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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:17 AM
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.


He is not telling anyone what they can and can not do with their body, he has always said that the Federal Government has no business making the ruling. The decision on weather abortion should be legal or illegal should be made at the State level of Government not the Federal Level of Government.

This also happens to be something Ron Paul has been saying for as long as I can remember. How is this even news?




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I think people are desperately trying to nitpick any flaws



Nitpick? And you admit these issues are "flaws" of Ron paul? Well atleast this is something for me to agree with you on. Ron Paul loses me on major issues aside from the wars and marijuana legalization. When he talks about abolishing minimum wage, removing medicare bcause it's unconstutional, when he talks about giving states absolute power over personal issues, these are not flaws that need nitpicking, I assure you.


Now that its been repeated a thousand times in this thread that Ron Paul wants to bring the power to decide back to the states, let's talk about his amendment.

Remember, Ron Paul is a congressman, he represents people!


He represents you and people with your mentality. The kind of mentality whom believes we should leave states to dictate racial, sexual and social issues. As if fascism was only a negative thing in the federal government, put it through to the state governments and it's A-ok. But I understand, the federal government doesn't give you the power to tell a woman what the hell she must do with a body, so you want your state governments to do it for you. I get it. Goldwater and his pro-segregationist buddies argued the same back in the 60's.


I'm pro-choice


No you're not. Pro-choicers believe that the hard choice of abortion for a woman, even in those unfortunate circumstances, should be left to her and her alone. It has nothing to do with the state governments, nothing to do with the federal government. You seem to have no issue willing to compromise on this and allow states to dictate, just to get Ron Paul in power. Pro-choice my ass.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


Great post. It's about time someone started dumping out the Ron Paul kool aid that has been passed around on here


Like you, I'm with Paul on issues like ending the wars, drug prohibition, and I also agree with him about putting a boot up the federal reserve's ass. That's where it ends.

Any man that would be willing to allow segregationist practices in this country is not someone I can support, Constitution be damned. The Constitution is not an infallible document, you have to remember that it was created by men who owned slaves and had listed black people as 3/5ths of a person.

I don't know about you, but I like living here and being allowed to dine and interact with people who aren't the same ethnicity as I am. I would hate to see businesses popping up with "whites only" signs on them because Dr. Paul is so hard up for 'states rights' that he'd be willing to allow AMERICAN CITIZENS to be discriminated against. I prefer statesmen that value human rights over everything else.

People like Paul are hypocrites anyway. They balk at abortion but once that child is born, and if that child is born to a poor family, they don't want that child to be able to collect government assistance, they'd prefer that the child starve. How ignorant is it to value life more when it's inside of the womb and not give a damn about it once it gets out of there?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
I can tell you what will happen if Ron Paul gets his way. Some states will pass laws banning abortion. Other states will enact laws allowing abortion.


How will states be able to allow abortion when Ron Paul wants to define abortion as murder? Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act will do just that.


Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I'm pro-choice and I'm for Paul.
Look a law like that never passes because the question can't be answered.

Paul doesn't agree with abortions, but he's not going to outlaw them. He will leave it up to the states and they'll decide.


So it is ok for him to lie because it will never pass? He will most definitely be trying to outlaw them by redefining abortion as murder. So my question to you is how many other issues will he do this with?


Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by Kali74
 


Weak attempt bud. Yes I am for States rights. It should be up to the States. It is not the Fed's place to stick their nose into this or thousands of other matters.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)


It is when the people take an issue to the Supreme Court because all other avenues failed them and denied them their right to make a personal decision.


Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by Kali74
 

Not the Government's place, never was, shouldn't be now. Don't know how I can put it any plainer. Ron wants to bring us back to where we are supposed to be, free. We should have never gotten away from it, and we shouldn't like the Federal meddling in our lives. Do you actually enjoy it, the meddling I mean?
edit on 6-9-2011 by Ittabena because: rephrase


...and I don't know how to put it any plainer that Ron Paul is lying. He tells you on one hand he is giving the freedom back to the states to decide, then on the other will make abortion illegal nationwide because he wants to redefine it as murder with his Sanctity of Life Act.

I do very much enjoy when my country protects my right to choose, yes.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by josh2009s
reply to post by Kali74
 


Rather, a debate on the importance of the individual states to make their own laws.


I'm sorry many states have proven their incapability of holding fundamental rights and liberties. It was 50 years ago that states dictated where you could go in your own country based on your skin colour, only 50 years ago that states dictated whom you could marry, and they still do it. It was 150 years ago when states allowed for the enslavement of millions of american citizens.

Don't talk to me about states rights. It's a BS excuse for racists and social fanatics to implement their own little places of fascism. I have my constitutional rights and the government, state and federal, can stay the hell out.


