Let's be Honest -- Why Ron Paul voted on H.R. 3541

[No1butPaul]

On the Sean Hannity Forum, there is a thread dedicated to Ron Paul -- "Ron Paul Votes With Pro Aborts on Sex Selective Abortions"

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

COMMENT SECTION:

Now, let's be honest and let him explain WHY

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues' revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different gender. However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the States in the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a Federal issue.

I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it creates yet another set of Federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by States rather than Congress.

I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a Federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe v. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the States and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new Federal crimes.

Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a ``politically incorrect'' reason for special Federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a Federal law prohibiting ``sex selection'' abortions and Federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator's animus toward a particular race or gender.
I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the Nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying ``It is a violation of Federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus' gender. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under Federal law.''

Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist Federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe v. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the States.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread...tive-Abortions

[Southerner]

Hannity seems to have about as much respect for the constitution as Lawrence O'Donnell. If our elected representatives started repealing unconstitutional laws, that alone would keep them busy for 50 years, there would be no time to enact new ones.

[lib3rtarian]

Dang..Ron Paul is right...AGAIN!

[S.Shorland]

Should read: Protecting state laws RESTRICTING abortion?

[andym]

@No1butPaul, thanks for the post (ALWAYS best to get things straight from the horses mouth), but PLEASE provide a link to what RP said on the house floor. Was it from his TST or House site?

This is what I wrote earlier this morning to a friend on Facebook...

=========

Joe:
Do you believe Ron Paul is pro-life?

Andy:
He’s not perfect, but he drafted the “Sanctity of Life Act” which would define when life begins and thus overturning Roe v. Wade. All the candidates have said this is needed to overturn Roe, but it was Ron Paul who has actually done this. Yes, he’s the most prolife candidate of the bunch, including Rick Santorum who voted to send your federal tax dollars to subsidize abortifacient contraceptives. I hope Bachmann will carry the Ron Paul torch and press such an Act annually until it’s passed, like Ron Paul did.

Joe:
Paul voted AGAINST the legislation banning abortion based on gender.

Andy:
Many of these bills are red herrings to attract & mislead the ignorant and will lead to little if any less abortion, but they’ll certainly make headlines, like they’re designed to do. If the bill was passed, the abortion industry will just have a “don’t ask don’t tell” unwritten policy on this. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban also had no impact, actually making late term abortions even more brutal and cruel to the baby, and made proabortion politicians like Specter look like heroes for voting for the ban, while he knew it would have no impact. And most prolifers continue to be ignorant of these red herrings.

And there may be something on this bill’s constitutionality, as well as “legitimizing abortion” like the Laci-Conner bill did which Ron Paul also voted against. The Laci-Conner law was the first time in history where abortion was actually approved within federal regulation, and maybe this recent bill did the same. I haven’t yet read it or any response by Ron Paul, but I suggest you do the same before you pass judgement.

Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade, not put band-aids on a severed limb.

[andym]

Here's the link... http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...ent-on-hr-3541

On the Sean Hannity Forum, there is a thread dedicated to Ron Paul -- "Ron Paul Votes With Pro Aborts on Sex Selective Abortions"

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

COMMENT SECTION:

Now, let's be honest and let him explain WHY

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues' revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different gender. However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the States in the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a Federal issue.

I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it creates yet another set of Federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by States rather than Congress.

I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a Federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe v. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the States and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new Federal crimes.

Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a ``politically incorrect'' reason for special Federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a Federal law prohibiting ``sex selection'' abortions and Federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator's animus toward a particular race or gender.
I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the Nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying ``It is a violation of Federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus' gender. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under Federal law.''

Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist Federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe v. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the States.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread...tive-Abortions