Dr. RON Paul's life at conception act

[jmdrake]

Posting this bill in its entirety for clarification purposes. There are lots of reasons to criticize Rand, but the "He'll lose independents by with his life act conception bill" isn't one of them. He won't lose any more independents than Ron lost.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1096:
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.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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

So really the bill says that the Federal government is defining life, but practically speaking, its making it a state issue. I love Ron Paul but this seems more like cognitive dissonance more than anything else. As well as a rare constituttional mistake on Ron Paul's part. The Federal government doesn't really have the constitutitonal authority to define life. Not a big deal in my mind, I still would have voted for this bill, but itdoesn't really make any sense. Wouldn't just "The states have the right to criminalize abortion" be better?

Does Rand's bill actually allow the states to decide, as Ron's does?

 

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Does Rand's bill actually allow the states to decide, as Ron's does?

The states don't get to decide who is human and has protection of the law. That's the point of this bill. States would not have the option of legalizing abortion (murder) of the unborn.

 

[itshappening]

He will have to drop it if he became the nominee.

America will not vote for a president who wants a national ban on abortions from New York to California. Not a chance. No matter how strongly you feel about the issue he will have to drop it or risk losing in a landslide akin to Goldwater.

It would never get through Congress either so it's actually pointless.

Not even when the GOP controlled everything between 2001-2006 did they pass anything like this

 

[Brett85]

He will have to drop it if he became the nominee.

America will not vote for a president who wants a national ban on abortions from New York to California. Not a chance. No matter how strongly you feel about the issue he will have to drop it or risk losing in a landslide akin to Goldwater. It would never get through Congress either so it's actually pointless.

1) If he dropped it he would just look like a flip flopper which would hurt him more. People appreciate honesty.
2) You're being a little over dramatic. The Gallup poll showed that only 15% of pro choice voters would never consider voting for a candidate who supports banning abortion, so Rand could still theoretically win over 85% of pro choice voters.

 

[itshappening]

1) If he dropped it he would just look like a flip flopper which would hurt him more. People appreciate honesty.
2) You're being a little over dramatic. The Gallup poll showed that only 15% of pro choice voters would never consider voting for a candidate who supports banning abortion, so Rand could still theoretically win over 85% of pro choice voters.

It's better to flip flop than lose in a landslide. Flip flops are not uncommon. Rand has to do what he has to do to win the primary but every consultant and every pollster will tell him to drop this immediately or he loses the White House in a Goldwater like landslide. So therefore, he will drop it if he is the nominee.

Congress would never pass it anyway so whats the point? As I said when GOP controlled everything they never passed anything like this and NO candidate in history has run on this... in 240 years. Rand wants to be the first to try and lose like Goldwater? Give me a break. He won't and he'll drop it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The states don't get to decide who is human and has protection of the law. That's the point of this bill. States would not have the option of legalizing abortion (murder) of the unborn.

They could set a penalty worthy of a baffoon, like a dollar fine or something.

Or even no penalty. There's nothing in Ron's bill that defines the penalty. So there could theoretically still be no penalty. If I understand correctly.

Granted, I would support a penalty. Death or exile. Doesn't mean that there actually will be one. I'm not dictator, anywhere, and neither are you, and neither is Ron Paul.

1) If he dropped it he would just look like a flip flopper which would hurt him more. People appreciate honesty.
2) You're being a little over dramatic. The Gallup poll showed that only 15% of pro choice voters would never consider voting for a candidate who supports banning abortion, so Rand could still theoretically win over 85% of pro choice voters.

And most of them would probably swing left. Even Murray Rothbard supported Ron Paul, and you can't get much more pro-choice than Murray, he compared it to SLAVERY to have to carry a child to term.

 

[Harald]

The states don't get to decide who is human and has protection of the law. That's the point of this bill. States would not have the option of legalizing abortion (murder) of the unborn.

States to decide the degree (murder, manslaughter, etc) and the punishment (if any). This bill reframes the issue in more stark terms, but the state is free to decide that certain kind of medical procedures may not carry the gravity of murder and may be even manslaughter.

 

[jmdrake]

He will have to drop it if he became the nominee.

America will not vote for a president who wants a national ban on abortions from New York to California. Not a chance. No matter how strongly you feel about the issue he will have to drop it or risk losing in a landslide akin to Goldwater.

It would never get through Congress either so it's actually pointless.

Not even when the GOP controlled everything between 2001-2006 did they pass anything like this

A) The act is not a national abortion ban and B) does the name Ronald Reagan mean nothing to you? Americans have elected presidents who have promised national bans on abortions, just non of them have delivered. (Well...I guess the partial birth abortion ban counts as a partial delivery...no pun intended).

 

[EBounding]

Posting this bill in its entirety for clarification purposes. There are lots of reasons to criticize Rand, but the "He'll lose independents by with his life act conception bill" isn't one of them. He won't lose any more independents than Ron lost.

And that's because Independents don't really care about abortion, unless the candidate makes it their primary issue. I think it's safe to say that most people assume Republicans are pro-life to some extent. Rand needs conservatives and independents to win a primary and the general. Left-leaning liberals will never vote for him.