Oh wow. Another solid post that I had to star and quote, keep up the good fight SG.


and to add on, you have states that try to pass laws that allow racial profiling(Arizona). States rights can blow in the wind for all I care, protect the people first.
edit on 6-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
First off I would like to point out that I'm a atheist so my argument is not one promoted by religion. But I'm also a Libertarian much like the good doctor. I used to be pro-abortion in till my mother told me my father wanted her to have one when she was pregnant with me. Blew my mind, I could have never been alive and experience all of life good or bad. I believe people are allowed their freedoms as long as it doesn't hurt another human being, and thats what abortion does it infringes on the right of another human being, their right to life.

You could argue with me till you're face turns blue how thats "Not a real person" but thats the same argument slavers used when oppressing people.

As for Ron Paul's stance on the issue its logical, as of right now the States can not make abortion illegal, with the sanctity of life act it will allow people a chance to vote on the issue and hand it off to the states. It doesn't mean it will become Illegal across the board it just means people can now vote on the issues.

Even though I'm against abortion, I will say that it is here to stay sadly and can never get rid of it without people going back to the coat hanger days, but its a start.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Here is the Bill introduced by Ron Paul in March, 2011
Sanctity of Life Act H.R. 1096


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.


Each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State? What about each state having the right to protect a woman's authority over her own body?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 
Kali, to clarify what appears to scare you about this further, the "definition of life" as given has nothing to do with making this a legal definition in general as far as amending US statutes, but it the definition given for purposes of clarity in the legislation itself as given here:

Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .


As far as what the legislation actually does once its definitions are clear:

Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.


Source here.

It merely allows the states to formulate their own handling of "life" between conception and birth without federal interference and prevents any additional federal attempts to say that abortion at some point is legal on a federal level applying to all states by way of some claim that a zygote is not to be considered alive prior to some point of development - it effectively just ensure no further federal tampering on the issue by being clear in its definitions.

Take care.

EDIT:
quick response to your last post:

What about each state having the right to protect a woman's authority over her own body?

That's up to the people of the state if they want to have laws on it one way or the other - or not - just as with Paul's views on most everything else. Much better than someone coming in at the federal level, which is much harder to do anything about, and push for (and possibly get, due to swings of the pendulum as a result of things in the country getting worse) an amendment to the constitution affecting all women thorough the nation instead of allowing the states to decide as they will.

And you also have to consider that former republicans have been staunchly pro-life, but due to the priorities of their office as well as realities of this debate, it was effectively a non-issue, and likely would remain as much under Paul. He's got bigger fish to fry, and are you really afraid congress would get behind him on this anyway? It's more or less dead-on-arrival, to be honest.

Let's not become single-issue voters and use a non-starter like this to disregard all the other good Paul WOULD be able to accomplish in office that most of the others wouldn't even care to address on a serious level.
edit on 9/6/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
There are 50 states if you don't like what one state is doing then leave. If you don't want to leave your job or family then deal with it you being dealing with the bs of the federal government for decades. I'm thinking some people knock Ron Paul just to do it or are you scared of the power he would transfer from the federal government to you the people.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Originally posted by ExPostFacto
I can tell you what will happen if Ron Paul gets his way. Some states will pass laws banning abortion. Other states will enact laws allowing abortion.

How will states be able to allow abortion when Ron Paul wants to define abortion as murder? Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act will do just that.



Make up your mind, is Ron Paul's intention to give the states rights back or not. Isn't that your concern here? So what if he makes that a law? If the states get their right to choose back then it becomes up to the state not the federal government. Where is the problem again?
edit on 9/6/2011 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Thank-you for your respectful disagreement.
I believe that should this act be passed into law that the choice of each state will essentially be whether or not to allow murder to be committed. No State, no matter how sovereign will be able to do that. Also, that this act removes the right of an american citizen the ability to appeal to one of our branches of government.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I have thought a lot about this issue lately....and although I don't personally don't believe in abortion....I do believe that a woman has the right to do with her own body ....as she wishes. Ron Paul needs to leave this issue alone. I do like Ron Paul...but he and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.

As for Ron Paul getting elected...isn't that up to the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 

Thank-you for your respectful disagreement.

Absolutely, Kali. People should be able to talk about things, even when they might never see eye-to-eye on them. Screeching does no one any good



I believe that should this act be passed into law that the choice of each state will essentially be whether or not to allow murder to be committed. No State, no matter how sovereign will be able to do that.

I can understand your concern about the first bit, as well as definitely agree with the last. However, the definitions given in this legislation don't require the states to define anything accordingly, it's just non-binding clarity on the intent and scope of the legislation itself, and is only for purposes of the federal limitations...not imposing said definitions on the states (and regardless, the states already make some exceptions, such as the death penalty not being considered murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc. - I can effectively guarantee that likely the vast majority of states would keep abortion legal on some level even if this legislation did ever somehow come to the fore, and would have some related definition along these lines if even going that far.

Remember, Paul only recognizes the four federal crimes as given in the constitution - you have to recognize the limitations of definitions in proposed legislation, as well as their intent - which is separate from the intent and effect of the legislation itself.


Also, that this act removes the right of an american citizen the ability to appeal to one of our branches of government.

