passes it along to another congressman to attach to bills and then votes against the legislation it gets attached to.

[Moneychanger]

Well, can we abort it if one of either party wasn't an American citizen? (i.e., an illegal)

Can we abort if it's within 48 hours (RU486)?

Can we abort if either party had a history of mental illness? (and it was highly likely that the child would inherit said illness)

Sorry, I'm with the woman's right to choose.

[angelatc]

We're never going to solve the abortion debate here. Some battles are best fought in other fields.

[ronpaulitician]

We're never going to solve the abortion debate here. Some battles are best fought in other fields.
Back to the OP :)

Are there any votes that Ron Paul has made, for which his explanation is hard to defend from a "constitutional" point of view?

[CJLauderdale4]

His final statement answers your question:

"Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life..."

He was thinking of all of the lives the law would save, even though the arguments for it were illogical. After all, he is an OB-GYN...

[ThePieSwindler]

Well, can we abort it if one of either party wasn't an American citizen? (i.e., an illegal)

Can we abort if it's within 48 hours (RU486)?

Can we abort if either party had a history of mental illness? (and it was highly likely that the child would inherit said illness)

Sorry, I'm with the woman's right to choose.

I know this isn't a discussion on abortion, but i have to respond to #3: isn't doing something like this essentially a form of eugenics? Supporting a woman's right to choose is one thing, but to out and out support aborting a baby because it might possibly be mentally ill? That is most certainly eugenics/selective reproduction, which is a very different arguement from abortion altogether. Now without getting all Reducto ad Hitlerum on me, i'm not arguing for or against eugenics (personally im against it, as are most people), im simply arguing that its a different debate altogether.

As far as the constitutionality of his vote, well, he stated himself its really a lesser of two evils type thing. Perhaps his vote slightly violates his principles in a vacuum, but not voting against partial birth abortion would be a vote against life, which the protection of is CERTAINLY constitutional. He could have simply abstained, but i think it means more to him than that.

[literatim]

Careful..."life, liberty..." come from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is still in effect, no State that has signed it has receded from it, and our Constitution is built ground up around it.

Abortion is also a violation of the 5th Amendment.


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Here (http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html) (scroll down) is partial-birth abortion.

[Moneychanger]

I know this isn't a discussion on abortion, but i have to respond to #3: isn't doing something like this essentially a form of eugenics? Supporting a woman's right to choose is one thing, but to out and out support aborting a baby because it might possibly be mentally ill? That is most certainly eugenics/selective reproduction, which is a very different arguement from abortion altogether. Now without getting all Reducto ad Hitlerum on me, i'm not arguing for or against eugenics (personally im against it, as are most people), im simply arguing that its a different debate altogether.

As far as the constitutionality of his vote, well, he stated himself its really a lesser of two evils type thing. Perhaps his vote slightly violates his principles in a vacuum, but not voting against partial birth abortion would be a vote against life, which the protection of is CERTAINLY constitutional. He could have simply abstained, but i think it means more to him than that.

You are right, PieSwindler, it can be and probably is a form of eugenics. In my scenario, I said "highly likely", you said "possibly" when refering to mental illness. 'Tis a slipery slope, I concur. That's why I stick to the parent's (woman's) choice ultimately in every scenario.

I just choose to not want to lock up women (and we all know it's really just going to be the carrier, not the co-instigater) for disposing of something in their body (personal property) that they decide they don't want to be responsible for anymore (or at least for eighteen more years.

I can let this one particular topic go. It does absolutely nothing to hinder my support for Ron Paul and/or this forum.

Thanks for the response.

[sandersondavis]

My view on this --
Ron Paul is not perfect, but he is pretty damn close.
I have no problem giving him a pass on this.

[austinphish]

IMO - Abortion is another huge liability for Paul. He is going to scare of so many single issue female Democrat voters. Democrats can be so narrow minded :-)

Please shape the abortion issue appropriately based on who you are talking to. I stand by that it should be a State's right and the Fed should stay out of it. I am pro-choice personally but I don't want to force that on anyone who is pro-life. Pro-lifers should do the same.

[Karmus]

Look, can you tell someone that they have to take care of someone else, and not only that, but they must suffer the consequences of that person's parasitism? Cause thats what this is about at its base. Taking away a person's right to choose is saying that they must be under the influence of a parasite, human or not, and it doesn't matter whether they want to or not. Why I respect Ron Paul is that because he has an opinion and it might not be mine, but he does not want to influence me with it, he will leave it up to me to vote upon it in my own state. This is true freedom. I'm Pro-Choice as you can tell, but regardless I will vote for Ron Paul, not because of his views on abortion, but because of his views on America. Ron Paul is the hope of this country, and I hope people are open enough to see this.

[ThePieSwindler]

Man alot of pro-choicers on this forum, eh?

