Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

If you're not against murder there is something wrong in your head. Abortion should be illegal because it is murder. No other reason. This isn't about woman's rights. It's about murder. You don't want a kid? Keep your damn legs closed.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
ADDENDUM: This also includes the States establishing their own laws on Right to Die in terms of understanding how these jurisdictions are handled.

huh ?? where is the "right to die" aspect covered in this proposal

I was speaking on the existing method in which the Right to Die jurisdiction is handled by states, not federal... allowing states to set the terms for what doctors can do to "terminate" the life of a patient. Some states are far more flexible than others. It's the same issue, but at the other end of life.

Have a good evening/day wherever you are, and I wish you the best.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

I was speaking on the existing method in which the Right to Die jurisdiction is handled by states vs federal... allowing states to set the terms for what doctors can do to "terminate" the life of a patient. Some states are far more flexible than others. It's the same issue, but at the other end of life.

Have a good evening/day wherever you are, and I wish you the best.

thanks for the clarification and same to you.

i have to admit, this right to die concept really confuses me because it is again, none of the governments business. and, i also disagree that "terms" should be set by an outside authority.

Originally posted by Honor93
i have to admit, this right to die concept really confuses me because it is again, none of the governments business. and, i also disagree that "terms" should be set by an outside authority.

Agreed. If I'm done on this planet I should be able to move along comfortably and joyfully if I wish.

Not that I'm unique in this of course, heh... but I sure wish pregnancy could be like a light switch: Consciously flipped on when truly desired, Consciously left off when not... and all the other aspects still able to be enjoyed to the fullest without having to pump the body with chemicals. Everybody wins!

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion

Consciously flipped on when truly desired, Consciously left off when not...

i certainly wouldn't argue this viewpoint, however, when science discovered they could impede the natural effects of an opposing Rh factor, all sensibilities toward balance drifted away with the wind.

and all the other aspects still able to be enjoyed to the fullest without having to pump the body with chemicals. Everybody wins!

agreed.

This is a first for me.

I have never seen Ron Paul espouse one thing and then act to the contrary.

I'm a HUGE fan of his--I will write him in as a candidate if necessary, I will stump for him at
every opportunity, but....

He did say that he thought that the states should have jurisdiction on this issue. But then he goes
and introduces a bill in Congress [H.R. 1096] that asks for federal control on this issue.

Not that this issue matters that much to me (Roe vs. Wade is about as reasonable as it gets)
but I've never seen an instance of Ron saying one thing and then apparently doing another.

I will withhold judgement until (or if) he ever answers the question of why, but for now, that's one mark
against him in my book. The first mark...

This is no secret. I think abortion is murder and should be outlawed all together, BUT I am not going to make this response about this. This is strictly a Constitutional matter in regards to the Federal Government's authority to regulate and control. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution clearly lists the enumerated powers, or in other words, the authority that the Federal Government, or more specifically, Congress has.

Article 1, Section 8

No where in there will you find abortion, but to be fair, I think that it's fair to say that the founders/framers of America could not conceive of abortion at the time, so lets call it health care, or women's health care, or whatever the progressive left has decided to call it this week. It still isn't in there. The point is that the Federal Government has no authority in the matter, and even though the SCOTUS ruled in Roe V Wade, it was activism that prevailed in that case, not proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. They had no business ruling in favor on a matter not mentioned in Article 1, section 8 in the first place.

The next argument in favor of abortion, is the 9th amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

9th Amendment

OK, decent argument, but then you get into the morality of abortion and whether or not it is murder. If it is, then clearly one does not have the right to commit murder.

The 10th amendment is the basis of Ron Paul's argument. The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, if it is not specifically mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, then the Federal Government has no authority or say so in the matter, and it becomes a state's rights issue. Again, abortion aka health care is not mentioned there. This logic applies to far more issues than just abortion, and Ron Paul is consistent in all of them. Universal health care, marriage(gay or traditional), prostitution, drugs, social security, EPA, education, labor, etc, etc.. are all states rights issues, because none of these things are found in art 1, sec 8.

The point is, Ron Paul is not trying to outlaw abortion, he is trying to put the authority over it where it actually belongs.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

i could be wrong here but i think you are glossing over the highlighted phrase

The 10th amendment is the basis of Ron Paul's argument. The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

a life-saving and occasionally necessary medical procedure should never be "at risk" of being outlawed in any State.
that would be UnConstitutional, even under the 10th.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConfusion
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.

edit on 2012/5/2 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)

Zing.

He wants Roe vs Wade repealed because it was mandated federally that abortion be legal, but thinks it's something the fed has no business deciding and wishes to return it to the states. He also states the fed has no business outlawing abortion either, it's a state issue, you are making a few presumptuous leaps for sure.

