Tell me why Ron Paul voted against

dennydem40z

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2011
Messages
84
What the hell is wrong with Ron Paul. I understand and believe states rights when it comes to abortion, but come on, I do agree that staff at a doctors office should be put in jail for 5 years if they knowingly abort a baby because the mother does not want to have a girl.

Tell me why Ron Paul would vote against stopping Gender Based Abortions:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...enalizing-doctors-for-sex-selection-abortions

I thought regardless Rep Paul was pro life. Even though YES if staff knows your going to abort a baby and you knew the mother was going to abort the baby because of the Sex, shouldn't that staff member do 5 years in prison:)
 
I was a little disappointed by Paul and Amash.

Yes, it is the Constitutional vote. However, I would say that the genocide of 50 million babies has superseded even the constitution.
 
Amash's explanation:

When did Republicans start supporting hate-crime legislation? Hate-crime bills, like H R 3541, are apparently okay if they have to do with a baby's gender but not okay if they have to do with a person's skin color or sexual orientation. Or maybe they're okay if it's an election year and Republicans are trying to make the President look like he doesn't care about women. I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon.

Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the "wrong" reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the "abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child."

The bill also shockingly makes it a crime for a medical or mental health professional NOT to turn in someone who they SUSPECT of having committed this thought crime. They can be thrown into prison for a year if they don't "report known or suspected violations . . . to appropriate law enforcement authorities." Free societies do not criminalize inaction.

I'm pro-life, and I think all abortion should be illegal. But Congress should not criminalize thought. And this bill won't stop a single abortion if it becomes law. Every person seeking an abortion simply will sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby. Those of us who are pro-life should demand more from Congress. While we waste time on stuff like this, genuine legislation to protect life is ignored.
 
I was surprised too, until I read Amash's explanation. It does nothing to prevent abortions. If anything, it implies that abortion is ok as long as it's not a sex-selection abortion. Plus, the GOP had no intention of getting this passed. They're just using this as a political maneuver to whip up the pro-life base since they suspended the rules, which required a 2/3 vote to pass instead of a simple majority. I personally don't like being used, especially at the expense of the unborn.

Also, it's unconstitutional as Dr. Paul explains:

Ron Paul said:
Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues' revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different gender.

However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress's jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the States in the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a Federal issue.

I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it creates yet another set of Federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by States rather than Congress.

I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a Federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe v. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the States and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new Federal crimes.

Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a ``politically incorrect'' reason for special Federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a Federal law prohibiting ``sex selection'' abortions and Federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator's animus toward a particular race or gender.

I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the Nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying ``It is a violation of Federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus' gender. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under Federal law.''

Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist Federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe v. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the States.
 
Last edited:
I hate that I have to put up with these kinds of votes from Justin and Ron. I have to sacrifice a lot in order to find Republicans who oppose invading foreign countries. What I would really like is to elect members of Congress who will vote to defend the unborn and vote against killing innocent people overseas.
 
You are wrong about that. There is no law above God's law and there never will be.

This is true in each person's life, but God has no desire to write legislation in the United States Congress, and no one in Washington is God's representative to tell us what He wants.
 
Last edited:
I hate that I have to put up with these kinds of votes from Justin and Ron. I have to sacrifice a lot in order to find Republicans who oppose invading foreign countries. What I would really like is to elect members of Congress who will vote to defend the unborn and vote against killing innocent people overseas.

This bill is thought crime, as is attempting to restrict minors from traveling across state lines to get abortions.
 
This bill is thought crime, as is attempting to restrict minors from traveling across state lines to get abortions.

Then I guess the Federal ban on partial birth abortion was also a "thought crime," which is a law that Ron voted for.

I fail to see how this law violates the commerce clause, but yet the federal ban on partial birth abortion didn't violate the commerce clause.
 
Then I guess the Federal ban on partial birth abortion was also a "thought crime," which is a law that Ron voted for.

I fail to see how this law violates the commerce clause, but yet the federal ban on partial birth abortion didn't violate the commerce clause.

Not directly analogous. It was an incorrect vote. If you remove the vote, his speech was against the bill.
 
Last edited:
Glad to see gay marriage isn't the only wedge issue we'll be distracting ourselves with this election season. Thankfully there are no other pressing matters which need to be handled immediately, such as the pending bankruptcy of the country, assassination of already born citizens, violation of pretty much every piece of the Constitution and such.

It's disheartening to see such obvious tactics basically control an entire electorate. It's heart breaking to see the same cause this type of division in our own ranks too. We should know better.
 
You are wrong about that. There is no law above God's law and there never will be.

Gods law is cause and effect. So you are right. But that does not mean we simply cast aside the constitution this one time because we will forever then know that the game is a fraud and it will become increasingly more so.

Humanity, be it one man or the globe cannot escape the law of Cause and Effect or the Law of God if you will. And if we disregard our constitution (the cause) the (effect) will be that of a run away tyrannical mafia given enough time.
 
I was surprised too, until I read Amash's explanation. It does nothing to prevent abortions. If anything, it implies that abortion is ok as long as it's not a sex-selection abortion. Plus, the GOP had no intention of getting this passed. They're just using this as a political maneuver to whip up the pro-life base since they suspended the rules, which required a 2/3 vote to pass instead of a simple majority. I personally don't like being used, especially at the expense of the unborn.

Also, it's unconstitutional as Dr. Paul explains:

this

Ron is against abortions but you can't put in a bill that violates the constitution and creates a thought crime just because the words 'gender based abortion' are in the bill.

This is why Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate. You HAVE to think it through.
 
Back
Top