Sanctity of Life bill

[scbissler]

I was on the verge of converting 2 hardcore Dems until they found out about this bill sponsored by RP. They are both pro-choice but understood the arguments behind letting states decide. Then they ran across this and said they could never vote for him, he's trying to ban abortion for the country. I must say that at first glance I thought the same thing, but I read the bill and to me it seems that all it would do is throw the issue back to the states, disallow courts to overturn any state bans, and not allow any federal funding. Is this correct? I hope so. But the idea of a federal proclamation of life beginning at conception (even though I feel this is true) doesn't sit well with those who are pro-choice (and frankly, not with me either). Any thoughts.

[JoshLowry]

Yes, Dr. Paul believes these kind of issues should be decided on the state level. Not by a central government that passed one size fits all laws.

[scbissler]

Yes. That is what I believed and that is what I have been telling folks, but the wording of the Sanctity of Life bill - "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" sounds like an attempt to move towards a federal ban on abortion, and a little scary to pro-choice people who are on the RP fence. It sounds Federal, and in disagreement with the idea of letting states decide.

[purepaloma]

It amazes how politics and be whiddled down to this topic. Important, yes...but I believe there are greater issues at hand currently.

[scbissler]

It amazes how politics and be whiddled down to this topic. Important, yes...but I believe there are greater issues at hand currently.

Yes. I completely agree. Much greater issues. But many folks are hung up on this issue. I have had good success getting Dems interested in RP with the idea of states deciding - actually both sides can see the merit of this approach. The problem is that the Sanctity of Life bill, at least on its face, seems disengenuous. Although it doesn't ban abortions, it does seem to open the door for a federal ban. Am I reading it wrong? How can I soothe the worries of folks to whom this really matters?

[Shmuel Spade]

The bill is not the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment, it would probably just state the position of the federal government on the issue as supported by new scientific findings. The authority for the decision would go back to the states, and leave federal appellate courts to decide things that the federal government is authorized to decide under the Constitution.

For strong pro-lifers (like myself) this is a compromise, but anything short of an Amendment analogous to Amendment XIII applied to abortion is a compromise. For pro-choicers this takes away the apprehension that they feel toward the possibility that the strong pro-life solution may come to pass with a changing of the SCOTUS composition.

Probably for the best.

[scbissler]

... For pro-choicers this takes away the apprehension that they feel toward the possibility that the strong pro-life solution may come to pass with a changing of the SCOTUS composition.

Probably for the best.

That was true for these particular fencesetters when they thought that although RP is pro-life, he believed the states should have jurisdiction. But when they found this bill, red flags went up. Has anyone else had trouble explaining how the Sanctity of Life bill meshes with returning the issue to the states?? From my reading it does seem to open the possibility of a federal ban - it doen't forbid it like it does forbid federal overturns of state bans. That is my question here.

[Shmuel Spade]

That was true for these particular fencesetters when they thought that although RP is pro-life, he believed the states should have jurisdiction. But when they found this bill, red flags went up. Has anyone else had trouble explaining how the Sanctity of Life bill meshes with returning the issue to the states?? From my reading it does seem to open the possibility of a federal ban - it doen't forbid it like it does forbid federal overturns of state bans. That is my question here.

Read Section 2 (b) (2), along with Sections 3 and 4. Those are the limits on the feds regarding the issue. Crimes (like murder, theft, rape) are prosecuted within state jurisdictions, not by the feds.

[cowbot]

Read Section 2 (b) (2), along with Sections 3 and 4. Those are the limits on the feds regarding the issue. Crimes (like murder, theft, rape) are prosecuted within state jurisdictions, not by the feds.

Public Statements
Speaker: Representative Ronald Ernest 'Ron' Paul (TX)
Title: Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act
Date: 2007-06-06
Location: Washington, DC
Speech

INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT -- (Extensions of Remarks - June 06, 2007)

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=292533&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

[cowbot]

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
HR 2597 IH

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:

From what i can see, it basically consists of two parts; 1) Defining life as beginning from conception and 2) Removing from the Federal courts jurisdiction to rule on legality of abortions.

Now, anyone who has studied medicine or biology knows that the dna of the fertilized egg is unique shortly after conception. It is not simply tissue but is the beginning of a unique human being.

So defining life as beginning from conception thus is quite defensible, but this doesn't mean the bill declares the fertilized egg to have the rights of a human. The states can still legislate on what point in development the embryo/fetus is granted the rights of an individual (i.e. the right to life). Note that the second part of this bill specifically enforces that right of the states by denying the supreme court jurisdiction to rule on it.

I am not a lawyer, so this is just my reading of things. The legal meat of the bill lies in the defense of states rights to decide. The spirit of the bill is pro-life in the declaration of life beginning at conception.

[Ava]

I'm pro-choice, and I'm perfectly OK with Ron Paul's position on this issue for the following reasons:
- Leaving it to the states is not the best solution, but it is better. It is certainly not a federal issue. It is a personal issue. Leaving it to the states is far better, because (1) it actually lets everyone choose, we'll get the states that are pro-life with pro-life laws and the states that are pro-choice with pro-choice laws, and (2) it's the constitutional position.
- People in favor of it being a federal issue would have to accept it, if abortion is outlawed on the federal level.
- Ron Paul is an OB/GYN - He is an expert in this area. He may not be the best to decide on this issue, but I certainly respect and understand him.

[Bradley in DC]

Not an expert on this bill at all, but it seems as though it fits with other approaches he's made (gay marriage) that these issues should be decided at the state level but for FEDERAL purposes the position would be "X" so it would mostly affect DC and territories (and leading by example, not through the barrel of a gun!).

[TurtleBurger]

People whose main issue is being pro-choice honestly should look elsewhere for a candidate. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life on every issue, including abortion and the war. Yes he believes in sending the issue to the states, but mainly there is more hope for pro-life victory on the state level. (See his reasons for voting for the Partial Birth Abortion ban here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html).) The best possible solution with your Democrat friends is to use RP's method (hold a press conference to give them a reading assignment showing them why they are wrong to disagree with RP's position on this issue). Other than that, if they are adamant about supporting a pro-choice candidate, they will find little common ground with Ron Paul.

[scbissler]

Good points Cowbot. Also found out about the "We the People" act which would remove all social/moral issues from federal jurisdiction.

[Shii]

People whose main issue is being pro-choice honestly should look elsewhere for a candidate. Ron Paul is 100% pro-life on every issue, including abortion and the war. Yes he believes in sending the issue to the states, but mainly there is more hope for pro-life victory on the state level

Many nominal Democrats understand that, and it's not their main issue, but they want abortion to remain an option in their home states (NE, mideast and west coast).

[Broadlighter]

As a pro-choice supporter of Ron Paul, I think the state and local governments should follow the example of the federal government and stay out of this issue. It is a private matter between the woman, her family and her doctor.

That said, the abortion problem will never be resolved by persuasive argument, legislation or court decisions. Unwanted pregnancies are going to continue to happen and some women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not.

Science and social activism made it visible by making abortions safe and available. Religion declared it a target on moral grounds. The issue will not go away until science figures out how to end an unwanted pregnancy without ending the life of the unborn and I don't think we're that far way from that.

I continue to support Ron Paul because of his stands on other more all-encompassing issues, but mainly because he represents returning to sound money economics and limited government. These two things are the greatest causes of all of the social problems we face, including unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

[jd603]

right, states can still over-ride to my understanding, i'm not concerned either way personally so I won't be looking into it. :)



The bill is not the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment, it would probably just state the position of the federal government on the issue as supported by new scientific findings. The authority for the decision would go back to the states, and leave federal appellate courts to decide things that the federal government is authorized to decide under the Constitution.

For strong pro-lifers (like myself) this is a compromise, but anything short of an Amendment analogous to Amendment XIII applied to abortion is a compromise. For pro-choicers this takes away the apprehension that they feel toward the possibility that the strong pro-life solution may come to pass with a changing of the SCOTUS composition.

Probably for the best.

[Roxi]

this also says to me that it would mean harsher penalties for those involved with murder against a pregnant woman....clarifying "life beginning at conception" would only mean that killing a woman who is 3 weeks pregnant would mean two murder charges which now is only one murder charge....as of now unless a fetus is at viable life term (previously thought 32 weeks, recently a baby born at 20 weeks lived outside the womb) the murder charge against a pregnant woman counts as one charge