Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[drbrumley]

Quote him directly so we can see what he is saying.

‎"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul ‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul

No states can keep abortion legal if life is federally defined as beginning at conception :nono:

They would simply choose how to enforce the law.

Yeah, I never understood Bob's and ARTL's argument.

Their issue from what I remember is ARTL wanted to use the 14th amendment to outlaw it.

 

[WizardofOz]

Yeah, I never understood Bob's and ARTL's argument.

Their issue from what I remember is ARTL wanted to use the 14th amendment to outlaw it.

Both are at worst deliberately dishonest or at best simply do not understand the entire strategy / are only criticizing one part of the whole.

From American Right To Life:

Some God-fearing pro-lifers claim that abortion is a "states' rights" matter. The claim is that the very principles of justice (i.e., God Himself) would have federal governments tolerate a state's decriminalization of murder generally, or decriminalization of murder for any particular group of victims. (Whether the victims would be Jews, Christians, or children, the principles remain the same.)

Mr. Enyart is basically parroting ARTL's misguided criticism.

They are taking one half of the argument (that a federal law is invalid) and straw-manning it as Dr. Paul's whole argument.

They are leaving out the Sanctity of Life Act, which would declare that life and legal personhood begin at conception. If this were to pass, a state cannot simply say "we're one of the pro-choice states" and ignore the federal mandate.

ARTL and Enyart are missing, deliberately or otherwise, a BIG part of the puzzle.

 

[Christian Liberty]

They are leaving out the Sanctity of Life Act, which would declare that life and legal personhood begin at conception. If this were to pass, a state cannot simply say "we're one of the pro-choice states" and ignore the federal mandate.

Sure they could, they could simply declare abortion to be self-defense. They shouldn't do that, but they could.

Also, I seriously doubt Ron Paul, who supports the right to state level nullification, would actually force any state to enforce anti-abortion laws.

Admittedly, he has given some mixed signals with regards to the issue. With the PBA ban, I believe he gave in to pressure. That's one of the rare cases I can honestly say that he did. I think he let his emotions (Being a doctor and knowing how horrifying PBA abortions are) cloud his constitutional judgment.

But his principle has always been, its up to the states.

The problem is, LH, ARTL, and Bob Enyart have a problem with that, because they have a problem with the Constitution.

 

[WizardofOz]

Sure they could, they could simply declare abortion to be self-defense. They shouldn't do that, but they could.

No, they couldn't. If the Sanctity of Life Act were to pass it would represent a federal law that states are charged with enforcing.

States cannot simply declare that any abortion is legally self-defense.

Also, I seriously doubt Ron Paul, who supports the right to state level nullification, would actually force any state to enforce anti-abortion laws.

Then you do not understand his position:

"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul ‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul

"The taking of that life would be murder." States cannot decide to not prosecute murder.

Admittedly, he has given some mixed signals with regards to the issue. With the PBA ban, I believe he gave in to pressure. That's one of the rare cases I can honestly say that he did. I think he let his emotions (Being a doctor and knowing how horrifying PBA abortions are) cloud his constitutional judgment.

And he gave a speech clearly outlining why he would vote for the bill despite his reservations with the language found therein:

For example, 14G in the u201CFindingsu201D section of this bill states, u201C…such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide…u201D 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 u201Cbright lineu201D 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 u201Cexpendable,u201D 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 u201Cdistinctionu201D 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 u201Cdistinction,u201D 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. - Ron Paul

But his principle has always been, its up to the states.
The problem is, LH, ARTL, and Bob Enyart have a problem with that, because they have a problem with the Constitution.

Paul is OK with a federal personhood law declaring that personhood begins at conception. If such were to pass, it certainly would not be unconstitutional.

But yes, you are correct in that Dr. Paul is arguing for two different things. First, he sees Roe V Wade as unconstitutional and thus, would have to view a federal law banning abortion as the same. This is a Constitutional authority argument; who has the authority, etc.

