Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

reply to post by captaintyinknots


What are the rights of the fetus as laid out in H.R. 1096?

Edit:

Scratch that question.

If it's recognized that human life begins at conception then presumably a fetus is entitled to the same protection & safeguards you & I enjoy now. So yeah, I can imagine where this would create problems between state law & federal law.

The fact that abortion is as strong of an issue as it is in politics is testament to the politicians' skill at parlaying people's emotions for their own political ends.

Why shouldn't it be up to states to decide? Same as gay marriage.

He's an ob-gyn, what do you expect he's going to think about that issue? He's also a libertarian that will give people their choice.

Again, same as gay marriage, if it ain't going on in your state and it's important to you, move to a state where it's kosher. Regardless of the complexities of that kind of decision, the choice still falls to the individual.

reply to post by coyotepoet




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

reply to post by captaintyinknots

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.

No it is you who are not grasping things here Nothing in that wording grants rights to a fetus and the quote I quoted previously removes federal jurisdiction and the ability of any federal court to even determine if a fetus is a person between the time of conception and birth. IT COMPELETLY REMOVES THIER ABILITY TO HAVE ANY SAY ON THE MATTER PERIOD!

Also even though it doesn't matter since your argument is moot however you cannot separate abortion from the rights of the fetus in the way you attempt to. What you are saying is they can prosecute for violating the rights of the fetus not the abortion... well that would be the act of abortion that violates the supposed rights you are imagining in the bill. But as I pointed out nothing in the language gives them any such authority period. The wording in fact specifically removes any hint of such a thing which is rare in a bill to be so specific.

"or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth;"

Anyway I am done your argument is completely destroyed but don't worry the bill will never pass anyway and this sort of thing is always used to try and take cheap shots at Ron Paul The most honest politician to ever grace the hill.

reply to post by hawkiye


Are you really claiming that redefining zygote, embryo and fetus as a "human person" is not granting them rights? Seriously?

Nothing you have said negate a single part of my premise, as much as you're. Hoping that getting aggressive about it will.

The fact is, the sanctity of life act redefines when a clump of cells is considered a person, therefore granting the rights of a person to said clump.

kudos for your acute analysis of the obvious and you're willingness to discuss it with less than open minds.
unfortunately, many here are not aware that Dr Paul has been pushing this agenda for more than 20yrs. and it's sad because some of us have heard it all before.

personally, i think you are focusing on the wrong group of "responsible persons" that is of interest to the govt.
what this proposed legislation would do is create an even bigger loophole for the Feds to remove more children from otherwise decent homes.

afterall, the first thing the govt does when a "crime" is committed is remove any existing children who might be at risk. (plz notice "might" is emphasized for specific reason, as children are frequently removed BEFORE any proof of a threat is provided ... a mere accusation works marvelously well for these ppl)

think of it in terms of lobbyists, they are not going to permit their bread and butter to be jailed (doctors)
there would be subsequent legislation or adaptations implemented to prevent such acts upon the medical providers or just bigger insurance policies, whichever benefits the govt more.
i seriously doubt this would be any different than the witch hunts of the early days of Kevorkian.
at one time, the authorities tried to prosecute persons who provided referrals to Dr K.
this old and repeated attempt at poor legislation should fail as miserably as it has previously.

however, nothing about this legislation protects the parent(s) of said loss of life.
while the parent may not be suject to state prosecution, every parent willingly participating in an abortion would be at the the mercy of the Feds in every state, whether the abortion act was legal or not.
Roe vs Wade prevents any such atrocity from occuring and this is what they seek to abolish.

anyone with half a brain is well aware that abortion will never cease to exist ... with or without govt approval, as it has throughout recorded history.

this is just one more attempt to diminish "family authority" and entrench govt authority at the risk of all family members. as written, this legislation is not Constitutionally supported.

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...

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.
while it is a medical decision, it should not be mandated, regulated or addressed by any govt authority.
isn't that the real argument here ??

