Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

I find this thread to be futile by all means

Abortion, gay rights, gays in the military, other social issues....

WHO CARES!!!!!

At this point you have to worry about your crumbling economy not issues that the right/left facade of a dichotomy tries to make you think is important

Whether gays are able to marry or not won't make corrupt politicians richer
neither will abortion

Wake Up People!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Gay marriage and murder isn't the same thing. Murder is a big issue.

reply to post by oddnutz

apparently it is also you who is missing the bigger picture here.

so unless the state has a statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part there of, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice then this bill has no bearing on that state

EVERY state will have (simply by virtue of the proposal) a statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part there of, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice regarding abortions.
each and every state will have greater risk with less opportunity for recovery when things go wrong. (and they always do)

states that adopt anti-abortion measures would be opening themselves up for extreme risk which will inevitably fall in the lap of taxpayers.
persons who are abused by such measures have -0- recourse beyond the borders of said state. i guess we should just forget the fact that this is an UnConstitutional position to support?

maybe, just maybe, if it weren't so apropo, ppl would just mind their own business for once.

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Whether gays are able to marry or not won't make corrupt politicians richer neither will abortion

both already have been for decades, how does this current situation change anything?

i'm guessing you know nothing of the industry other than what you've read or been told, right?
in one word - kickbacks - they've been going on forever, even longer than Roe vs Wade has existed on the books.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


FFS, let the man deal with the bigger issues like stopping war and poverty America. This trivial garbage can be put to the wayside for now! Stop trying to find ANY reason not to get Paul into office, just go crawl in your hole cause the MAJORITY of America wants him in!!! You don't like it? LEAVE

I have to admit, I don't have a strong opinion about abortion one way or the other. It's just not an issue that affects everyone. But if the worse thing Ron Paul would do is outlaw abortion, I would prefer him over someone who feels that the President has the authority to assasinate an American citizen with a trial or even charges. I would prefer him over someone who would send out billions of dollars in foreign aid while homeless veterans are on the streets begging for food money. And I would prefer him over someone who thinks that having an international banking cartel in control of a fiat money supply is a good thing.

reply to post by Honor93
It seems to me that the due process issue would be resolved by the states passing the allows to either allow or disallow such laws in the first place, let alone any resultant state court challenges to such.

Due process merely means all legal rights and protections extended to a person under the territory's respective laws, and if the state decides that abortion is legal in their jurisdiction, this seems more than settled to me.

Take care.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Honor93

 

It seems to me that the due process issue would be resolved by the states passing the allows to either allow or disallow such laws in the first place, let alone any resultant state court challenges to such.

Due process merely means all legal rights and protections extended to a person under the territory's respective laws, and if the state decides that abortion is legal in their jurisdiction, this seems more than settled to me.

Take care.

please slow down and look again.
this is not about the act of abortion being legal or illegal via State decision so much as this is about the unConstitutional provision to exclude the Supreme Court from ALL cases arising from said procedure or complications or challenges of law regarding it or deaths directly resulting from it.

it is also about the protections of rights afforded to the fetus from the moment of conception.
rights that no fetus can assert. not legally, not physically, not even via proxy communications.

please, explain how you think due process is afforded a fetus that is aborted at say 18 wks ?
IF that fetus (under Constitutional protections) is denied due process regarding it's demise, the State has violated more than one law.

on the contrary, if a mother is denied a medically necessary abortion and subsequently suffers death, where is her or her family's Constitutionally protected right of recourse ??

edit to add: and when the State infringes on the rights of the individual (regarding abortion or the outcome) who presides over their misdeeds ?? the same State and authority of whom the violatation is directed. (per proposal)
that's an interesting circle to nowhere for anyone suffering at the direction of the State.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by coyotepoet

 

Sigh....
Another person who didn't bother read, or doesn't understand what is being said in this thread.

You bash others yet you either couldn't control unabashed hatred towards RP for more than 5secs to bother READING the WHOLE BILL!?

Let me post the WHOLE Bill for you, since you decided to Cherry Pick suited to your bias.

H.R.1096 -- Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 1096 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1096

To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 15, 2011

Mr. PAUL 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, and for other purposes.

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 2011'.

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, 1257, and 1258, 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.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, 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.

I highlighted the part you don't seem to understand. That quite clearly says the States have the authority to deem it legal or illegal.

The part you quoted was regarding the Fed's INABILITY to change the State's determination.

Now, was that SOOOOO hard?!


Seriously, you need to get a grip. You go in every RP thread and talk crap cuz you THINK he wants to outlaw abortions on a Federal Level, when quite clearly that is NOT the case. Better luck next time.

