Paul Broun pulls his support for anti-abortion bill

[Warlord]

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Athens, on Monday night withdrew as co-sponsor of a measure that would ban a woman’s right to abortion after the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] week of pregnancy, highlighting a split between the foremost national anti-abortion group and its Georgia counterpart.

In an attempt to avoid a Todd Akin comparison, language was recently added to the Republican anti-abortion measure that would make exceptions for cases of rape and incest. National Right to Life recognizes those two exceptions.

But Georgia Right to Life does not. Things are about to get nasty.

"Any lawmaker who votes to allow unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later is voting to encourage a continuation of the horrors associated with the likes of Kermit Gosnell," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson in a press release that arrived this morning.

The split has major implications for Georgia’s race for U.S. Senate. Broun is a major GOP contender. Another is former secretary of state Karen Handel, who has fought with GRTL in the past. The organization has refused to certify her as a “pro-life” candidate because of her endorsement of the rape and incest exceptions to abortion regulation.

GRTL president Dan Becker, who has often tangled with Handel, this afternoon declared the federal legislation “hijacked.” From a just-arrived press release:

“Children conceived by rape or incest are no different than any other child that feels the pain of the abortionists forceps,” Becker added. “This bill now makes them something less—a subclass of human beings that can be painfully disposed and tossed in the garbage.”
​

Not mention this from Broun:

“I am extremely disappointed that House Republican leadership chose to include language to subject some unborn children to needless pain and suffering. I will not support legislation that harms innocent children, and I will continue in my efforts to protect all unborn children by making abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy.”

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/politica...aily-jolt-paul-broun-pulls-his-support-anti-/


​

 

[Spoa]

I disagree with Rep. Broun and GA Right to Life on this vote. If we can save 97% of the lives after 20 weeks, then we should. Disappointed.

 

[RonPaulMall]

I disagree with Rep. Broun and GA Right to Life on this vote. If we can save 97% of the lives after 20 weeks, then we should. Disappointed.

In terms of the internal logic of the abortion debate itself, I respect his argument more than the ones of the compromise Pro-Lifers, but at the end of the day they are both hypocrites. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the Federal Government to regulate abortion? I thought Broun carries a Constitution in his pocket? I'm sure his position will play well among the know nothings of the Georgia GOP electorate, but I wish people like Broun would use their pro-life political capital to help educate the pro-life movement on the Constitution rather than hoping on board this kind of easy, emotional, utterly unconstitutional legislation.

 

[Brett85]

In terms of the internal logic of the abortion debate itself, I respect his argument more than the ones of the compromise Pro-Lifers, but at the end of the day they are both hypocrites. Where in the Constitution does it authorize the Federal Government to regulate abortion?

5th and 14th amendments.

 

[Smart3]

Rape and incest exceptions are completely ridiculous. The fetus is viable at the same rate as consensual unrelated fetuses.

What if they don't catch the rapist for 10 months? She's stuck with the kid then or do we kill the newborn? How about incest? in many cases, you can't prove it wasn't consensual.

This bill is an abomination. Women are not the property of the state.

"One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living." - Ayn Rand

 

[compromise]

Rape and incest exceptions are completely ridiculous. The fetus is viable at the same rate as consensual unrelated fetuses.

What if they don't catch the rapist for 10 months? She's stuck with the kid then or do we kill the newborn? How about incest? in many cases, you can't prove it wasn't consensual.

I agree with this part. Ban abortion altogether, no rape/incest exceptions!

 

[RonPaulMall]

5th and 14th amendments.

If you look at the actual text of the bill, they cite the 14th (which wouldn't hold up in Court) and the Commerce Clause (which probably would). In other words, these guys are relying on the utterly criminal, FDR inspired "Commerce is everything" interpretation of the Commerce Clause which turns the Constitution on its head and makes the Federal Government one of unlimited powers rather than enumerated powers. That makes them hypocrites. If you believe abortion is murder, lobby your state legislature to declare it such. Murder is not a Federal Crime and the US Congress has no right to legislate in this area.

Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-
capable unborn children under the Supreme Court's Commerce
Clause precedents and under the Constitution's grants of powers
to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and
Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Brett85]

If you look at the actual text of the bill, they cite the 14th (which wouldn't hold up in Court) and the Commerce Clause (which probably would). In other words, these guys are relying on the utterly criminal, FDR inspired "Commerce is everything" interpretation of the Commerce Clause which turns the Constitution on its head and makes the Federal Government one of unlimited powers rather than enumerated powers. That makes them hypocrites. If you believe abortion is murder, lobby your state legislature to declare it such. Murder is not a Federal Crime and the US Congress has no right to legislate in this area.

Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-
capable unborn children under the Supreme Court's Commerce
Clause precedents and under the Constitution's grants of powers
to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and
Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I disagree with using the commerce clause to justify the Constitutionality of this bill but agree with using the 14th amendment. There's no point of even having a federal government if it doesn't have the authority to protect life. It should just be abolished all together in that case.