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.

reply to post by emberscott

No you are misinterpreting this proposed law. It clearly says that the federal jurisdiction is non existent from the moment of conception.

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.

All rights are determined by the state courts without federal interference.

in the US, rights are not determined by any govt authority or court.

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.

this part reallllly confuses me, would you please expand your thoughts ??
an accused person (of any living, breathing age) has rights that could never be afforded to or exercised by a fetus ... due process anyone?
so, are you also saying that the "murderer" (be it parent or doctor) would be automatically exempt from Fed statutes concerning the murder of said "protected person" (fetus) ??

before you go too deep here, may i remind you that the Feds have been consistently raiding and imprisoning those engaged in MM dispensing in states that clearly legalize and profit from said enterprise.

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.

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 ??

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.

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 ??

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.

well ok, if you hadn't thought of that one, consider this ... economics of the decision.
1) "crimes" are chargable = revenue to the Govt, whichever one, State or Feds
2) children are always expendable to the govt, see history for any examples or govt run orphanages for that matter. less mouths fed by families = more mouths fed by govt = more revenue for govt programs to support "wards of the state" (your children) ... pssssst, wards of the state are already mandated under laws of Child Support and often, the monies received of the state from the parental assets far exceed those funds received of the child or its caregiver.
3) angry children are easily manipulated, how would you child respond to such a stimulus ??
4) parents who are prosecuted and potentially jailed by the Feds for murdering a "protected citizen of the US" would certainly deem a need for more prisons, and probably private ones at that.
5) the govt will succeed at diminishing the entire concept of "family authority" when the choice to have one is no longer yours.

need more ???
please don't misunderstand my commentary as anti-Ron Paul, i just simply disagree with his stance on this issue and have done so since the first time he presented it. he needs to step back and remember, it is a NUNYA and leave it at that.

reply to post by hawkiye

you are reading things into this that simply aren't there ...

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.

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.

You are trying to assert that:

1) He is pushing the definition of life to the point of conception.
2) He is going to use this to make ANY taking of the life of a fetus from conception to be considered murder and thus fall under Federal Jurisdiction.

The problem you have is... abortion is currently legal, however there is still the ability to prosecute the MURDER of a fetus that is still within legal abortion range... but only when under the areas that the Federal Government is granted jurisdiction. Even if the mother survives.

Unborn Persons Act of 2004

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."

This bill he is proposing prevents abortions from falling under the federal jurisdiction even more stringently and clearly... and the Unborn Victims act specifically excludes abortion from being included when considering "fetal homicide".

Now you could argue that he will then go get those changed, and I won't argue with you there that it is *possible*, but until those proposals are made, the current proposal prevents abortions from being considered "fetal homicide" specifically, and he's trying to make it so it's not even possible to bring it before the federal courts.

What he is doing is trying to get Congress to recognize that life begins at conception, therefore granting the right for States to determine on their OWN how to protect the lives of those "persons" under their jurisdiction. If this isn't done, then the OPPOSITE holds... which is that a state *can't* have their own legislation protecting a fetus under... say... 20 weeks or whatever the Federal "arbitrary boundary" is.

These two combined strengthen the States Rights ability OVER the Federal Government and make it so the issue can't even be brought before federal courts.

Now when it is attempted to remove this special case for abortions, THEN we can start to discuss the back door activity.

Namaste.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


Thank you for bringing a logical counter argument to the discussion, however, you are failing to take into account that a fetus would be redefined as a person, thereby nullifying ideas such as "fetal homicide" and the like.

