Ron Paul's vote on sex-selection abortion ban

[beaven]

It seems that Ron Paul voted against a legal ban against abortion for the proposes of gender selection. I understand that Ron Paul is pro-life which makes this vote confusing for me. Does anyone have any links to statements from Ron Paul on why he voted as he did?

Information about the vote can be found here: http://www.dailypaul.com/237188/sex-...ear-2-3-hurdle

[angelatc]

It's pretty easy. Where does the federal government get the right to ban abortion, for any reason at all?

This really blows the "choice" argument out of the water. Apparently it's a woman's choice whether to get pregnant, and to abort randomly, and even to abort handicapped children, but not her choice to abort for other personal reasons.

[slamhead]

There is already another thread. He is pro life and also wants a constitutional amendment to state when life begins so the federal government can then protect life and liberty. As it is now he wants the issue to go back to the states as he knows this would be the fastest way to get Roe vs. Wade overturned as it was ruled as a "privacy" issue rather than a right to life issue. Until then I would think that Ron Paul would vote on any pro life legislation hoping it would end up back in the courts so the USSC would have to rule on the "life" issue rather than chicken out and make it an issue of privacy.

[Weston White]

Are not actions of this nature the presage of incrementalism?

[jmdrake]

I'm not aware of Ron supporting an abortion amendment. He has proposed legislation declaring life begins at conception as well as legislation prohibiting the Supreme Court from hearing court cases on abortion. The effect of that would be to throw abortion back 100% to the states. That would mean that many states would outright ban abortions. Some states would still allow it. Overturning Roe v. Wade is the first logical step to ending abortion. If you can't get states to individually pass laws banning abortion than how on earth you going to get 2/3rds of the states to ratify an anti-abortion constitutional amendment? The free "laboratories of democracy" need to be allowed to work. People need to see what would happen in other states.

[andym]

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...ent-on-hr-3541

Ron Paul's Statement on HR 3541
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 sex.

However, I cannot support HR 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 HR 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 sex.

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’ sex. 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.

[andym]

This is how I responded to someone on Facebook prior to reading Paul's statement…

=========

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.

[Sola_Fide]

It baffles me that cultural conservatives do not spend their energies overturning Roe vs. Wade so that abortion could actually be a crime in America, like Ron advocates. It almost seems like the statist machine has fooled well-meaning conservatives into employing an incorrect (and statist) method of attempting to change things. Why does Ron makes so much sense about these things yet he just doesn't seem to get through to average conservatives?

[Smart3]

For the record, I oppose Roe V. Wade and strongly support sex-selective abortions.

Ron would be wise to actually mention the pro-choice opponents of Roe more often. We're already condemned by NARAL and other pro-choice groups.

[LibertyEagle]

//

[EBounding]

It seems that Ron Paul voted against a legal ban against abortion for the proposes of gender selection. I understand that Ron Paul is pro-life which makes this vote confusing for me. Does anyone have any links to statements from Ron Paul on why he voted as he did?

I'm going to post his statement again to improve this thread's standing in search rankings.

Here's Ron Paul's statement on his no vote on PRENDA, the bill banning sex selection abortions (HR 3541)
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...1979&Itemid=60

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 sex.

However, I cannot support HR 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 HR 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 sex.

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' sex. 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.

Paul, and especially Amash, really stuck their necks out there by voting it down. I was actually shocked at first, until I understood what the bill actually meant. The bill did nothing to protect the unborn. It's a ban on intentions, not on abortions. If it did (somehow) ban abortions, I think they both would have voted for it. Plus it was never meant to pass since the house suspended the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote.

It was basically a cynical political maneuver to give RINOs political cover for being "pro-life" during a election year and to rally the base against democrats. RINOs of course couldn't care less about abortion. The bill basically accepts the premise that a mother can kill her unborn baby, unless it's for sex-selection purposes. This bill wasn't even a small incremental step forward to stopping abortion; it was a step backward since it doesn't stop abortion but gives the illusion that RINO's are pro-life. I don't see how that helps the pro-life movement at all. Unfortunately, it cost Amash his Right to Life endorsement. Hopefully he can pull through without it.