This issue though, is a non issue, the government doesn't belong in peoples bedrooms. This is a question of morality with Dr Paul, it's ok to have a belief system as long you don't hold everyone hostage to your beliefs and Dr Paul will not outlaw abortion with a federal mandate, zero chance of happening, move along now.

reply to post by macaronicaesar

Dr Paul will not outlaw abortion with a federal mandate, zero chance of happening

once again, Dr Paul wouldn't be so foolish to author such a mandate, yet.
besides, the point is the States have NO right to infringe on anyone's medical decisions and Dr Paul has NO business inferring that they do.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Ron Paul is only stating facts and I don't see him being active in an anti abortion campaign, especially if it did become a states rights issue. Paul is all about states rights and would not interfere, outside of his own state.

Abortion, and most other issues, should be handled by individual states.

The Constitution is pretty clear about what is not written in our founding documents defaults to a state issue. Will this mean a lot of states would immediately outlaw abortion? I am sure they will but, this is just an affect of states right being exercised, no nefarious plan.

I personally think it's a woman's right to choose. I also think it's a states right to allow abortion or not, or legalize marijuana, or gay marriage. I think each state can decide a lot of things and make a lot of laws if the citizens of that state allow it, or vote for it.

The Federal government should just sit back, shut up, and do their jobs. The US Federal Government has more than enough business to handle so it should not be wasting time on what should be an internal state issues.

If you decide you do not agree with the laws of a particular state, you are free to move to one that suits you better. This is how it was all supposed to work.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

i could be wrong here but i think you are glossing over the highlighted phrase

The 10th amendment is the basis of Ron Paul's argument. The 10th amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

a life-saving and occasionally necessary medical procedure should never be "at risk" of being outlawed in any State.
that would be UnConstitutional, even under the 10th.

When it comes to something like choosing between the life of the mother or the child I honestly don't think there is going to be much discussion on the matter. Of course it should be up to the family at that point and in no way should Government have a say so in that decision. But that's really the only reason I can see to ever abort a child. And sure you can say well what about incest and rape? That's tough but at the end of the day this is still a human life we're talking about and I think human life needs to be seen in a higher regard than it currently is.

If the fetus has a heart beat and the mother is in no danger I think it should be illegal to abort the child and it should be classified as murder. I'm not sure what else you would call stopping a human heart from beating. So I guess you can ask if I'm saying that women should be forced to carry a child that they don't want to full term. And my response would be yes the same way you force a man to sit in a cage if he doesn't pay for a child that he doesn't want.

I am not only 100% pro-choice but I'm also pro-abortion as a use of birth control. Dr Paul is absolutely correct in this being a state's rights issue. At the state level citizens are much more able to actually control the government. Let the people make the laws at state level by voting on them.

reply to post by Jagermeister


I know a woman who was with child, and very early the doctors told her that she would die, and explained the option of an abortion. She made the decision very quickly that if it was the will of Allah she die then so be it, but this was a child and a life and she was not going to have an abortion.

The last 4 months she was in the hospital, but she had a beautiful son, both lived and are healthy and happy, now a family who is thankful for the decision she made. I know everyone will not make the same decision, but just because a doctor tells you something will kill you, does not make it so.

Just saying. Life is a precious thing.

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by Jagermeister

 

I know a woman who was with child, and very early the doctors told her that she would die, and explained the option of an abortion. She made the decision very quickly that if it was the will of Allah she die then so be it, but this was a child and a life and she was not going to have an abortion.

The last 4 months she was in the hospital, but she had a beautiful son, both lived and are healthy and happy, now a family who is thankful for the decision she made. I know everyone will not make the same decision, but just because a doctor tells you something will kill you, does not make it so.

Just saying. Life is a precious thing.

edit on 3-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)

I can agree with this and I'm glad it worked out, but not everyone will be so lucky and not everyone has such faith in God. I think when it comes to risking your life you can't really say one life is more important than the other and I don't think the Government or the state has a right to tell you what to do in such a situation. Could the doctor be wrong? Of course. And that is the risk that needs to be taken into consideration by the woman that would be risking her life.

Wow... A lot of people in this thread are intentionally trying to misunderstand what the OP is saying. Here, let me help.

-States are granted the power to decide if Abortion is legal or not.

-RP passes a federal bill that gives fetuses rights.

-It is now illegal to kill fetuses, since that would be murder.

-Therefore, since the end result of an abortion is a dead fetus, it makes abortion effectively illegal in all states.

reply to post by Jagermeister

When it comes to something like choosing between the life of the mother or the child I honestly don't think there is going to be much discussion on the matter. Of course it should be up to the family at that point and in no way should Government have a say so in that decision. But that's really the only reason I can see to ever abort a child. And sure you can say well what about incest and rape? That's tough but at the end of the day this is still a human life we're talking about and I think human life needs to be seen in a higher regard than it currently is.

If the fetus has a heart beat and the mother is in no danger I think it should be illegal to abort the child and it should be classified as murder. I'm not sure what else you would call stopping a human heart from beating. So I guess you can ask if I'm saying that women should be forced to carry a child that they don't want to full term. And my response would be yes the same way you force a man to sit in a cage if he doesn't pay for a child that he doesn't want.

hello and thanks for the civil reply.

