Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

-OR-

How Ron Paul will outlaw abortion

*Note-this thread is not about whether abortion is right or wrong. There are hundreds of threads out there in which to debate that subject. This thread is to connect the dots as to how Ron Paul WILL outlaw abortion, under the cloak of states rights.*

*Second note-Many of the quotes I am going to use are well known and circulated, and therefore, in the interest of saving time and space, I will omit from citing those quotes, as hundreds of sources can easily be found by copy&pasting the quote in a google search.*

For the purpose of this thread, it has to be noted that it has been well established that Ron Paul wishes to make abortion an issue for each state to decide. A few quotes for those that don't know:

"best handled at the state level"

and

"the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."

It is also very well noted that he is staunchly anti-abortion, calling himself:

"an unshakable foe of abortion"

"strongly pro-life"

So, I have been challenged multiple times as to why I am opposed to RP's plan to take abortion to the state level, and out of federal hands. I am now going to connect the dots and show how this VERY anti-abortion politician is sidestepping the fact that he intends to outlaw abortion by claiming he wants to take it to the state level, and thus exposing him as using the same, "status-quo", backdoor political tactics that he claims to be against.

Ron Paul has introduced, at the federal level, the "Sanctity of Life Act"[H.R. 1096]. This act, which he would push into place if president, would:

Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life.

and

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;

www.govtrack.us...

Thereby A)nullifying Roe vs. Wade; and B) handing federally protected rights to the fetus from the moment of conception.

Now, one might ask, "If Ron Paul wants to make abortion a state issue, why is he pushing for this FEDERAL definition of a fetus' rights?"

Simple. Roe v Wade would be revoked. States would get to choose whether or not they wanted to allow abortion. In the states that choose to allow it, it will be performed as a legal procedure. HOWEVER, AFTER the procedure, both the doctor and the parents will be open to prosecution based on violating the federal rights of the fetus granted by the "Sanctity of Life Act", effectively OUTLAWING ABORTION, even if the states wish to keep it.
The states rights sham is simply a guise to get Roe v. Wade revoked.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Tell me Ron Paul isn't the exact type of politician he claims to be against.

Considering the fact that he delivered babies as his job, I can completely understand his opinion being pro-life. I think you are trying to connect dots where there are no dots to connect. While he maintains his opinion, he is stepping outside his opinion and respecting others, and more so by leaving it to the individual states instead of the federal government to decide what is best for them.

I have to disagree with you. Ron has stated numerous times he is pro-life, but he also states that it is the peoples choice what they do.

So it begins. As it comes to light, that Dr. Paul is garnering a good number of delegates, and may have a better standing in the elections. the Anti-Paul threads will be popping up like weeds.

This is old news and has been debated ad nauseam .

JMOHO....Des

And is it wrong to leave this issue to the state level?

thats all im asking, cause that seems to be the thing people keep missing with Ron Paul.

Even if hes the most Adherent prolifer, he wont step in and let the Feds force it on the states.

What ever the issue is, thats what it comes down to.

Is it okay for states to decide this on their own...

Originally posted by Skewed
Considering the fact that he delivered babies as his job, I can completely understand his opinion being pro-life. I think you are trying to connect dots where there are no dots to connect. While he maintains his opinion, he is stepping outside his opinion and respecting others, and more so by leaving it to the individual states instead of the federal government to decide what is best for them.

I have to disagree with you. Ron has stated numerous times he is pro-life, but he also states that it is the peoples choice what they do.

He has every right to be pro-life. He doesnt have a right to force that upon me.

So show me which dots I have connected that are wrong, if you claim them to be. Is it the part where he wants to reveal Roe v Wade? The part where he wants to grand federally protected rights to a fetus? What?

A quote, as to your claim that he wants people to decide:

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.”

He wants to let people choose, he just wants to prosecute doctors that perform the procedure.

Originally posted by benrl


Is it okay for states to decide this on their own...

Absolutely. Who else knows what is best for their people? The suits in DC?

Originally posted by benrl
And is it wrong to leave this issue to the state level?

thats all im asking, cause that seems to be the thing people keep missing with Ron Paul.

Even if hes the most Adherent prolifer, he wont step in and let the Feds force it on the states.

What ever the issue is, thats what it comes down to.

Is it okay for states to decide this on their own...

You missed the entire point of the thread. It isnt wrong to take it to the state level. It is VERY wrong to make it a state issue while pushing federal law that would essentially make it illegal.

