Paul introduces bill to give unborn children constitutional rights

[Suzanimal]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights.

The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals.

ADVERTISEMENT

Paul said the legislation "declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception."
"Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way," he said.

Paul's legislation is expected to be placed on the Senate calendar next week, allowing it to skip over the committee process. The move could allow it to come up for a vote, though no floor time has been scheduled.

Under the 14th Amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Republicans have pushed for decades to give unborn children constitutional protection, including the issue in their election-year platforms, though some have argued that such a move wouldn't necessarily mean a blanket ban on abortions.

Paul's legislation wouldn't amend the Constitution and wouldn't "require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child" or ban the use of birth control.

The proposal comes as thousands of conservative activists are gathering in Washington for the annual March for Life anti-abortion rally.

Paul, separately, slammed his congressional colleagues, saying that they've refused "to recognize that the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans — born and unborn."

"As president, I will fight to protect the unborn from the very moment life begins," he added in a statement about the rally.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/266711-rand-paul-pushes-for-protection-of-unborn-children


Meanwhile....


Bernie Sanders Commits to Rescinding the Hyde Amendment

In a statement issued yesterday, on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, Bernie Sanders called for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment.

“As president, and as someone who has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record in Congress, I will do everything that I can to protect and preserve a woman’s right to an abortion,” Sanders said. “Women must have full control over their reproductive health in order to have full control over their lives. We must rescind the Hyde Amendment and resist attempts by states to erect roadblocks to abortion.”

The Hyde Amendment, which bans Medicaid coverage of abortion, has been part of an ongoing debate between Hillary Clinton and Sanders over reproductive rights. Earlier this month, Clinton publicly committed to repealing Hyde when she accepted Planned Parenthood’s endorsement. Though Sanders has voted against the Hyde Amendment on numerous occasions, the single-payer health care plan he released last week made no mention of reproductive rights.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/bernie-sanders-commits-to-rescinding-the-hyde-amendment-1754723802?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_faceboo k&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[Brett85]

Gosh, I hate today's pro war conservatives, but when I see stuff like this it makes me think that today's left wing is even worse. It reminds me of what the creator of South Park once said. "I hate conservatives, but I really f*ckin" hate liberals."

[Jonderdonk]

Good 'ole Bernie... Always fighting to give people "full control over their lives"...

[Foreigner]

Rand's campaign are also airing pro-life radio ads in Iowa.

[Snowball]

highly commendable - and a main reason why I support him over all others.

[simon1911]

I love this! Stand for life!

[Yieu]

Good for Rand, he's doing the right thing, though protecting the right to life has become a bit of an unpopular position lately, so I'm not sure this will help his popularity to gain votes.

That second article is horrible. Repealing the Hyde Amendment would be like being forced to pay for killing innocent people through war that you don't want to kill or meat subsidies, but worse. I am already forced to pay for killing that I do not support under my pro-life position, and I don't want to be forced to pay for more killing.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It's hilarious seeing progressive institutions attack Bernie Sanders on behalf of Clinton.

[The Gold Standard]

What constitutional rights are those? The right to be indefinitely detained and killed without due process or even charges? The right to have your arms taken away? The right to be sexually molested at the airport? The right to have your house fire bombed and your pets and children killed in a no knock raid on your home? The unborn are probably better off without "constitutional rights".

Anyway, it's fine, but it will never pass.

[Yieu]

What constitutional rights are those? The right to be indefinitely detained and killed without due process or even charges? The right to have your arms taken away? The right to be sexually molested at the airport? The right to have your house fire bombed and your pets and children killed in a no knock raid on your home? The unborn are probably better off without "constitutional rights".

Anyway, it's fine, but it will never pass.

Particularly, it would be nice if their unalienable right to life were respected.

[acesfull]

What constitutional rights are those? The right to be indefinitely detained and killed without due process or even charges? The right to have your arms taken away? The right to be sexually molested at the airport? The right to have your house fire bombed and your pets and children killed in a no knock raid on your home? The unborn are probably better off without "constitutional rights".

Anyway, it's fine, but it will never pass.

Correct it will never pass because of this, Roe v wade (1973), the supreme court held that the right to privacy included a woman's right to have an abortion. The court ruled that the concept of personal liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment was " broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" The court also held that a "fetus" was not a person under the 14th amendment, although the court had previously ruled that a corporation was... The amendment itself refers to "all persons born" and the threshold for legal rights has traditionally been "birth"...

My .02
Regards
Acesfull

[Yieu]

Correct it will never pass because of this, Roe v wade (1973), the supreme court held that the right to privacy included a woman's right to have an abortion. The court ruled that the concept of personal liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment was " broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" The court also held that a "fetus" was not a person under the 14th amendment, although the court had previously ruled that a corporation was... The amendment itself refers to "all persons born" and the threshold for legal rights has traditionally been "birth"...

