Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Voted Yes On Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

  1. #1

    Voted Yes On Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

    I was doing a little digging, and I noticed that Ron Paul voted for a partial-birth abortion ban. Here was his speech to Congress:

    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.
    I'm having trouble understanding why he made this exception. All of his other votes have been in favor of the states deciding this issue. As you can see, he criticizes the bill. Don't get me wrong - I'm pro-life on the state level, I'm just wondering why he voted this way.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Partial birth abortion is murder. Most pro choicers even support banning partial birth abortion.

  4. #3
    hmmm, it sounds like he had more of a problem with the wording than the overall bill...it sounds like Ron wanted it to be more pro-life oriented than it was.

    Ron is vehemently pro-life....it's to be expected that he would vote on something such as this....he's stated multiple times that he thinks all forms of abortion are murder (though there should be differing degrees of punishment).

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by noztnac View Post
    Partial birth abortion is murder. Most pro choicers even support banning partial birth abortion.
    I'm pro-life, so I think that all abortion is murder (but that's not what we're discussing here). I'm just curious as to whether this federal ban is Constitutional.

  6. #5
    Because partial birth abortion is technically murder. RP is a doctor and remembers in residency when a baby was born and it breathed and the doctor put it in a bucket to die in the corner of the room because its mother wanted an abortion.

    Partial birth abortion is when the fetus IS developed enough to survive outside the womb.

    As he said, it is never medically necessary and requirs the abortionist to basically hack the head and brains of the baby until it is dead.

    and the line is blurred between abortion and infanticide with partial birth abortion.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Richie View Post
    I'm having trouble understanding why he made this exception. All of his other votes have been in favor of the states deciding this issue. As you can see, he criticizes the bill. Don't get me wrong - I'm pro-life on the state level, I'm just wondering why he voted this way.
    Probably because he feels that the Federal Government should protect Life at any cost.

    An issue so vile that transcends state lines.
    __________________________________________________
    You can't see a hurricane when you are inside the eye.
    We just have to keep strengthening the hurricane.


    Change the World

  8. #7
    Thanks for the answers, guys. I know that partial-birth abortion is the most violent form of abortion, and most of the pro-choice people I know want it gone as well. I was just wondering if it was Constitutionally sound, and it sounds like it is.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by jenninlouisiana View Post
    Because partial birth abortion is technically murder.
    But there are no federal laws against murder.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    But there are no federal laws against murder.
    It's a common law thing, the Federal "Laws" against murder are usually only applied to Federal agents on duty (or in uniform for the military).
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by GK Chesterton
    It is often supposed that when people stop believing in God, they believe in nothing. Alas, it is worse than that. When they stop believing in God, they believe in anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke
    Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Richie View Post
    Thanks for the answers, guys. I know that partial-birth abortion is the most violent form of abortion, and most of the pro-choice people I know want it gone as well. I was just wondering if it was Constitutionally sound, and it sounds like it is.
    No, it's not Constitutional. Acts of violence are handled by the state.

    This is not new though. Ron Paul also authored a bill for an amendment(?) that would redefine Life at the federal level:

    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills...0_HR_1094.html

    Considering his positions on the role of federal government, it is hypocritical. Fortunately, I'm confident that this is the only issue that Ron Paul is willing to violate his Constitutional principles over, and I believe (if President) he really would leave it to the states.
    "Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning?"
    - Benjamin Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by Macon, GA
    The freedom for everyone to believe what they want...

    I guess Dahmer, Hitler and Manson would be productive members of this type of society.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Cinnaboo View Post
    No, it's not Constitutional. Acts of violence are handled by the state.

    This is not new though. Ron Paul also authored a bill for an amendment(?) that would redefine Life at the federal level:

    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills...0_HR_1094.html

    Considering his positions on the role of federal government, it is hypocritical. Fortunately, I'm confident that this is the only issue that Ron Paul is willing to violate his Constitutional principles over, and I believe (if President) he really would leave it to the states.
    I read this bill and I came to the conclusion that it is not a federal ban on abortion, it is simply defense of states that decide to ban it. Right now, because of RvW, the states can not ban abortion.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Richie View Post
    I read this bill and I came to the conclusion that it is not a federal ban on abortion, it is simply defense of states that decide to ban it. Right now, because of RvW, the states can not ban abortion.
    I'm not capable of a confident interpretation, so I'm basing my summary on past discussions (not a sure thing) which concluded that laws (as written) regarding violence would suddenly apply to abortion. If it were just me, I would have read to the same conclusion as you.
    "Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning?"
    - Benjamin Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by Macon, GA
    The freedom for everyone to believe what they want...