The second is that the federal government can and should declare that personhood begins at conception. This way, abortion is effectively murder and states would enforce violators just as they prosecute murder in their respective states now.

 

[drbrumley]

No, they couldn't. If the Sanctity of Life Act were to pass it would represent a federal law that states are charged with enforcing.

States cannot simply declare that any abortion is legally self-defense.



Then you do not understand his position:

"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul ‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul

"The taking of that life would be murder." States cannot decide to not prosecute murder.



And he gave a speech clearly outlining why he would vote for the bill despite his reservations with the language found therein:

For example, 14G in the u201CFindingsu201D section of this bill states, u201C…such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide…u201D 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 u201Cbright lineu201D 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 u201Cexpendable,u201D 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 u201Cdistinctionu201D 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 u201Cdistinction,u201D 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. - Ron Paul

Paul is OK with a federal personhood law declaring that personhood begins at conception. If such were to pass, it certainly would not be unconstitutional.

But yes, you are correct in that Dr. Paul is arguing for two different things. First, he sees Roe V Wade as unconstitutional and thus, would have to view a federal law banning abortion as the same. This is a Constitutional authority argument; who has the authority, etc.

The second is that the federal government can and should declare that personhood begins at conception. This way, abortion is effectively murder and states would enforce violators just as they prosecute murder in their respective states now.

:first:

 

[drbrumley]

ARTL, Bob, Lighthouse, basically every pro-lifer on this board had their man for President. They choose otherwise. They made their bed, now they sleep in it. And it is and was at that time a crying shame.

 

[Yorzhik]

No, they couldn't. If the Sanctity of Life Act were to pass it would represent a federal law that states are charged with enforcing.

States cannot simply declare that any abortion is legally self-defense.



Then you do not understand his position:

"Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not." - Ron Paul ‎"I believe the federal government has a role to play. I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence." - Ron Paul

"The taking of that life would be murder." States cannot decide to not prosecute murder.



And he gave a speech clearly outlining why he would vote for the bill despite his reservations with the language found therein:

For example, 14G in the u201CFindingsu201D section of this bill states, u201C…such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide…u201D 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 u201Cbright lineu201D 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 u201Cexpendable,u201D 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 u201Cdistinctionu201D 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 u201Cdistinction,u201D 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. - Ron Paul

Paul is OK with a federal personhood law declaring that personhood begins at conception. If such were to pass, it certainly would not be unconstitutional.

But yes, you are correct in that Dr. Paul is arguing for two different things. First, he sees Roe V Wade as unconstitutional and thus, would have to view a federal law banning abortion as the same. This is a Constitutional authority argument; who has the authority, etc.

The second is that the federal government can and should declare that personhood begins at conception. This way, abortion is effectively murder and states would enforce violators just as they prosecute murder in their respective states now.

So if there was a state that decided that murder would be ignored, the feds according to the constitution would be OK with that?

 

[drbrumley]

So if there was a state that decided that murder would be ignored, the feds according to the constitution would be OK with that?

Why would it be ok? The law Ron Paul wrote doesn't say a state can ignore murder. It's pretty cut and dried.

 

[drbrumley]

Ron Paul and the Anti-Abortion Lobby
Bill Anderson at 11:13 am EDT on February 14, 2008
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ron-paul-and-the-anti-abortion-lobby/

As usual, Anthony and Ryan are dead on. The modern “fight” against abortion is little more than a shell game, as the so-called Right-to-Life lobby has submarined everything that would have effectively overturned Roe. Here is the thing to keep in mind: the “official” Right-to-Life lobby needs to have the issue nationalized if for no other reason than to protect their own jobs in Washington, D.C.

No, I am not saying that the Right-to-Life lobby is a jobs program for “respectable” activists (though at times that is what it seems to be). However, once Roe was overturned or Congress had voted to take all abortion issues out of the federal courts, the issue no longer would be nationalized, and there would be little need for a Right-to-Life presence in Washington.One reason that they insist on a Constitutional amendment is that they know it never will pass. Thus, they keep their presence in DC indefinitely. Furthermore, that means that they have a presence right now in every appointment to the federal bench. If Ron Paul were to have his way and take abortion out of the federal courts, then many of these federal bench appointments would be irrelevant, at least where abortion is concerned, and one thing that a well-funded lobby does not like is being irrelevant.

