It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul Wants To Take Away The Judicial Branch's Authority To Decide On Abortion

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Ron Paul the hero of personal choices and freedoms? Only if they fit his ideals. I'm sure many of you already know this but the more internet reading I do, the more I realize people on the internet barely read a word before they go foaming at the mouth.

I know this will turn into a Pro-Choice Vs Pro-life debate. Before it does, I would like to ask all Ron Paul supporters how they feel about this man who says that government has no right to decide anything for you, is going to decide that women can't have an abortion and is going to do it by circumventing the checks and balances system of our three branch government. He claims that he is going to leave it up to individual States to decide whether abortion is legal or not. How can States decide this when he is aiming to pass a law that defines life as starting at conception?



*Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his "We the People Act"

*Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a "Sanctity of Life Act"


RonPaul2012.com

What else is he going to tell us that we have a choice about, that States have a choice about, then make laws that leave us no choice at all?



+12 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


This won't turn into a Pro-Choice Vs Pro-life debate. Rather, a debate on the importance of the individual states to make their own laws. And in case you did not know, that is how it is supposed to be. It is, after all, written in the Constitution.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 
Perhaps you should research that a little bit further and realize that regardless of definitions given, in all practicality the legislation merely confirms that the Federal government doesn't have a valid say in it one way or the other - as it never did, per the constitution - and that the federal courts have to keep their noses out of it.

Each and every state must decide for themselves. The legislation merely enforces that, meaning any state that sees fit can decide to have its abortion rights and resolve any cases about them directly without federal involvement. Be well.


edit on 9/5/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I'm guessing it's one of those things that will never make it through congress and the senate. But it still bugs me that he is caving in to the nutty religious right like that.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


He's not caving, he's always thought this. He use to deliver babies for a living.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Also since most states probably would make it legal anyway, since making it illegal is only dumb since it would cause ppl wanting an abortion to just go to the next state to get the service performed, this would not be a problem.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Leave it up to the states huh? Sounds like one of them crazy constitution loving ppl, must be a terrorist, [SNIP] Quit hating op!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 9/5/2011 by tothetenthpower because: Removed T&C Infraction



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Ron Paul is a member of Congress and a politician. His job is to make laws. Laws do not protect freedom, they restrict it. It really should not come as a surprise then if you look at it that way.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I wonder why he discounts the 9th Amendment?



The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.




Incidentally, I'm pro-choice, but very anti-abortion.




edit on 5-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The thread title is only 1/3 correct, Ron Paul wants to take away the entire federal governments authority on abortion; and I thought it was the woman's choice, so how is it now on the authority of the Judicial branch? Which is it the woman's choice or the Judicial branch's choice?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 
The funny part about it is that the nutty religious right, as you so lovingly calls it, has almost the exact same issue with it and resists it themselves since they see it as allowing the states to legalize abortion.

Jeez, when will people start reviewing both sides of an issue before commenting and realizing no one has caved to either side, and recognize that perhaps a one-size-fits-all solution through DC is not the best option as that solution can change FOR THE ENTIRE NATION as the winds of change blow and hard times enable more-extreme ideas to assume control?

Wait for things to keep getting worse and Obama's chances keep dropping, wait for enough people taking a short-sighted view of things as mentioned in this thread to spike Paul's heel so Bachmann or Perry or someone else who wants to make CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS affecting the entire nation on abortion, gay marriage, and probably other individual choices gets into office and makes what you're afraid of as being the wrong decision for everyone else in the entire country, instead of allowing states and the people in them to choose as they see fit.

Crikey, why does anyone want to give that much control to such a small group of people and for some reason think those people will never change their minds on certain issues....



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Dr. Paul is toast with most women now.

Even my right wing, Baptist, conservative, 75 yr mom, doesn't want some MAN telling her what she can and can't do with her body.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


He's not toast with me. I am pro-choice, and although I know he is personally against abortion, I can appreciate that he does not want the Federal govt to make rulings on this, as it's not their job!

He stands the same on this as everything else, leave it to the individual state to adjudicate.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Dr. Paul is toast with most women now.

Even my right wing, Baptist, conservative, 75 yr mom, doesn't want some MAN telling her what she can and can't do with her body.


You should explain to your mother that this will only further empower her as she would then be able to directly vote on the issue at hand.
edit on 5-9-2011 by josh2009s because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Perfect examples of inability to read. He says he wants to leave it up to the States, here is the key part...the part where whether you like it or not the illusion begins to shatter...he wants to pass a law that defines life as starting at conception.

"The Sanctity of Life Act...defines life starting at conception"

Think about what that means and tell me where we are left with choice as individuals or States.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Who cares. The states can always go whatever direction they want with abortion. It's then up to the people to vote one way or another. Nothing bad here. Just a Ron Paul bash. Good luck with that.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Perfect examples of inability to read. He says he wants to leave it up to the States, here is the key part...the part where whether you like it or not the illusion begins to shatter...he wants to pass a law that defines life as starting at conception.

"The Sanctity of Life Act...defines life starting at conception"

Think about what that means and tell me where we are left with choice as individuals or States.


We could debate your point till we turn blue, but we won't know how this will play out until it happens. He could try to pass a sanctity of life amendment, but does that mean a state will not allow abortions? Who knows?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Actually that is the job of the Republic, that is why we have individual states with their version of the constitution. Before the Federal intervention states had the power to decided what was best for them.

America is a Republic after all.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


With the diaster we are all facing in this country. Like no jobs, no homes, police state TSA, Monsanto poisoning us all . Does anyone actually believe that states right about abortion is a top priority to turn this country around? More nit picking about something that is a small issue in comparison to the real problems. Like maybe if we don't get this turned around Agenda 21 will be the end to us all. I have read oh don't vote for him he is a republican ? And? Don't vote for him because he thinks the states might have the right to decide their own laws? Excuse me? When they can't actually find anything like fraud, sex scandals etc. Lets focus on something that has been debated since women have gotten pregnant. Or just fabricate something?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
What does abortion have to do with pro-choice?
I don't see the relation?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join