/thread

Originally posted by Honor93
suicide = i forfeit my life
abortion = claims made that it is taking the life of another.
these two things are NOT the same no matter how many times ppl try to make it so.

And yet here we are today with doctors and family members making the decision to terminate the life of another person despite that person being unable to consent. Even in circumstances where there is a chance the person will recover. That person didn't forfeit their life, another person chose for them... and it is legal provided it falls within the boundaries set by the state and conducted within the state.

It might help the rest of us understand where you are coming from if you clarify at what point you believe the mother no longer has a legal choice to abort and the federal protection you see for the fetus or baby kicks in?

reply to post by Honor93

please slow down and look again.
this is not about the act of abortion being legal or illegal via State decision so much as this is about the unConstitutional provision to exclude the Supreme Court from ALL cases arising from said procedure or complications or challenges of law regarding it or deaths directly resulting from it.

SCOTUS only has authority over cases/issues pertaining to federal law (SLA proposes entirely removing federal jurisdiction and recognizing that the federal government has no authority to MAKE laws on this topic), so this doesn't apply. Additionally, they tend to only agree to hear a very small number of cases appealed to them anyway. Back to the non-issue front...

it is also about the protections of rights afforded to the fetus from the moment of conception.
rights that no fetus can assert. not legally, not physically, not even via proxy communications.

Those alleged rights are resolved by the due process discussion in my last post.

please, explain how you think due process is afforded a fetus that is aborted at say 18 wks ?
IF that fetus (under Constitutional protections) is denied due process regarding it's demise, the State has violated more than one law.

Incorrect, as the finality of handling lies with each and every state individually, to be resolved by their own courts. Remember, removed from federal jurisdiction, to be handled just like each and every other matter dealing with premature termination of life the states already handle - due process issue resolved by initial state passage or said laws or state court challenges being resolved by an impartial judge.

on the contrary, if a mother is denied a medically necessary abortion and subsequently suffers death, where is her or her family's Constitutionally protected right of recourse ??

State laws are regularly subject to challenge - at the state level; also, SLA doesn't prevent any challenges or action against such laws or activities in the states. And, I highly doubt SCOTUS would hear such an argument anyway, even if still under federal jurisdiction. Purely my opinion, that, but given the multitude of other weightier topics they've punted, I'd say it's likely accurately. Regardless, I don't think ANY state laws proposing outright bans on abortion - including rare cases of medical necessity - would ever be passed...if even actually ever proposed in the first place (which I also have strong doubts about).

As you will, we can continue to discuss this - but it seems we might be talking around each other and at an impasse? You'll see it as you choose to, interjecting concepts that I feel obviously don't apply given state legislation and judicial ruling, as well as the removal of federal oversight from an issue they shouldn't be involved in, coupled with the fact that very similar topics are already addressed by the states as a matter of course.

You might feel that each instance of abortion in states that allow it would likewise require an individual proceeding, but I'm fairly certain that after the first state-level challenge or two, judges would likely throw them out of court as frivolous since such were already legal under state law.

All that out of the way - and I know you haven't discussed this in any of our direct communications so far but I need to add it anyway - regardless of the (I consider irrational) fears stemming from this unlikely legislation, I consider the bulk of Paul's views and the dire straights in which we find ourselves on a whole range of other issues to far outweigh such concerns, even if I found them more substantial. In short, we've got too many bigger clear-and-present fish to fry to get caught up worrying about extreme improbabilities - however justified I might consider those improbabilities.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


The way you act in this thread is an embarrassment and you are just making yourself look very stupid indeed.
Any normal person who reads your thread and is a neutral can see very clearly that all you do is try to attack people, talk to them like dirt and act like an angry child

Most people come onto ATS to discuss and debate, all you do is come here to argue.

It's funny that people like you make threads thinking you're doing a good thing trying to make RP look bad, when the truth is that anyone who is unsure or neutral will move towards RP purely because of your arrogant and aggressive attitude. You actually do RP a favor which is what makes it so funny when i see people like you making threads

Yes rp will outlaw abortion, but if that very same baby has no health insurance it will be allowed to die, because it's not his problem. It's always ironic to me how conservatives consider life sacred until it leaves the womb. The it's ok to poison its water supply with pollution, or let it die if it has the misfortune. Of being poor and uninsured

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

Except we have going on now... doctors and family members making the decision to terminate the life of another person when that person is unable to consent.

again, this ONLY happens when a prior directive is not available.
(unfortunately, that's quite often)

the easiest way to take charge of your eventual demise, is to legally specify what you do and do not want.
teminally ill ? - submit a directive before you lose cognitive function
18yrs old and don't want to be kept on life support - you can legally make that decision, it does not NEED to be decided by any State authority or alternate family member.
(above DNR references apply to US persons only, check regulations in your own country)
no state approval, permission or doctor is needed to commit suicide

whereas, medically safe abortions are not possible without physician participation.
however, unsafe abortions are still conducted with and without medical assistance today. this bill does nothing to rectify that situation either.
it stands to make it worse than it already is and that'll drive up medical costs all around.

That person didn't forfeit their life, another person chose for them... and it is legal provided it falls within the boundaries set by the state and conducted within the state.

why won't you accept that such state statutes do not supercede individual directives, but they are all that's available when NO individual directive is on record?
i'd prefer more ppl make their own decisions in advance but, that's me.

It might help the rest of us understand where you are coming from if you clarify for the rest of us at what point you believe the mother no longer has a legal choice to abort and the federal protection you see kicks in?

since you are joining in so late, i could refer you to my previous posts in this thread but i will engage your curiosity just this once ... i am of the opinion that all abortions are a NUNYA - as in nunya-dang-bizness - conerning any aspect of government.
it is a decision between the parents and their provider, period.

if you're asking when i believe "Constitutional protections" kick in, that'd be when they (newborns) are capable of asserting them.
first breath has always been good enough for me, regardless of the gestational duration.

Originally posted by Honor93
again, this ONLY happens when a prior directive is not available. (unfortunately, that's quite often)

A fetus has no prior directive available.

if you're asking when i believe "Constitutional protections" kick in, that'd be when they (newborns) are capable of asserting them. first breath has always been good enough for me, regardless of the gestational duration.

Thank you for clarifying. So if the doctor is holding the "being" in the air over the mother, the umbilical cord is still connected, and has yet to initiate that first breath... the mother can still choose to abort. That helps.

Namaste.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Right but in any case they won't have any jurisdiction to pursue legal action.
Or am i reading that wrong?

It would be up to the state to determine whether or not abortion is legal or not.
Which fits in quite well with the constitutional view of states rights.
And since it's the states job to police abortion the federal government can't intervene.

And still the bill doesn't define things like. What happens if the mothers life is in danger if she has the baby?
A 1 month old fetus can't survive outside of a mothers body.

I think you're reading too much into this.

They wont be able to prosecute for the abortion, no. They will be able to prosecute based on the infringement of the rights of the fetus.

I dont think you're reading enough into it. It is all right there.

I believe the problem is, you are seeing what you want to see in it. From the bill it states:

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

It says what it says but, also implies that the State also has the right to NOT protect the lives of unborn children. It is plainly stating that the State makes the determination not the Federal government.

Section 3 of the bill regarding limitations imposed on the US Supreme court states:

...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction ...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...

H.R. 1096
This removes any authority explicit or implied, that the Federal government has to regulate in any way, issues relating to abortion. Section 4 expands this limitation to Federal District courts saying basically, if the supreme court can't hear the case, neither can the district court.

You assert and I agree that this will effectively repeal Roe v. Wade since it is a federal edict legalizing abortion and further takes away any power the states have in making judgments on abortion. However, you also assert that this bill would give federal rights (protection) to the fetus which is not the case at all. This bill does not even use the word fetus in it. I am not a biology expert but, I'm pretty sure that a fetus does not exist until about eight weeks after conception. The bill defines the existence of a human life at conception not after it becomes a fetus. That point in and of itself tells me that you've not thoroughly researched your contentions.

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.

This is pure speculation on your part. No where in the bill does it state or imply such a thing, not to mention once again, you are pointing to fetus rights granted by this bill which is a fantasy on your part.

Tell me I'm wrong.

I think that I've covered a majority of your "contentions" and have clearly shown that in fact, you are wrong.

So I ask you captaintyinknots, how exactly is Ron Paul planning on outlawing abortion when the bill clearly states that the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction to even opine on the matter, let alone prosecute anyone for anything related to the act? Are you simply misunderstanding the bill or do you have an axe to grind?

ESV

Roe vs. Wade is Federal...and as such, overrides any state attempt...so the idea seems to be null and void. It's certainly one issue I don't agree with Mr. Paul on...

At this point you have to worry about your crumbling economy not issues that the right/left facade of a dichotomy tries to make you think is important

Whether gays are able to marry or not won't make corrupt politicians richer
neither will abortion

Exactly. In other words, we've really got much bigger fish to fry folks... Now I know Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected, but I also know that whether Romney gets it (very unlikely) or Obama is re-elected (sadly, all but inevitable), neither one of them will be capable of upsetting the apple cart, and business will continue as usual for the next 4 years.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I completely agree with Ron Paul , i am beginning to like this man more and more. Now if he just wasnt so weak on foreign policy.

Abortion is Murder. If i aborted "you" when you were in the womb at 10 days old .. you would not exist or be reading this post. I killed you my good sir. That is Murder.

The only case what so ever i am iffy about is in the case of Rape or Medical emergency (going to die or become handicapped).

I don't know what i would do if i was Raped , i honestly would most likely abort it. I know that is horrible , but i couldn't imagine bearing a child from some one who did that to me.

---------

However , unless the Woman was Raped or in a life or death medical situation ... NO ABORTION FOR YOU.

I like how Mississppi just passed a bill that if a Baby's heartbeat is detected , you cannot abort the child. Win.

reply to post by Gazrok


The Wade case could easily be over turned as it ARGUABLE in every sense of the word.

reply to post by Praetorius

SCOTUS only has authority over cases/issues pertaining to federal law (SLA proposes entirely removing federal jurisdiction and recognizing that the federal government has no authority to MAKE laws on this topic), so this doesn't apply. Additionally, they tend to only agree to hear a very small number of cases appealed to them anyway. Back to the non-issue front...

since Roe vs Wade is already established Federal law, what is your point here, exactly ?
this proposal removes an individuals ability to have their applicable case presented whether the court finds it worthy or not.
removing Constitutional pathways to resolution is a failed misdirection, try again.

Those alleged rights are resolved by the due process discussion in my last post

hardly or i woundn't have asked you to explain this preposterous presumption.

Incorrect, as the finality of handling lies with each and every state individually, to be resolved by their own courts. Remember, removed from federal jurisdiction, to be handled just like each and every other matter dealing with premature termination of life the states already handle - due process issue resolved by initial state passage or said laws or state court challenges being resolved by an impartial judge.

over-simplification.
currently, the legal finality lies with the Supreme Court as directed in the Constitution and especially when the state errors in the application of its granted authority.

no, it is not "just like every other matter dealing iwth premature termination of life".
all of the other matters deal with living, breathing and previously born humans.
this, not so much.

due process issue resolved by initial state passage or said laws or state court challenges being resolved by an impartial judge.

so, you're saying that as a fetus, with protected rights, i cannot assert them in a location of which i have no choosing ??
essentially, you claim that my newly granted rights are "conditional" rather Constitutional and based on environmental conditions of which i have -0- control ... how are these rights again and for whom ??

remember, this fetus has rights.
so, how is it "within the confines of the Constitution" that my 'right to life' can be negotiated or negated by a mere location ??
are you seeing the problems here yet or are you still blinded by the rhetoric ??

And, I highly doubt SCOTUS would hear such an argument anyway, even if still under federal jurisdiction.

i'm positive ScOTUS wouldn't hear such an argument as Roe vs Wade prevents it from ever appearing and SLA prohibits the possibility even though the need may very well arise.

as well as the removal of federal oversight from an issue they shouldn't be involved in,

this is an illusion. i defer to the bill, section 2, article 1, parts A&B.

you are welcome to your opinion, some of which i happen to agree.
Dr Paul is not the target of this conversation, this legislation is.
i too, favor Dr Paul over all other current candidates, however, on this issue, we are polar opposites and just because i favor some of his theories doesn't mean i'm going to lie down and roll over when something this disturbing comes down the pike.

now is the time to assess his positions, proposals, voting history, blah, blah, blah, not after the elections. please do not try to lead this into a Paul bashing thread, it is not.

it is what it is, submitted legislation which is being considered on the Hill, it is a relevant topic.
no offense, but the old adage ... ya gotta take the bad with the good ... is BS.
we don't 'gotta' and we should hold out for a higher standard, Paul is a representative, not a dictator.
and on that note, when Dr Paul decides to push for legislation that limits abortions based on medical necessity, he'll receive support from me and others of similar opinion.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

A fetus has no prior directive available

exactly my point, hence the "similarities" are moot.

Thank you for clarifying. So if the doctor is holding the "being" in the air over the mother, the umbilical cord is still connected, and has yet to initiate that first breath... the mother can still choose to abort. That helps

your prejudices are your own.
i never suggested children be aborted at that point, however, is it still the decision of the parent vs a government official ? absolutely.

incidentally, it doesn't go un-noticed that you blatantly ignore existing laws preventing the scenario you describe above and side-step the potential this bill has to create just such a scenario in non-abortion states.

edit to add: in case my last statement leaves you wondering, in a non-abortion state where women could/would be forced to carry to term then involuntarily relinquish the child to state authorities isn't as easy a procedure as one may think. not for any party involved.
i can visualize cases of maternal infanticide skyrocketing.
PPD is not an illusion.