If its a person, it has the rights of a person.

reply to post by hawkiye

since you keep asking the same questions, it has become apparent that you have not read the legislation in question so please, allow me to help.

www.govtrack.us...
(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.’.

now, as you can see, there is no provision limiting the acts of any fed authority from prosecuting a person in violation of "the sanctity of life".

otherwise, you would also be indicating that in a state where abortion is legal, those who provide such services might be subject to adverse activities by those who disagree and hence have no recourse beyond State level to prosecute those who commit violent acts against them. those committing said acts would also be exempt as they would claim they were "protecting the rights of human persons between conception and birth".
for an example, think clinic bombings of the 80s and no prosecution of the bombers.
is this really what they're after ??

this would also limit liability cases arising from bad doctors or bad procedures.
there is so very much in these few words, i cannot believe ppl don't want to talk about it.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

And again, you are missing that there is currently language in there that prevents abortions from falling under this category, even when the fetus is considered a "person". It is right there... read section C of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Text of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Specifically Section C.

(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.

Using your interpretation, a doctor who performs a procedure on a woman in order to save her life that winds up with the death of the child could be prosecuted.

This is why section C would need to be changed in order for your fears to materialize.

Now if they start trying to change section C of the above act... then you will have many many people joining you in this. And Ron Paul knows it.

He stated very clearly that he would LOVE for the nation to ban abortions, just like the nation has banned Slavery, lyching of minorities (not trying to say they are the same, just demonstrating previous shifts that we take for granted now), etc. But he knows it has to happen at a cultural level first and *then* the laws of the nation would change to reflect that. Which is exactly how it is supposed to work and the process he wants to see unfold. Whether it happens that way is up to the rest of us in the way our States wind up legislating.

Additional edit: This is no different than the protections for "legal homicide" of an adult "person". Self defense, line of duty of police officers, etc. Just because they are a "person" doesn't mean the law doesn't make room for special circumstances.

Namaste.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


While I don't agree with your assertion I have a question: if the right to chose is removed from the federal level, if Roe v Wade is revoked, which is what this would do, would there remain federal regulations on the topic of abortion, such as this? Or would these, too, be moved to the state level?

Seems like it would be contradictory to remove federal say in abortion, yet retain federal law ABOUT abortion.

I truly don't know the answer. Do you?

reply to post by captaintyinknots

They would remain until those laws were changed. No differently than the special case language for doctors performing life saving procedures, etc.

Which is why I agree that if section C above is changed... then we have a real discussion.

I won't argue that it's possible he wants to have that changed eventually, but that's not what is on the table and the current version is reinforcing the inability for the federal government to even hear cases about abortion.

So not only would section C have to change, his bill would have to change in order for it to even be brought up in a federal court again.

You are right to watch the multiple threads and how they *could* be connected (it's exactly why we get hoodwinked so much), but this isn't there yet and currently reinforces the lack of federal authority of how a state chooses to protect its citizens.

I'm confident that the above would need to change, but no... I can't say I know they *wouldn't*. But again... that's when we'd have the real fight because it's those changes that would have the ripple effect you fear. Many federal laws refer to things they have no say about, specifically to call out that they have no jurisdiction over them.

Namaste.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Remember, according to your interpretation a doctor doing everything right when trying to save a woman's life that results in the death of an unborn "person" would be able to be prosecuted. This is clearly not what is intended (consider what his career was)... and what section C is designed to protect.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


are you seriously going to use Federal Acts to substantiate your argument that Federal jurisdiction is irrelevant ??

come on now, we're not fooled that easily.
the claim of no Fed jurisdiction makes the Acts to which you refer, MOOT or did that escape you somehow?

personhood is personhood, ask any corporation who rapes you daily, without prosecution.

abortion in and of itself would not be a criminal act at the State level (for those who choose such) but MURDER is still quite prosecutable, also at the State level.
so, given the above, what happens when a mother chooses abortion and the father chooses to prosecute her for murder ??? anyone given that some thought ?? what about grandparent rights ?? or those of the taxpayers who are bound to support those born without a support system ??
once you bestow personhood on those who cannot exercise their rights, what rights then do the rest of us really have ??

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion




Thank you again for your civil responses. Its a breath of fresh air.


Unfortunately I am on a mobile phone right now, which makes it very difficult to research the things you have brought to the table.

I fully intend to look into your assertion further, when I. Am on a real computer.

Thank you again, though, for actually conversing on the subject. I enjoy the challenge!