My .02
Regards
Acesfull

If an adult stabs another adult to death, do they have a right to privacy about the incident? If adults have a right to life, then why not all humans? Courts may decide that a fetus is not a "legal person", but they cannot decide if they are a "person" in the philosophical sense, and we are living humans from the time we are a zygote.

[Cabal]

So, I decided to find the text (http://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/KIN16009.pdf).


A BILL To implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of Congress, including Congress’ power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child, a prohibition on in vitro fertilization, or a prohibition on use of birth control or another means of preventing fertilization.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:

(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include each member of the species **** sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

(2) STATE.—For purposes of applying the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution to carry out section 2, the term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really provide any more detail than the article in the OP.

How does this not effectively and practically become a constitutional ban on nearly all abortion and forms of contraception that may also destroy embryos?

[Joeinmo]

The greatest right, is the right to exist.


Bravo Rand

[Peace&Freedom]

Correct it will never pass because of this, Roe v wade (1973), the supreme court held that the right to privacy included a woman's right to have an abortion. The court ruled that the concept of personal liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment was " broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" The court also held that a "fetus" was not a person under the 14th amendment, although the court had previously ruled that a corporation was... The amendment itself refers to "all persons born" and the threshold for legal rights has traditionally been "birth"...

My .02
Regards
Acesfull


Congress has the power, as a check and balance on the courts, to vote to remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts (including SCOTUS) regarding subjects of its choosing. If they have the votes to do that, they can remove the court's jurisdiction on abortion, gay marriage or other social issues, thereby de-federalizing those issues and removing the court's ability to overturn legislation related to them.

Rand should advocate for this action prior to a vote on protecting the unborn, so the Supremes can't overturn it. Better, he should just advocate for stripping the court's jurisdiction, and leave any further federal action alone, to let the states do it. A Congressional fetal protection law would federalize the issue in the other direction, whereas we should be getting the issue out of the federal government. The only proper way to acknowledge them as having constitutional rights is to amendment the document, not by passing a mere statue.

[Yieu]

nearly all abortion and forms of contraception that may also destroy embryos?

Well, I do think those things are murder, because they are the literal killing of distinct and separate human beings. The question then becomes: "Should we prosecute murderers?" Maybe the answer could be that we should stop prosecuting murderers, but there is the chance that we might get more of them or they might strike again.

Or should we allow some forms of murder, because they are easier to pretend they're not murder for convenience? I am not sure this necessarily means we should prosecute people who murder their own child before birth, because that "sounds" bad, but I do not see how it would make sense to treat murdering your own children before birth differently than driving them into a lake to drown or leaving them in a dumpster to die. But since it is literally murder, is it not logical to prosecute, if we are in the business of prosecuting murder?

My heart goes out to the children who didn't make it to birth because their own parents killed them, and I also feel empathy for all the young women who had their babies killed because society convinced them that it's not murder because the child "isn't alive" -- they didn't know better, so it's hard to assign blame, yet at the same time, this is one of the most serious crimes and it could be rather traumatic for them if they start to understand what they really did. It is such a sad situation all around.

It's not a popular position to be pro-life, because it "sounds" bad, but what are we to do, other than treat it like murder because it is, or stop prosecuting murder? Maybe there is some solution that I haven't thought of. If we could create artificial womb technology, then we could have all people who would have been aborted transplanted into an artificial womb instead, which is a rather peaceful way to solve the problem. I don't want to see people being punished by the government, but I also don't want to see people being murdered.

[XNavyNuke]

Good 'ole Bernie... Always fighting to give people "full control over their lives"...

If only someone would give an individual as much control over their earnings and investments as they do their reproductive organs.

XNN

[nikcers]

I'm telling you, this election has changed me. At least I'd prefer if we tried to develop a safer option of maybe removal and leaving the human to develop and form and a chance to grow up even if the mom doesn't want to have kids. We're about to nominate the most unhuman person I can possibly think of to represent our country a mix of all nations which some could argue has the most amount of freedom and all colors of humanity. I mean if Aliens came here and said take me to your leader are we really going to say okay Donald don't fuck up. He is the very representation of what people are describing when they say they lost their faith in humanity.

[acesfull]

If an adult stabs another adult to death, do they have a right to privacy about the incident? If adults have a right to life, then why not all humans? Courts may decide that a fetus is not a "legal person", but they cannot decide if they are a "person" in the philosophical sense, and we are living humans from the time we are a zygote.

You need medical proof to support your theory.
Regards
Acesfull

[Yieu]

You need medical proof to support your theory.
Regards
Acesfull

Medical proof such as embryologists?

