1 vote

Sex-selection abortion ban wins strong House majority, but fails to clear 2/3 hurdle

This is from Life Site News. Ron Paul and Justin Amash were among 7 Republicans in Congress to vote no on H.R. 3541, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA)

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sex-selection-abortion-ban-...

On a Facebook page called We Can End Abortion, people are screaming bloody hell especially about Ron Paul's no vote.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/We-can-end-abortion/165284543...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Response on Facebook to someone questioning Paul's vote.

This is how I responded to someone on Facebook prior to reading Paul's statement…
_________
Joe: Do you believe Ron Paul is pro-life?

Andy: He’s not perfect, but he drafted the “Sanctity of Life Act” which would define when life begins and thus overturning Roe v. Wade. All the candidates have said this is needed to overturn Roe, but it was Ron Paul who has actually done this. Yes, he’s the most prolife candidate of the bunch, including Rick Santorum who voted to send your federal tax dollars to subsidize abortifacient contraceptives. I hope Bachmann will carry the Ron Paul torch and press such an Act annually until it’s passed, like Ron Paul did.

Joe: Paul voted AGAINST the legislation banning abortion based on gender.

Andy: Many of these bills are red herrings to attract & mislead the ignorant and will lead to little if any less abortion, but they’ll certainly make headlines, like they’re designed to do. If the bill was passed, the abortion industry will just have a “don’t ask don’t tell” unwritten policy on this. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban also had no impact, actually making late term abortions even more brutal and cruel to the baby, and made proabortion politicians like Specter look like heroes for voting for the ban, while he knew it would have no impact. And most prolifers continue to be ignorant of these red herrings.

And there may be something on this bill’s constitutionality, as well as “legitimizing abortion” like the Laci-Conner bill did which Ron Paul also voted against. The Laci-Conner law was the first time in history where abortion was actually approved within federal regulation, and maybe this recent bill did the same. I haven’t yet read it or any response by Ron Paul, but I suggest you do the same before you pass judgement.

Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade, not put band-aids on a severed limb.

Ron Paul's Statement on HR 3541

Ron Paul's Statement on HR 3541
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 sex.

However, I cannot support HR 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 HR 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 sex.

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’ sex. 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.

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&id=1979:s...

one of these days, rank amateur political bloggers

are actually gonna read the bill in question, actually understand it, let alone 1st questioning Constitutionality of it, or assuming whatever CONgress names the bill to be, 99% of the time the bill does the EXACT opposite of its purported goals. - LifeSiteNews' comment section is FILLed with them!

Besides, I'm so sick to death of these hypocritical NON-principled RINO monkeys who wax poetic about the policestate at home and illegal war/occupation/torture/rape/drone bombing abroad, but consider themselves holy and pro-life.

wonder if the shiny polish in the mirrors at their homes come with an expiration date...

debt, deficit, currency collapse, police state... gee wonder what those things are all about... but gotta raise hell about a less than priority issue, 1st! wee!

Do some of these bozos truly realize just how close to utter collapse of the world as we know it, we are at this juncture in history?

On the plus side, wars, murder, rape, police state didn't get their attention, but even liberals finally saw a glimpse of how moronic govt terrorists and statist can be when naggy nanny Bloomie decided to ban softdrinks beyond the size of his choosing.

War? Whatever!

Ban my soda? F' those muthafrakking bastards! I simply won't stand for it!

Hey, whatever wakes them up to wanting to restore their natural rights, I'd say!

oye veh!

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

In Addition

Paul was given a 100% National Right To Life score AND reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act which "defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception, "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency." Ron Paul has also voted down every bill funding abortion.

Paul is 100% pro-life. This bill is just another sham that criminalizes one form of motive for abortion instead of abolishing it period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Statement from Justin Amish

"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 t...hat 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."

It's premature for me to formulate an opinion, but it looks like Republicans have dabbled in more hypocrisy by outlawing one form of motive for an abortion in favor for others and that appears to be the reason why this bill was voted against by these 7 congressmen.

Abortion is murder in their opinion, but prosecuting thought crimes is unacceptable.

Ron Paul is just being

Ron Paul is just being consistent; allow the states to decide it.

I personally feel that if you are going to allow abortions, why not allow gender-selective abortions? After all, it if isn't a life, it isn't a life. If it is a life, then ban abortion and it doesn't become an issue.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You're just some kind of consistency "extremist"

using your sound logic to "radicalize" us all! Talking like that is the same as voting for Obama!