Originally posted by Destinyone
So it begins. As it comes to light, that Dr. Paul is garnering a good number of delegates, and may have a better standing in the elections. the Anti-Paul threads will be popping up like weeds.

This is old news and has been debated ad nauseam .

JMOHO....Des

So tell me how I am wrong. Dont troll, back up your statement.

So far 4 responses, and not a single person has even ATTEMPTED to show me how I am wrong.

hmmmm....

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So far 4 responses, and not a single person has even ATTEMPTED to show me how I am wrong.

hmmmm....

So does that mean you are 100% correct by default?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I agree with Ron Paul that abortion should not be a Federal issue.
The Federal Government has no business being in a womans uterus.

I don't agree that the Supreme court should not be involved if it has to review a case.

Personally I think this is a woman's rights issue.
And that shouldn't be an issue.

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So far 4 responses, and not a single person has even ATTEMPTED to show me how I am wrong.

hmmmm....

So does that mean you are 100% correct by default?

Sure doesnt. Does responding with this nonsense mean you are deflecting from the fact that you cant argue my point?

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I agree with Ron Paul that abortion should not be a Federal issue.
The Federal Government has no business being in a womans uterus.

I don't agree that the Supreme court should not be involved if it has to review a case.

Personally I think this is a woman's rights issue.
And that shouldn't be an issue.

But again, you're missing the point. The problem isnt making it a state issue. the problem is his making it a state issue WHILE passing law that gives a fetus federally protected right as a person. Meaning the doctor, once he performs a LEGAL abortion, can be charged with infringing upon the rights of that fetus.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Destinyone
So it begins. As it comes to light, that Dr. Paul is garnering a good number of delegates, and may have a better standing in the elections. the Anti-Paul threads will be popping up like weeds.

This is old news and has been debated ad nauseam .

JMOHO....Des

So tell me how I am wrong. Dont troll, back up your statement.

Don't call me a Troll...you want me to back up my claim...here ya go...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Will those do...or do you require 30 more just like these.....

Sheesh... YOU are the Troll...using the search function here, proves your thread has been rehashed every way imaginable.....

Des

In order to argue your point we have to establish something first.

Does the Federal Government have the constitutional power to regulate human reproduction?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


This not something that can be proven, one way or another.

Since he is not in office to exercise his power, we can not know.
I do not think that there is a hidden document that will clear it up.

It is all speculation at this point as to what he would do, it is a wait and see deal to know for sure.

But I stick to my opinion that he will do the right thing, leave it to the people to decide.

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Destinyone
So it begins. As it comes to light, that Dr. Paul is garnering a good number of delegates, and may have a better standing in the elections. the Anti-Paul threads will be popping up like weeds.

This is old news and has been debated ad nauseam .

JMOHO....Des

So tell me how I am wrong. Dont troll, back up your statement.

Don't call me a Troll...you want me to back up my claim...here ya go...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Will those do...or do you require 30 more just like these.....

Sheesh... Troll my happy arse....

Des

Posting to ATS threads is your statement backing?

Its coming clear VERY quickly that you all cannot dispute the topic of this thread.

reply to post by grey580

Personally I think this is a woman's rights issue.
And that shouldn't be an issue.

I am going to agree with that...This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue...

Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

This not something that can be proven, one way or another.

Since he is not in office to exercise his power, we can not know.
I do not think that there is a hidden document that will clear it up.

It is all speculation at this point as to what he would do, it is a wait and see deal to know for sure.

It can be proven, absolutely, that both of the things i speak of, his intent to repeal Roe v. Wade, and his pushing of the sanctity of life act, coincide with each other, and are contradictory to his words.

Furthermore, it can be proven, by law, that if a fetus is granted federal rights as a person, that it doesnt matter if a state keeps abortion legal, as that federal law will supersede state law.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Skewed
Considering the fact that he delivered babies as his job, I can completely understand his opinion being pro-life. I think you are trying to connect dots where there are no dots to connect. While he maintains his opinion, he is stepping outside his opinion and respecting others, and more so by leaving it to the individual states instead of the federal government to decide what is best for them.

I have to disagree with you. Ron has stated numerous times he is pro-life, but he also states that it is the peoples choice what they do.

He has every right to be pro-life. He doesnt have a right to force that upon me.

Yes he does because it doesn't only affect women, it affects babies as well, which he sees as human beings. From his perspective it would be murder, are you trying to say somebody against murder doesn't have the right to force his beliefs on you? We should all just make our own decisions with no penalties?