 

[itshappening]

If Rand is serious about running on a personhood bill he just needs to make sure it's not brought up much but I can assure you once NBC, CBS and ABC start their quadrennial hammering of the GOP candidate night after night for 4 months straight leading up to the Nov ballot it WILL get brought up and they will use it to paint him as crazy and wanting a national ban on abortion. This would cost him big in blue and purple states which he needs to win. You cannot just win with the red states electoral votes and he seems to be aware of that in his other rhetoric.

I think if his idea is to win Iowa in a GOP primary then it's great politics but if he succeeds I would hope he has the good sense to drop it and hope abortion doesn't come up much in the general campaign because really we should be talking about jobs, the economy and obamacare nonstop not wedge issues that Congress has no interest in meddling in.

 

[jmdrake]

If Rand is serious about running on a personhood bill he just needs to make sure it's not brought up much but I can assure you once NBC, CBS and ABC start their quadrennial hammering of the GOP candidate night after night for 4 months straight leading up to the Nov ballot it WILL get brought up and they will use it to paint him as crazy and wanting a national ban on abortion. This would cost him big in blue and purple states which he needs to win. You cannot just win with the red states electoral votes and he seems to be aware of that in his other rhetoric.

I think if his idea is to win Iowa in a GOP primary then it's great politics but if he succeeds I would hope he has the good sense to drop it and hope abortion doesn't come up much in the general campaign because really we should be talking about jobs, the economy and obamacare nonstop not wedge issues that Congress has no interest in meddling in.

None of the independents who supported Ron will give flip. And if the media chooses to attempt to hammer Rand on it, that will just give him more face time and more chances to explain that this is about throwing the issue to the states as opposed to a "national ban". This could also play well in Florida which is one of the crucial "purple" states (as you put it). It's really nothing to worry about. But if you choose to worry about it, I won't stop you.

 

[sailingaway]

So really the bill says that the Federal government is defining life, but practically speaking, its making it a state issue. I love Ron Paul but this seems more like cognitive dissonance more than anything else. As well as a rare constituttional mistake on Ron Paul's part. The Federal government doesn't really have the constitutitonal authority to define life. Not a big deal in my mind, I still would have voted for this bill, but itdoesn't really make any sense. Wouldn't just "The states have the right to criminalize abortion" be better?

Does Rand's bill actually allow the states to decide, as Ron's does?

He came around to this because the Federal government HAD impermissibly overturned Roe v Wade, to get the topic from the federal courts back to the states. He ultimately became convinced it would take federal action to undo federal action. But he has no question in his mind, even most remotely, that a life doesn't begin at conception.

 

[Brett85]

It's better to flip flop than lose in a landslide. Flip flops are not uncommon. Rand has to do what he has to do to win the primary but every consultant and every pollster will tell him to drop this immediately or he loses the White House in a Goldwater like landslide. So therefore, he will drop it if he is the nominee.

Congress would never pass it anyway so whats the point? As I said when GOP controlled everything they never passed anything like this and NO candidate in history has run on this... in 240 years. Rand wants to be the first to try and lose like Goldwater? Give me a break. He won't and he'll drop it.

Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of banning abortion without even an exception for rape and incest. He won 49 states in his reelection bid. The American people weren't any more pro life back then than they are now.

 

[Brett85]

None of the independents who supported Ron will give flip. And if the media chooses to attempt to hammer Rand on it, that will just give him more face time and more chances to explain that this is about throwing the issue to the states as opposed to a "national ban".

No, Rand's bill bans abortion nationwide. Rand wouldn't be being honest if he said that he was opposed to a federal ban on abortion.

 

[compromise]

He will have to drop it if he became the nominee.

America will not vote for a president who wants a national ban on abortions from New York to California.

Yeah, because New York and California are totally different, despite having the exact same liberal attitudes. It's the flyover states where opposition to abortion is strongest.

 

[jmdrake]

No, Rand's bill bans abortion nationwide. Rand wouldn't be being honest if he said that he was opposed to a federal ban on abortion.

Actually it doesn't ban anything. It's a declarative bill. In some ways it's actually weaker than the bill Ron introduced.

 

[Brett85]

Actually it doesn't ban anything. It's a declarative bill. In some ways it's actually weaker than the bill Ron introduced.

I guess I'll have to actually go read it. But I'm not sure what the point of Rand supporting a bill like this does if it doesn't actually do anything.

 

[itshappening]

None of the independents who supported Ron will give flip. And if the media chooses to attempt to hammer Rand on it, that will just give him more face time and more chances to explain that this is about throwing the issue to the states as opposed to a "national ban". This could also play well in Florida which is one of the crucial "purple" states (as you put it). It's really nothing to worry about. But if you choose to worry about it, I won't stop you.

Ron never won the nomination. He didn't get close!

When the choice is between a Democrat and a GOPer promising a national ban on abortion by stretching the 14th amendment there is only one choice they will make and it's not going to be us.

 

[jmdrake]

He came around to this because the Federal government HAD impermissibly overturned Roe v Wade, to get the topic from the federal courts back to the states.

Yah. That's a subtlety most people miss.