What really bothers me, however, has been the way that the so-called Right-to-Life lobby has treated Ron Paul. His message has by far been the most devastating against legalized abortion, as he has stated over and over again that he never came up against a situation in which abortion was necessary to save the life of a mother, despite having participated in more than 4,000 deliveries.

Yet, the lobbyists dare call him “pro-abortion.” That is untrue and evil.

 

[WizardofOz]

So if there was a state that decided that murder would be ignored, the feds according to the constitution would be OK with that?

:liberals:
Who currently investigates 99% of murder cases? Why would state police not prosecute people guilty of murder per federal legislation?

"Just doing my job"

 

[Lighthouse]

OK, we're talking past each other. You're saying some women would cross state lines. Absolutely.

I'm saying some, maybe even a lot, would think twice rather than traveling several hours to go get an abortion.

I think you underestimate these people.

If you really think that banning abortion FEDERALLY would actually lead to no abortion happening, I believe you are in error. I'm guessing you don't think that, but it seems like you do based on the arguments you're giving.

No, I don't believe that. If criminalization led to said crime not being committed we would have no murder in this country, or rape, or theft [except by the government], or any number of crimes.

Ideally, I would support a human life amendment to the US constitution. Short of that, I support the state's right to decide. My reason for that is this, everyone has their pet issue that is just so important that you just have to have a Federal mandate. You're only going to agree with me on some of these but... for some people, its guns. Some people decided that automatic weapons were so evil/dangerous that they just had to be banned everywhere. Some people thought the same with drugs. Still others with Obamacare/health insurance. Still others, food quality, which is why we have the monster known as the FDA...

When I say I believe there should be a federal law I mean that there should be a mandate to follow the Constitution that states no persons should be deprived of life without due process. And as it now stands we may need an amendment to declare the preborn as persons in that regard. I do not mean the Federal Government should just pass a law.

And I also believe that it is up to the local government to prosecute crimes, not Congress. However, if a local government is perpetrating crimes against its citizens then I believe it is up to the next level up to go after them for it.

And the only time I advocate the Federal Government going after citizens committing crimes within a state is if the local either won't, or cannot [due to lack of manpower, for instance].

You know what? Honestly, I don't think the Federal Government can do anything "Correctly." If they banned abortion at the Federal Level, they would use it as a crusade to impose even more of an Orwellian State than we already have. I don't want the Federal Government getting involved in Law Enforcement. I'd much rather just let people like Scott Roeder go, as we continue to fight for state level laws.

I agree with you to an extent. See above for clarification.

I refuse to fall into the trap of "My issue is so important that we just have to have a Federal law without regard for the constitution."

I don't believe we should disregard the Constitution. I think the Constitution needs an overhaul.

No, why?

There are a number of out of state license plates.

Good luck with that.

I'm just asking how you would respond.

Also, I want to make it clear here, now that I understand a little more, I mean by way of the Constitution, as in recognizing the unborn as persons regarding the right to life.

Would you punish a civilian who did business in those countries or would it just be the government that would not be allowed to do business there?

Government. Though that would mean companies would not be able to import from these countries.

There would also be no borrowing from them.

I understand the subtle difference, but it is a subtle one.

If you say so.

So... did you support the War in Iraq?

Which one?

Kidding.

I do not think it was necessary. I did, however, think Hussein should have been assassinated.

Sanctions don't actually work, they just make things even worse for the people under their rule. Actual war makes things even worse than that.

Please elaborate.

I know you think about social policy way more than foreign policy, maybe you should look up what the Founders said about foreign policy?

Or you could tell me.

As Lighthouse pointed out, you're not even pro-life. Not to mention that your insults are some or the dumbest, most poorly thought out I have ever seen.