When it comes to something like choosing between the life of the mother or the child I honestly don't think there is going to be much discussion on the matter. Of course it should be up to the family at that point and in no way should Government have a say so in that decision.

agreed but this is about a legislative decision with the potential to kill both mother and child, as this proposal could unnecessarily inflict

I think human life needs to be seen in a higher regard than it currently is.

also agreed, however, how does one reflect a higher regard for the human life when legislation prevents vital medical care ??

And my response would be yes the same way you force a man to sit in a cage if he doesn't pay for a child that he doesn't want.

please avoid such a jaded response as many women suffer the same fate these days.

while we agree on the premise of your jaded response, please answer this ... (previously asked of others)
what happens when the State chooses (perhaps at the behest of the father) to prosecute the mother for obtaining an illegal procedure elsewhere ??

since the Feds can arrest someone in America for engaging in activities elsewhere (another country) that are illegal here, how is this any different ??

doesn't matter if we're discussing imports and exports, drugs, hacking or pedophelia, it's really all the same.
when you can be prosecuted here for engaging in activities outside this country, what makes anyone think mothers would be exempt from state prosecutions ??

and just so you know where i stand on the above subject, i am against the current CS system and the manner in which it is employed. if anything needs revision, it does.

edit to add: let's take it one generation further, shall we ??
grandparents have rights too. what if the grands decide to prosecute the mother for their loss ??
this proposal doesn't even touch on the rights of others and imho that is far too vague to be effective.

I need folks to be real honest here, does anyone really, and I mean REALLY care that much about abortion? You do realize this is just one of the many things tptb use to divide the people? You will let this one stupid thing really make or break you? You cant find one other issue with a candidate , none and you cherry pick this one and now hes somehow just as bad or worse than all the rest of the jerkoffs that currently are in power? Really? The list of flaws and truly concerning facts for 98% of the people in power or wanting to move up the ladder is staggering. And to not be able to see this , well makes you and Im using the general YOU, look pretty naive.

Paul is the only true different candidate out there, period. No hes not perfect and pretty sure you will never find that in normal people even, but politicians? No way. But any other you pick that is out there trying to climb his/her way up is exactly the same and any other. D or R makes no difference, the D will still use you common folk to their gain all day long, but make you think they care and put you on foodstamps to make you feel better about it. The R will not hide the fact hes making a profit off you, but will appear hes at least cutting some cost someplace else to make you feel better about it. Stop playing their game, stop thinking you have to pick D or R just because your parents did or because you went to some liberal school that made you think that in order to not feel guilty you have to pick the Dem and give hand outs to everyone and their friend at the expense of the middle class, who foots the bill for just about everything, boy are we middles dependable as hell, what are they going to do without us....

Paul is straight constitution, never swaying on that, sometimes it may seem hes pro this or that, but hes not, he just votes according to the constitution and sometimes that makes it seem hes for this or against that. He always explains what the reason was for a yay or nay vote, and its always backed up by the constitution in the end.

So if you dont like Paul , for what ever reason that could be, thats your right and he believes in this. Go ahead and vote for your clone of anyone that has been in office in the last 20yrs and see where that gets you. If 1 vote that makes it seem Paul favors against abortion is all it takes and that the best you can do to dig up dirt on him, or some old , ancient newsletter with some "racist" overtones written by another person, but "approved" by Paul , then it seems to me hes the obvious choice for true change as thats a pretty damn good track record compared to ANY other politician working today.

Ron Paul is pro life. So what? He's an American and can have his own opinion. He's basing it on years and years as a doctor and working with women to deliver babies. He can have his private opinion.

NO POTUS ... none of them ... will be able to over turn Roe v Wade to make abortion illegal across this country.

If anyone runs for POTUS on the platform that they'll end abortion .. then they are either in campaign mode trying to get votes or they dont' understand how the system works. And either way ... you don't want someone in there who is just making up impossible campaign promises and/or who doesn't know how everything works.

Originally posted by Jagermeister

Originally posted by Jameela
reply to post by Jagermeister

 

I know a woman who was with child, and very early the doctors told her that she would die, and explained the option of an abortion. She made the decision very quickly that if it was the will of Allah she die then so be it, but this was a child and a life and she was not going to have an abortion.

The last 4 months she was in the hospital, but she had a beautiful son, both lived and are healthy and happy, now a family who is thankful for the decision she made. I know everyone will not make the same decision, but just because a doctor tells you something will kill you, does not make it so.

Just saying. Life is a precious thing.

edit on 3-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)

I can agree with this and I'm glad it worked out, but not everyone will be so lucky and not everyone has such faith in God. I think when it comes to risking your life you can't really say one life is more important than the other and I don't think the Government or the state has a right to tell you what to do in such a situation. Could the doctor be wrong? Of course. And that is the risk that needs to be taken into consideration by the woman that would be risking her life.

I agree with what you said, only the woman who is at risk and her family (because such a serious matter is always good to discuss with those who love you and have your best interests at heart) can make such a decision. This is a thing no government can speak on, it is not their life at stake, or their family affected.