Look, if he were pro-choice, he'd have no chance of the nomination at all. Giuliani might be a flip-flopper on the issue, but he is able to appeal to the neocons with his war rhetoric, so they don't look past to see his "conservative" flaws. But with paul already being anti-war, alot of the duped conservatives would see that he is also pro choice and would REALLY criticize him for being "in the wrong party". I

'm pro life, and i can give you just as many arguements that women should be responsible for their actions and not use abortion as a means of convenient birth control, and that abortion violates the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the human that the woman is carrying. But i won't convince any of you because your position is simply that the woman should have "reproductive rights" etc etc and spout the same rhetoric about "choice" and "freedom". Thats fine, and thats why debating abortion is seemingly so pointless because both sides never give in or concede any ground. Point is, we should be happy that Paul is a pro-life states rights kind of guy as opposed to a pro-choice states rights kind of guy, or else he'd stand far less of a chance of getting a republican nomination. As he is now, he has the tools to be a convincing candidate to any conservative christian who might really open up an listen. If he were pro-choice etc, that wouldnt be the case. My parents are seriously considering him now because he is a consistent-life ethic supporter, pro 2nd amendment, socially conservative candidate, and i'm sure its the same with many honest, true conservatives. The important thing that appeals to all is his is state's rights stance. If you really see being pro-life as a liability in terms of his electability, then you really do think he is in the wrong party. If you are conceding that we need the votes of progressive "this is my body, i can do what i want" types of female voters for paul to stand a chance, we are already mailing it in.

[Misesian]

The Declaration of Independence is still in effect, no State that has signed it has receded from it, and our Constitution is built ground up around it.

Abortion is also a violation of the 5th Amendment.

Here (http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html) (scroll down) is partial-birth abortion.

literatim,

I thought about this one too (closest Constitutional loophole I've seen posted here yet though! :D) except that this applies to governments. Shall not be denied.......without due process of law.

I don't believe this applies to one individual murdering another which is in the case of abortion except when it's funded by government of course.

Maybe one of us should call the Paul campaign and ask how to defend this one.

There are also some bills that would not be authorized by the Constitution, but his name is on them as a cosponsor. How would this also be explained?

[cowbot]

For the record. Offspring != Parasite

On to my constructive...

We have to get the message out about why limited constitutional government and rule of law are the most important issues.

Debating edge-cases consumes time and energy that could be better spent.

[Original_Intent]

For the record. Offspring != Parasite

On to my constructive...

We have to get the message out about why limited constitutional government and rule of law are the most important issues.

Debating edge-cases consumes time and energy that could be better spent.

So why dig this up when it hasn't been commented on in 3 weeks?

[ThePieSwindler]

So why dig this up when it hasn't been commented on in 3 weeks?

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/392/necro9shrn0.th.jpg (http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?image=necro9shrn0.jpg)

[JS4Pat]

Please shape the abortion issue appropriately based on who you are talking to. I stand by that it should be a State's right and the Fed should stay out of it. I am pro-choice personally but I don't want to force that on anyone who is pro-life. Pro-lifers should do the same.
I am passionatley Pro-Life and respect the hell out of Ron Paul's position on this issue - but I will do just as you suggested...

I stand by the notion that it should be a State's right and the Fed should stay out of it. I am Pro-Life personally but I don't want the Federal Government to force that on anyone who is Pro-Choice.

Man - I am so encouraged by this thread and the number of Pro-Choicers willing to give RP a pass. That has to be a testament to the strength of his candidacy - No one else in politics gets a "pass" on the issue of abortion. :)

[klamath]

Guys the constitution had one horrible little flaw buried in the census part. It said Negroes would be counted as 1/2 person. This lead to the fracture of the country and was in direct contradiction to the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This tiny little line ensured the slavery of millions of people and ended up killing 1,000,000 Americans. People make mistakes even the founding fathers. Paul’s vote for abortion restriction seems like a pretty small thing compared to this mistake of the founding fathers.

[ronpaulitician]

Paul’s vote for abortion restriction seems like a pretty small thing compared to this mistake of the founding fathers.
True, but the Founding Fathers aren't running in this election and won't have to face the scrutiny of Guiliani's attack dogs. Paul will have to show potential voters that he is not only the most principled but also the most consistent candidate out there. I personally find that, when discussing an issue with intellectually honest people, it is better to admit the few flaws in one's position than to try and defend the indefensible. It helps to be prepared, because only then will one be able to turn this admission into an argument in defense of one's position. "Yes, there may be a few votes in Ron Paul's history that don't completely gell with his stated interpretation of the Constitution. He's human, after all, just like the Founding Fathers were."

[Original_Intent]

Guys the constitution had one horrible little flaw buried in the census part. It said Negroes would be counted as 1/2 person. This lead to the fracture of the country and was in direct contradiction to the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This tiny little line ensured the slavery of millions of people and ended up killing 1,000,000 Americans. People make mistakes even the founding fathers. Paul’s vote for abortion restriction seems like a pretty small thing compared to this mistake of the founding fathers.

Actually it was 3/5 of a person.

And actually the slave states wanted them counted as a full person - it wasn't like they were going to be able to vote, but they wanted them counted as a full person so slave states could have more votes in Congress.