Yup.

If Lighthouse would like to debate me on what he's done to prevent the murder of the unborn vs what I've done and am currently doing, he knows where to find me.

All right, then, what have you done?

I have made the truth known with images; by holding signs, sharing them on social networking sites, etc. I have also voiced the truth with words such as I do here, on those same sites and person to person.

I'm assuming Delmar made his comment in good faith, either to defend Enyart rather than to attack Ron Paul, or because he didn't completely understand why Ron Paul holds the position he does.

We understand why, we just think he's wrong to allow for states to keep it legal.

Wow, speechless!

Maybe you should read the rest of my post, and conversation, instead of taking things out of context.

And then he redefines war to make it less bad.

I have redefined nothing. I grew up during the Cold War. That was not a war like the Iraq war. Do you understand that?

I guess this is the logical conclusion of LH and Bob Enyart's ideology. If you don't support one world government, you obviously support all of the evils those other countries do. That's the logical conclusion.

Fallacy.

ARTL, Bob, Lighthouse, basically every pro-lifer on this board had their man for President. They choose otherwise. They made their bed, now they sleep in it. And it is and was at that time a crying shame.

Really? Who did we have?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If Lighthouse would like to debate me on what he's done to prevent the murder of the unborn vs what I've done and am currently doing, he knows where to find me.

All right, then, what have you done?

I have made the truth known with images; by holding signs, sharing them on social networking sites, etc. I have also voiced the truth with words such as I do here, on those same sites and person to person.

Since you were 3 years old undoubtedly.

I guess I missed your answer in another thread:

Assuming you were old enough to vote in the 2008 and 2012 elections, who did you vote for and did you attempt to sway others to vote for that candidate and his or her political party as well?

 

[Delmar]

Ron Paul says that each state should decide.

Quote him directly so we can see what he is saying.

I can do that.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/ron-paul/abortion-is-none-of-the-feds-business/

Why would it be ok? The law Ron Paul wrote doesn't say a state can ignore murder. It's pretty cut and dried.

and yet, according to his own words, his bill is invalid.

 

[Iwannaknow]

IMO, Bob Enyart is so wrong. Although Ron Paul has moved on to retirement now, he did fight the good fight and stayed his course from beginning to end as none other. I will always respect and love him for that.

Back in 2002 or around there, Ron Paul saw a lot of things happening to this country long before they indeed did happen because of the way politicians were moving away from Constitutional values.

The U.S. Constitution was the only living document that protected us from tyranny...notice I said *was*.

Any Christian worth their salt understood what that document meant and how important it was to the people of this nation regarding our liberties and freedom.

As another pastor said...Christians who do vote should keep in mind the importance of our freedom and those who support that document.

Not one of the candidates we had in the last election other than Ron Paul have supported the Constitution unwavering throughout their political careers as RP has.

He was misunderstood on foreign policy by many who didn't understand why this country was involved in over 130 different military interventions globally... What country does that who isn't empire building and doing it because this country not only abandoned it's first love, but also the gold standard. Left with nothing now but useless paper and bonds while our enemies buy oil in other currencies.

I agree with Ron Paul, our Constitution has failed. Not on it's own, but by corrupt politicians being voted in by people who are ignorant of the massive deception through the MSM.

I don't believe that Bob Enyart has a clue if he accuses RP of being pro-abortion. Ron Paul wanted to shrink big government and give the power back to the states regarding drugs, abortion and all of the hot issues that government shouldn't be involved in at all. He wanted to bring our Military home and protect our own interests here and borders instead of empire building spending billions (borrowed from China) to protect our interest globally. He wanted to use that money we didn't spend doing the former to breathe life back into this country and to rebuild our own economic infrastructure here instead of all over the world.

Ron Paul said he was anti abortion numerous times and because He wanted big government politicians to get out of the drug and abortion business because they may or may not have supported it...they only used it for votes to support their corrupt agendas. Let the states decide for themselves and then...if a woman chose to abort her own baby where it was illegal to do so, then let that sin be upon her head or else she could vote with her feet and move to another state. Government just made it easier for them by placing a stamp of approval on it nationwide.