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

I think it's fairly well known that zygotes and fetuses are both alive and genetically human. If one of those two factors were not the case, it would be impossible to continue to grow as a human and would be either dead, or some non-human entity.

[nikcers]

Medical proof such as embryologists?

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

I think it's fairly well known that zygotes and fetuses are both alive and genetically human. If one of those two factors were not the case, it would be impossible to continue to grow as a human and would be either dead, or some non-human entity.

It's the time factor that bothers me, like Rand says. At a certain point most people will agree it's human. My theory is it is related to how people perceive time. I think time is like color or taste and it's different to everyone.

[Yieu]

It's the time factor that bothers me, like Rand says. At a certain point most people will agree it's human. My theory is it is related to how people perceive time. I think time is like color or taste and it's different to everyone.

The thing is, if zygotes were not human they would not form into a fetus and then an infant. Scientifically, they absolutely must be human. They're not horses or dogs, or random cells that could form into anything. A human zygote forms into a human fetus and then a human infant. They are human from the start, or else they couldn't be human later on.

[nikcers]

The thing is, if zygotes were not human they would not form into a fetus and then an infant. Scientifically, they absolutely must be human. They're not horses or dogs, or random cells that could form into anything. A human zygote forms into a human fetus and then a human infant. They are human from the start, or else they couldn't be human later on.

You know this is a dangerous world where you can have your dog cloned after he died, and people are still arguing about genetics.

[Yieu]

You know this is a dangerous world where you can have your dog cloned after he died, and people are still arguing about genetics.

I'm not sure what you mean.

[nikcers]

I'm not sure what you mean.

There is a company in China that clones pets, I think they do livestock and racehorses and stuff too now. Defining what truly is human is going to be a discussion that we will need to have soon as a society. This conversation sounds impossible to have now though, especially if we elect someone who will treat humans like cattle.

[Yieu]

There is a company in China that clones pets, I think they do livestock and racehorses and stuff too now. Defining what truly is human is going to be a discussion that we will need to have soon as a society. This conversation sounds impossible to have now though, especially if we elect someone who will treat humans like cattle.

It is simple science. A human egg and a human sperm make a human zygote, which turns into a human fetus, and then a human infant. This all happens because 1) they are alive, and 2) they have human DNA. If neither of these things were true, they would be either dead, or another species. It is not that random cells magically form together in the womb, and at the decision of the government, at some stage those random cells start to become human. They must necessarily be human from the start, or else the process of growth could not happen.

I don't see how it would be a dangerous world due to understanding biology.

[nikcers]

It is simple science. A human egg and a human sperm make a human zygote, which turns into a human fetus, and then a human infant. This all happens because 1) they are alive, and 2) they have human DNA. If neither of these things were true, they would be either dead, or another species. It is not that random cells magically form together in the womb, and at the decision of the government, at some stage those random cells start to become human. They must necessarily be human from the start, or else the process of growth could not happen.

I don't see how it would be a dangerous world due to understanding biology.

No people don't understand biology why do you think we have a government agency that is basically subsidizing harvesting human body parts and exchanging it for favors due to the huge implications. Obama wasn't kidding when he said we can cure cancer, because we can. Lots of techs are emerging and people are stunningly ignorant about biology.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XP7yflhOtE

[Yieu]

No people don't understand biology why do you think we have a government agency that is basically subsidizing harvesting human body parts and exchanging it for favors due to the huge implications. Obama wasn't kidding when he said we can cure cancer, because we can. Lots of techs are emerging and people are stunningly ignorant about biology.

I don't mean emergent understanding of new discoveries in biology. I am referring to established biological science that has been studied and known for some time now.

[nikcers]

I don't mean emergent understanding of new discoveries in biology. I am referring to established biological science that has been studied and known for some time now.


Yeah - 10k years ago we developed agriculture. Biological milestones in healthcare are moving at light speed now though, before antibiotics we didn't even to need to worry about social security. We should be fighting death, not fighting terrorism.

[timosman]

There is a company in China that clones pets, I think they do livestock and racehorses and stuff too now. Defining what truly is human is going to be a discussion that we will need to have soon as a society. This conversation sounds impossible to have now though, especially if we elect someone who will treat humans like cattle.

Imagine this conversation in the movie Idiocracy.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[RonPaulMall]

Unfortunately, it doesn't really provide any more detail than the article in the OP.

How does this not effectively and practically become a constitutional ban on nearly all abortion and forms of contraception that may also destroy embryos?

I agree with that, plus I don't really understand the bill from a Constitutional standpoint. Seems what the bill is trying to do is "clarify" the 14th Amendment in to covering fetuses, but you can't clarify the Constitution via statute. Either the 14th Amendment as written provides fetuses the protections outlined in this bill and the bill is unnecessary, or the 14th Amendment doesn't provide such protections and no bill can change that.