Yes it is counter intuitive, but it wasn't to demean black people, it was to keep the "slave states" from having too much power in the government.

Saying this tiny little line ensured the slavery of millions is totally inaccurate. It had nothing to do with whether Negroes would be free or not, it was not a comment on their value as human beings.

[klamath]

True, but the Founding Fathers aren't running in this election and won't have to face the scrutiny of Guiliani's attack dogs. Paul will have to show potential voters that he is not only the most principled but also the most consistent candidate out there. I personally find that, when discussing an issue with intellectually honest people, it is better to admit the few flaws in one's position than to try and defend the indefensible. It helps to be prepared, because only then will one be able to turn this admission into an argument in defense of one's position. "Yes, there may be a few votes in Ron Paul's history that don't completely gell with his stated interpretation of the Constitution. He's human, after all, just like the Founding Fathers were."

I agree.

[klamath]

"Actually it was 3/5 of a person."

I stand corrected.



"And actually the slave states wanted them counted as a full person - it wasn't like they were going to be able to vote, but they wanted them counted as a full person so slave states could have more votes in Congress."

Absolutely right.

"Yes it is counter intuitive, but it wasn't to demean black people, it was to keep the "slave states" from having too much power in the government."

My Point is that it put it in the document acknowledging that they were compromising this clause of the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Saying this tiny little line ensured the slavery of millions is totally inaccurate. It had nothing to do with whether Negroes would be free or not, it was not a comment on their value as human beings."

It was a compromise that let the hypocrisy stand. I think that it would have been preferable had they forced the issue at that time. It might have split the country but in the end I think that it would have come together again as all free states. The way it allowed the fracture of the mason Dixon line to continue westward set the stage for the civil war. Unfortunately as a by-product of that conflict we became "The United States" instead of "These United States".

[BarryDonegan]

pro choice and constitutionalism are not related philosophies. you have to prioritize one over the other. most constitutionalist thinkers feel that this is a state decision primarily because when it comes to government authorized euthanasia, (such as capital punishment) doing this at a federal level could set common law precedent, that may in the distant future authorize other forms of unwilling euthanasia, such as that of elders, or that of the mentally handicapped.

when the federal government defines for us the limits of violent crime, and its punishment, it oversteps its bounds. It is there to protect the civil liberties of the individual. Women do not perform legal abortions on themselves, so their right to abort babies is not inherit in the constitution. They are an act performed by doctors on behalf of women, this is a medical right for doctors, not a physical right for women.

Federal meddling in abortion can be looked at in many ways, however looking at it as infringing on the inherit rights of a woman, or entering into her body and making changes, is intellectually rediculous thinking. obviously a doctor is needed for this type of procedure, making it not a physical right for the woman to be protected by the constitution. however if a state or local government's community standard wants this the government should get out of their way and let the doctors perform the type of health care the community desires.

[Roxi]

Then why did he vote to allow the federal government to ban partial-birth abortions?

I would hope that whether you were pro choice or pro life, you would still support a ban on partial birth abortions....even if only on a state level
have you ever seen one of these procedures done? (i suggest you do)

[literatim]

I am passionatley Pro-Life and respect the hell out of Ron Paul's position on this issue - but I will do just as you suggested...

I stand by the notion that it should be a State's right and the Fed should stay out of it. I am Pro-Life personally but I don't want the Federal Government to force that on anyone who is Pro-Choice.

Man - I am so encouraged by this thread and the number of Pro-Choicers willing to give RP a pass. That has to be a testament to the strength of his candidacy - No one else in politics gets a "pass" on the issue of abortion. :)

I beg to differ. I believe it is well within federal mandate to protect life. By that I mean it is well within federal mandate to force the States to follow the Constitution and thus by proxy force the protection of the unborn.


I would hope that whether you were pro choice or pro life, you would still support a ban on partial birth abortions....even if only on a state level
have you ever seen one of these procedures done? (i suggest you do)


For those who want to see drawings of the procedure click here (http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html) (scroll down).

[LinuxUser269]

If i make one simple point........He is a doctor he has taken an oath to protect human life.

[damijin]

I'm a pro choice baby murderer, and even I support partial birth bans. That shit is upfucked.

[Rabbit]

I beg to differ. I believe it is well within federal mandate to protect life. By that I mean it is well within federal mandate to force the States to follow the Constitution and thus by proxy force the protection of the unborn.


Your argument fails because the Constitution provides for the protection of born individuals only..

[literatim]

Your argument fails because the Constitution provides for the protection of born individuals only..

Oh yeah? Where does it state that?

[Kuldebar]

I beg to differ. I believe it is well within federal mandate to protect life. By that I mean it is well within federal mandate to force the States to follow the Constitution and thus by proxy force the protection of the unborn.


The federal government isn't a crime fighter. Not, it's job. Murder isn't a federal crime, never has been.

In recent years there has been a ploy to call murder a civil rights violation....but that's what happens when people want to grow a central government into places it doesn't belong.