Bob Enyart can not be for God and country if he claims RP was wrong about that. For no Christian worth their salt would vote against the U.S. Constitution to support a single issue.

We have the corrupt government we have because of ignorant people. Over half of this country voted for what we have. I can only surmise that this country has reached a pinnacle of evil, corruption to the point where I no longer believe that it deserves a man such as RP or any other like him. They've chosen their god in big government and when they find themselves sitting on piles of useless cash, stocks in the toilet, no jobs for the skilled, losing their homes while looking around themselves seeing nothing but evil and corruption...they only have themselves to blame.

With that...I refer you to this video called..."The Harbinger"...watch it...listen to it...let those with ears hear and with eyes see where this country is headed... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXei0Zb3dxM

May God have mercy on us all...Peace...

 

[Granite]

Wow, speechless!

This is remarkably stupid, childish, and maniacal even for Lighthouse, and he's had some real whoppers over the years.

 

[Lighthouse]

Since you were 3 years old undoubtedly.

Nope. I didn't even know about abortion when I was three. Just like I didn't know about homos. I do recall thinking a friend of a friend [family friend really] was a little weird, when I was a little older than three. After I found out about queers I learned he was one.

I guess I missed your answer in another thread:

Assuming you were old enough to vote in the 2008 and 2012 elections, who did you vote for and did you attempt to sway others to vote for that candidate and his or her political party as well?

I'm 32. Do you think I was old enough to vote?

My facebook page and my posts here attest to my attempts at getting others to vote for the candidates I supported and for whom I voted. 2008: Alan Keyes 2012: Tom Hoefling

As to whether or not the listened, I do not know. Well, I know that only two people in Anderson voted for Keyes in '08, and I was one of them. So most, did not agree with me then.

 

[WizardofOz]

I can do that.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/ron-paul/abortion-is-none-of-the-feds-business/

He is making an argument about constitutional authority. I would like to quote more of what he said during this speech on January 31, 2006 for context and clarity:

- our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts.

- Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.

- The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution.

This speech was relatively short and his focused solely on the issue as it relates to the Supreme Court as it's context is regarding the Samuel Alito nomination for justice.

In order to truly understand his position, you need to look at a much wider context:

- “The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.” - Ron Paul Nov 28, 2007

- It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.

I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

Twisted indeed

In addition, none of this says anything about the legislation he repeatedly attempted to pass; the Sanctity of Life Act, which grants legal personhood at conception.

- I’m surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president’s signature. It’s a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let’s just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.

"Section 2(b)(2) of the Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state."

If the Sanctity of Life Act were to pass, states cannot allow abortion on demand as the legal personhood of all humans is recognized from conception forward.

If legal personhood is recognized how can a state ignore their authority and duty to protect them as they do with all other humans living inside their state?

and yet, according to his own words, his bill is invalid.

:nono: The Supreme Court ruling is invalid. Congress can still legislate bills like the Sanctity of Life Act.

There is no conflict in what he is saying given the much broader context of his position.

 

[drbrumley]

I can do that.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/01/ron-paul/abortion-is-none-of-the-feds-business/

Actually you can't.

Did you read the whole thing?

and yet, according to his own words, his bill is invalid.

No it isn't. What's the context?

 

[Yorzhik]

Why would it be ok?

Because according to the constitution, in your view, the feds having nothing to do with murder.

The law Ron Paul wrote doesn't say a state can ignore murder. It's pretty cut and dried.

So it says the feds are in charge of murder?

 

[Yorzhik]

:liberals:
Who currently investigates 99% of murder cases?

It doesn't matter who investigates. According to you the feds would have nothing to say about it if the states decided murder was OK.

Why would state police not prosecute people guilty of murder

Because the state decided not to. That was already part of the hypothetical.

per federal legislation?

"Just doing my job"

So murder is a part of the feds job? According to the constitution?