Thanks Bob

Status
Not open for further replies.

drbrumley

Well-known member
S†ephen;1575044 said:
Where does it say that? I didn't see anything like that.

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 776

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 10, 2005

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation

`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or

`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions;
or

`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.

SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
S†ephen;1575050 said:
so where is it??

Seems to be a great clean bill to me.

regulates--

`(A) the performance of abortions;

And BTW, Ron Paul's own chief of Staff in Washington told me this bill (if all states kept it legal) would not stop one abortion. All this bill does it recognize a human being from conception or fertilization and takes the federal courts from hearing any cases as a result.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Personally? I define as one that will have no real impact apart from the collective. One that, no matter how many people you get, the candidate is realistically not going to have any chance.

Ron Paul is on the edge of what I would consider a blown vote but his support is growing and he's just barely popular enough to get a little major news network attention. I haven't seen Alan Keys in this at all.
Ron Paul has as much chance of winning the nomination as does my Italian Greyhound.

By your own definition you will be blowing your "vote".

For me... I do right and risk the consequences. :)
 

sopwith21

New member
I am not a citizen of the UN, have no say as to who they "elect" or choose for leadership, and have no influence whatsoever what they do. I am a citizen of the USA. And the UN has no right to dictate American law based upon our current political structure, so the ENTIRE argument you have just made is UTTERLY irrelevant.
"It doesn't matter to me HOW the government is layed out so much as WHAT the government DOES!" - Kevin Richeson

You have labeled Ron Paul "pro-abortion" because he did not attempt to outlaw it on a wider scale at a higher government level. By your own standards, you are then pro-abortion as well. You cannot escape your own logic.
I am anti-abortion in Timbuktu. But I don't live there and am not a citizen there. I have no influence or decision in what they do.
Timbuktu is located in Mali, North Africa. Real people with real lives... I've been there.

Mali has been a member of the United Nations since 1960. The United States is a permanent UN member and is on the UN Security Council with irrevocable voting rights. America's UN delegates are appointed by the people you put in office.

You do, in fact, have an opportunity to influence what occurs in Timbuktu, yet you refuse to try to outlaw abortion at this level.

When you have this same disagreement with Ron Paul, you say he is pro-abortion. Why does your own logic not apply to you?
 

S†ephen

New member
Ron Paul has as much chance of winning the nomination as does my Italian Greyhound.

By your own definition you will be blowing your "vote".

For me... I do right and risk the consequences. :)

Your greyhound didn't raise 3.8 million dollars towards his campaign on Monday.
 

sopwith21

New member
And I'll say for the record that if I had a choice between the current laws and 12 states banning abortion, of course I'd choose 12 states banning it.
You have the opportunity to vote for a candidate with a legitimate chance of winning who would do precisely that, yet you reject him, attack him and falsely accuse him of being pro-abortion.

Please either withdraw your statement or act in accordance with it.
 
Last edited:

sopwith21

New member
GREAT! So you're willing to support Dr. Keyes then?
When Alan Keyes wins more straw polls than Ron Paul, raises more campaign money than Ron Paul and passes Ron Paul in the general polls, I'll switch.

I generally prefer Paul's standards, but I have an obligation to support the man who has the best chance of getting elected and outlawing abortion.

Will you do the same?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Actually I think he has a good shot. But seriously I believe the powers that run the show will kill him before he takes office. And if that happens, there will be major problems in America unlike anything seen since the Civil war.
 

sopwith21

New member
And I can assure you PastorKevin, Alan Keyes believes in the power of the state, as you do.
Yes, he does. He is very much a statist and would not hesitate to employ government violence in a holy crusade to achieve what he believes are God's purposes (an army of Christians roar in applause). Alan Keyes is not a victory for human liberty or limited government.

Nevertheless, he would be worlds better than Giuliani or Romney. If he truly has a better chance at winning than Paul, I'll still switch.
 

S†ephen

New member
Actually I think he has a good shot. But seriously I believe the powers that run the show will kill him before he takes office. And if that happens, there will be major problems in America unlike anything seen since the Civil war.

Probably just what we need.

BTW, you missed the goal of the bill. It is to allow abortion to be banned. Not to stop it all together but to make it so we can work at a law against it.

I still don't understand what you don't like about him. The man is working best as he can within Constitutional limits even with this bill.

Vote for him man, we need all we can get!:bannana:
 

sopwith21

New member
Actually I think he has a good shot. But seriously I believe the powers that run the show will kill him before he takes office. And if that happens, there will be major problems in America unlike anything seen since the Civil war.
You are exactly right. And yes, Paul has an excellent shot... especially if Christians would stop stabbing him in the back. He's won what... 8 of the last 11 straw polls? And he set a fundraising record two days ago. He can definitely win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top