    I guess Dahmer, Hitler and Manson would be productive members of this type of society.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Cinnaboo View Post
    I'm not capable of a confident interpretation, so I'm basing my summary on past discussions (not a sure thing) which concluded that laws (as written) regarding violence would suddenly apply to abortion. If it were just me, I would have read to the same conclusion as you.
    I'm not capable of a confident interpretation either. I just looked on the Ron Paul 2008 issues page, and it makes the matter even more confusing. At the top, in big bold letters is:

    I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception ... but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level.
    But, also on the page:

    In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
    And:

    I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
    So, perhaps defining life is a separate issue. Perhaps Ron Paul would like the federal government to take the pro-life position, but allow the states to decide whether or not they want to keep it. This is all very confusing.

  16. #14
    Ron has said before that this was probably his weakest vote ever. His reasoning was that roe had made the issue federal, so he would vote for this bill.

    And, yeah, he said that that was weak.

    His life at conception bill is just to define it on the federal level. If you look later in the bill, you'll see that it takes jurisdiction away from the feds, so the federal position becomes moot. It's just saying (and the bill is phrased like a sense of Congress) that for federal matters, life begins at conception. Internal bill.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Richie View Post
    And:
    I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
    Congress has the authority to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, so this is a constitutional position.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by rp08orbust View Post
    But there are no federal laws against murder.
    I've seen this line of reasoning before. The problem is murder is a federal crime.

    It is also a state crime.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Federal law against "felony murder"

    United States
    In the United States, felony murder is generally first-degree murder, and often a capital offense. When the government seeks to impose the death penalty on someone convicted of felony murder, the Eighth Amendment imposes additional limitations on the state's power to do so. The death penalty may not be imposed if the defendant is merely a minor participant and did not actually kill or intend to kill. However, the death penalty may be imposed if the defendant is a major participant in the underlying felony and "exhibits extreme indifference to human life".
    Every jurisdiction in the United States incorporates some form of the felony murder rule as part of its definition of murder.

  21. #18

    Dual sovereignty re: murder

    In the United States, the principle of dual sovereignty applies to homicide, as to other crimes. If murder is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the Federal Government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then Federal jurisdiction is exclusive: examples include the District of Columbia, naval or U.S.-flagged merchant vessels in international waters, or a U.S. military base. In cases where a murder involves both state and federal jurisdiction, the offender can be tried and punished separately for each crime without raising issues of double jeopardy.
    Modern codifications tend to create a genus of offenses, known collectively as homicide, of which murder is the most serious species, followed by manslaughter which is less serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime at all. Because there are 51 jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this section treats only the crime of murder, and does not deal with state-by-state specifics.
    At base, murder consists of an intentional unlawful act with a design to kill and fatal consequences. Generally, an intention to cause great bodily harm is considered indistinguishable from an intention to kill, as is an act so inherently dangerous that any reasonable person would realize the likelihood of fatality. Thus, if the defendant hurled the victim from a bridge, it is no defense to argue that harm was not contemplated, or that the defendant hoped only to break bones.
    Murder is the killing of human being with malice prepense. Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months and a median of 480 months.[48]

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Cinnaboo View Post
    No, it's not Constitutional. Acts of violence are handled by the state.

    This is not new though. Ron Paul also authored a bill for an amendment(?) that would redefine Life at the federal level:

    http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills...0_HR_1094.html

    Considering his positions on the role of federal government, it is hypocritical. Fortunately, I'm confident that this is the only issue that Ron Paul is willing to violate his Constitutional principles over, and I believe (if President) he really would leave it to the states.
    You forget that amending the constitution IS constitutional and is NOT hypocrisy.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 02-10-2014, 05:20 PM
  2. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 04-02-2013, 02:30 PM
  3. O'Reilly hits Newt on judges, partial birth abortion
    By cindy25 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-16-2011, 10:54 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-21-2008, 06:25 PM
  5. Paul's vote on partial birth abortion
    By RonPaulFever in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-19-2007, 08:36 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •