It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And finally, what you arent grasping with this, is that it wont be the act of abortion that will be prosecutable. It will be the infringement of the rights of the fetus. If that fetus is a person, as the act states, after the abortion, the "person" has been "murdered". Different case altogether.
"or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth;"
i think the part you are missing here is that the decision to abort is a NUNYA, as in nunya-dang-bizness, concerning State or Fed business, period, end of story.
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
What Paul's giving to the states is the right to make abortion illegal.
Exactly giving them the rights to choose what they want to do, correct? All he is offering is an "option" doesn't mean the States have to follow if they choose not to...
that is extremely misleading and downright wrong or EVERY person today would not be subject to Fed law ... you can't have it both ways.
No you are misinterpreting this proposed law. It clearly says that the federal jurisdiction is non existent from the moment of conception.
in the US, rights are not determined by any govt authority or court.
All rights are determined by the state courts without federal interference.
this part reallllly confuses me, would you please expand your thoughts ??
The rights of the fetus would receive no more protection than the rights of any person handed a death penalty in accordance with an enacted state law carried out within compliance of the united states code.
see Amendent 14 of the US Constitution and laws henceforth applicable. do i really need to mention the recent Zim/Martin case and the Feds interest in Hate crimes? which State law regarding hate crime was even investigated or broken in that case? the "suspect" has been charged and is receiving due process, how could a fetus engage in such ??
Now If you would be so kind as to point out where in the united states code the rights of the fetus would be protected from death by the federal courts overriding the state laws and explain how the fetus rights will be protected under federal law. I would appreciate that.
on the contrary, please show us where it is legal or Constitutionally supported to condemn a "person" (in this case the fetus) to any punishment, including death, without due process. please ??
Maybe it is written somewhere that an executioner taking the life a condemned person is subject to prosecution under federal law whether or not the action is sanctioned by state laws. That would be big! Until then.
well ok, if you hadn't thought of that one, consider this ... economics of the decision.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Honor93
Very good points on the ability to remove kids from homes. I had not even considered that aspect. I'm glad to see others out there thinking critically on the matter.
that is not what it says at all. the restriction involves challenging enacted State laws to a higher court, not Fed intervention regarding the protections provided all citizens within our Constitution. perhaps you are misunderstanding that our rights are not decided or provided by any court, they are inherrent and recognized, whereas, a fetus is not, it cannot exercise any of the rights supposedly bestowed upon it at conception. the entire argument is preposterous.
The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction.
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
(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.
‘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.’.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.