That's an additional aspect I have to approve of - I simply feel there are some things the federal government is not authorized to weigh upon or set nationwide precedent for. Remember the counter to that - it prevents some extremists in a state that has legalized abortion from appealling to some extremists at the federal level and getting the whole shebang illegalized nationwide for everyone again, as well.

I know you feel strongly on this one, and sorry we probably won't come down on the same side. But I'm also very much concerned about our ongoing militarism, our federal lack of concern about freedom of choice on so many other matters leading to so many ruined lives, the disasterous fiscal impacts of these and so many other failed policies - I would much rather see the possibilities of what might happen on this issue if we trusted the people to decide locally and the choice were left to the states, giving us a better shot at addressing all these other issues, instead of worrying so much about this single issue that we effectively greenlight the rest...to so much continued sorrow for us all, and so many others around the world.

At this point, I simply don't see anyone else willing to even realistically look at these other issues to see them addressed, and this world has already had its fill of them all.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


We probably won't come down on the same side of the fence, you're right lol. One thing that popped into my head just now is: If he is not being hypocritical here on this issue as I think he is, why does the bill he submitted not simply say that it would take the issue out of the hands of the courts? Why all the pro-life lingo in there alongside that redefines when life begins?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Okay I see what you are saying now that you have posted the bill. Even as a Ron Paul supporter I believe the wording of this law (which will never be passed btw), creates an additional federal mandate of recognizing life at the point of conception at the federal level. This is not what Ron Paul has stated publicly. I think maybe for the first time, I have seen a partial deception from Ron Paul. It is not a full deception, but it could have the effect of a whole deception.

Ron Paul has publicly stated its a states rights issue and that he wants states to deal with this issue. However, by creating a federal stance on what life is defined as, means that the federal government would be required to enforce provisions of the constitution on the states, thereby making abortion illegal and unconstitutional in every state. This may be a wording flaw and RP does not realize he is creating this mandate that could be misinterpreted. However, this is exactly what could happen. The bill does not give states a right to pass their own laws on abortion, the bill gives them the power to enforce the definition of life as defined by this bill.

Thank you for showing me the exact legislation. No doubt Ron Paul is attempting to make abortion illegal across all 50 states.

I believe in freewill, so I could not support this bill.
edit on 6-9-2011 by ExPostFacto because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 
Hi Kali -

There was actually a pretty decent debate over at the Ron Paul Forums on this exact point of the legislation.

Generally, it boils down to that merely defining a "person" and "life" for clarity of the legislation itself, and does not extend to any effect outside the scope of the legislation. Purposes for this being so that courts later couldn’t say “Well, before XXX point of a pregnancy, it’s not life, so the federal courts can still rule on matters up to this point” (viability arguments, etc.).

Regardless, long story short, no one doubts that those on death row, victims of manslaughter or justifiable homicide, etc., are alive – so just as states already define their own terms and handling on each of these (and other) instances, terminating a pre-born “life” even under this definition if some were afraid of it being projected on the states (which legally, is not done here) will not result in a murder charge or other stifling of abortion in the same way it doesn’t stifle the death penalty or consider justifiable homicide murder – and as per the clear language of the bill otherwise, the intent is there in the open – to remove jurisdiction from federal courts over any state case dealing with the protection of “life” one way or the other as they will.

And, Paul is definitely pro-life on a personal level, so it’s reasonable the bill would reflect that. However, the scope and effect of the bill are the only thing that matter here, and it imposes no more of a *federal* penalty on the termination of a fetus than it does on the termination of the full-fledged, personality’d life of a convicted mass murderer.

Hah, I certainly hope that helps since I’ve got nothing left to offer on it


Take care, sister.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 
*sigh*

ExPostFacto, do you also view this legislation as Ron Paul thinking that the states or people in them can't legally terminate non-disputed life or make their own classifications for instances in when such occurs?

Unless you're proposing that the bill would somehow also criminalize the death penalty as well as justifiable homicide, killings in war, and the rest, then the understanding you just expressed is not the correct one.

No offense intended, but it can't really become much clearer than that - no one has ever doubted that death-row inmates are alive, yet they can lawfully be terminated by the states and people can otherwise terminate life justifiably.

Be well, friend.
edit on 9/6/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Again with this logic. Fascism is bad at a federal level, fascism at the state level? A-ok!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


No it doesn't refer to a penalty however it defines by law a fertilized egg as a person and affords protection as so. Congress does not make State laws that I am aware of, therefor this would be a federal mandate, wouldn't it?

As far as a comparison to death row inmates goes, the death penalty is exactly what it says it is, a penalty...sentenced to a person declared guilty of a capital crime by a jury of peers.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
And yet people think it is alright for the POTUS to disregard the law for illegal immigrants? He has no right right to pick an choose, but to enforce the laws..



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
"How can you force a pregnant woman to give birth!"

Just one of the many great lines they're throwing at Ron Paul. I think the pregnant woman gives the birth not Ron Paul.




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join