 

[Brett85]

Amash and Massie both voted for this bill.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll251.xml

 

[Brett85]

The bill is still called the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, but from everything I've read the bill now applies to the entire U.S and not just the district of Colombia.

 

[erowe1]

Women are not the property of the state.

But they are the property of their children.

 

[RonPaulMall]

I disagree with using the commerce clause to justify the Constitutionality of this bill but agree with using the 14th amendment. There's no point of even having a federal government if it doesn't have the authority to protect life. It should just be abolished all together in that case.

I'm all for abolishing the Federal Government, but the idea you can't have a Federal Government without it getting itself involved in murder laws doesn't strike me as particularly sound. Our Founding Fathers were perfectly content with having a Federal Government of limited powers that was concerned primarily with defending the nation, conducting a unified foreign policy, and making sure commerce was regular between the states. Treason is the only criminal act the Constitution empowers the Federal Government to oversee. Everything else is given to the states. I'd turn your statement on its head and ask what is the point of having states if the Feds can write an all encompassing national criminal code.

I remember when Ron Paul was asked if he ever made a vote where he compromised his principles. As is always the case with Ron, he answered honestly and said his vote for the Partial Birth Abortion ban. He said that because as much as he hates abortion, he understands a Federal Law regulating the practice is clearly unconstitutional.

I don't really see where the 14th Amendment would justify this Act. Could you please explain your reasoning there?

BTW- The Federal Government does have the Constitutional Authority to make criminal law in DC, so if this bill had stuck to its original text and confined itself to the District over which the US Congress has full authority, it would have been perfectly fine.

 

[Brett85]

My view is that the federal government should define life as beginning at conception, but it should be up to the states to decide what the exact penalties for abortion are and how to enforce laws against abortion. You're right that the states are responsible for writing and enforcing murder laws, but at the same time it would be unconstitutional for a state government to legalize murder. A state government must provide equal protection under the law to all people.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Smart3]

But they are the property of their children.

I'm full Rothbard on this one.

My view is that the federal government should define life as beginning at conception, but it should be up to the states to decide what the exact penalties for abortion are and how to enforce laws against abortion. You're right that the states are responsible for writing and enforcing murder laws, but at the same time it would be unconstitutional for a state government to legalize murder. A state government must provide equal protection under the law to all people.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Your ethics are your own, they should not be enforced by Almighty Government. There is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion.

 

[compromise]

Regardless of your views on this issue, this was a really dumb political move by Broun. Now Gingrey and Kingston can hit him hard on this and that will hurt his position as the most conservative candidate in the race.

 

[Brett85]

Your ethics are your own, they should not be enforced by Almighty Government. There is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion.

So I suppose you also support repealing laws against murder?

 

[Brett85]

Regardless of your views on this issue, this was a really dumb political move by Broun. Now Gingrey and Kingston can hit him hard on this and that will hurt his position as the most conservative candidate in the race.

You're probably right, unless Georgia Right to Life comes to Broun's defense and endorses him. GRL was actually urging it's Congressional members to vote against this bill.

 

[RonPaulMall]

My view is that the federal government should define life as beginning at conception, but it should be up to the states to decide what the exact penalties for abortion are and how to enforce laws against abortion. You're right that the states are responsible for writing and enforcing murder laws, but at the same time it would be unconstitutional for a state government to legalize murder. A state government must provide equal protection under the law to all people.

??? Where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to dictate homicide law to the states? If a state wanted to make murder a civil crime punishable by paying a Weregild rather than a criminal one punishable by death or imprisonment they are perfectly free to do so. The equal protection clause just means whatever system or set of laws the states come up with have to apply equally to all citizens. A state law that makes abortion illegal for everyone except Lutherans for example, would fall afoul of the 14th Amendment. But so long as the laws apply equally, a state has free reign to set penalties or not set them at all, in whatever way they choose.

 

[Brett85]

??? Where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to dictate homicide law to the states? If a state wanted to make murder a civil crime punishable by paying a Weregild rather than a criminal one punishable by death or imprisonment they are perfectly free to do so. The equal protection clause just means whatever system or set of laws the states come up with have to apply equally to all citizens. A state law that makes abortion illegal for everyone except Lutherans for example, would fall afoul of the 14th Amendment. But so long as the laws apply equally, a state has free reign to set penalties or not set them at all, in whatever way they choose.

This line goes beyond simply saying that all citizens have to be treated the same.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Also, if you say that the 14th amendment forces states to apply the law equally to everyone, then wouldn't that mean that states are violating the 14th amendment by providing legal protections to those who are born but not the unborn?

 

[Warlord]

Regardless of your views on this issue, this was a really dumb political move by Broun. Now Gingrey and Kingston can hit him hard on this and that will hurt his position as the most conservative candidate in the race.

Broun will be attacking them for supporting exemptions.