106 votes

Ron Paul Statement on on HR 3541: The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act

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.

Comment viewing options

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

Once Again...

Dr.Paul voted on a bill but has taken time out to tell us
why he has voted the way he did and like always with the simplicity
and his amazing ability has shown us once again the All Laws
have "unintended consequences".

No One But Ron Paul 2012!
MindyNYC

Great response!

It really is a simple concept: the general government is the agent of the states equipped with few delegated powers. Its concerns were primarily in foreign affairs and few general affairs internally; the states, in contrast, were the units that dealt primarily with internal affairs—local affairs, habits, customs, traditions, crime, and the like.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke

Dr Paul Has spoken well

He has said exactly what I have been thinking! It amazes me that "conservatives" say they beilieve in lessening fedaeral power and then they try to create a new federal crime! There are way too many federal crimes already. The police power is primarily in the states.

It is odd also they want to fight this at federal level where they will never get any headway, whereas at the state level, in some states they would succeed. Is this part of the divide and conquer policy the elites use on the people?

His explanation

regarding the law is excellent. This is the area of understanding that most people do not grasp and hence label Ron Paul as pro-choice, particularly conservative organizations that put together candidate matrices.

A quagmire was created with Roe v. Wade and it will take a systematic, logical approach to undo it. People can not seem to grasp that - perhaps because it ain't as sexy as spewing out empty, inflammatory rhetoric that will get you elected but gets noithing changed...

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I find it odd..

that so many people appear to believe that Ron Paul agrees with them on their own view of abortion. Yet, there are many of us who disagree on this issue. Ron Paul has been clear on his stance with regards to abortion. To follow through on a constitutional approach, and to do everything Ron Paul is advocating, would result in the unborn legally being recognized as human life in every state. What would differ is legal jurisdiction, and resulting penalties, due to the fact that ending a human life on non-federal owned property within state lines has never been federal crime. Each state would have it's own penalties and laws to deal with those who provide abortions. To be clear, it's likely this could mean that some states may not charge the mother at all, as the abortionist is the one carrying out the act of ending the life of the unborn.

I should add that Ron Paul has long advocated overturning Roe v Wade by a majority vote in Congress. The establishment GOP has rejected going this route because they do not want states to have access to their constitutional right to determine the proper punishment for this offense.

Great Libertarian Resource on Abortion

Libertarians for Life has a fine website that includes Doris Gordon's masterpiece, "Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly." This is the best philosophical article on abortion that I've ever seen. It's very clearly written and avoids technical jargon.

Also on the site is Dr. Paul's 1981 article--brief but strong--"Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty."

The link is: www.l4l.org/library.

Mary Meehan

I always like it when

Ron Paul talks about stuff like this, it is when he really shines. I think also most christians in the US have lost the true understanding of the idea that they are not God, they are not the final judge. If you believe, than God is the final judge. I don't think any where does it say people should take action or judge people. The bible says you live your life how you want and you suffer the consequences. But it also teaches forgiveness and redemption. I prefer the real bible and christianity over the fundamentalist kind that is steeped in dogma.

I believe the phrase is judge not, unless you want to be judged. I am not a biblical scholar though, and I am not the best "christian" ever. But I don't see it as my duty to judge people. I only concern myself with stuff that will effect me. Yes I don't like abortions, I think we can have an intelligent mature discussion about it and Ron Paul can do that. We all can. But I don't see it as any of my business what some woman does. I do not want to tell people how to live and what to do, even the bible is just a suggestion as to how to live your life, if you choose to do it. I know in some cases an abortions might be necessary, but that is all a choice. The only person that has any business in your abortion decisions is you, your doctor, husband/boyfriend, and if you believe than God as well. That is all. It is no one elses concern. I am also a supporter of self euthanization for terminally ill people that re suffering, again I see it as a personal decision, not a goverment decision. It would be your choice.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson

A slightly less snarky response...

...than the one by "the Baptist"

The problem is that if that baby inside the mother's womb is an individual human being, then an abortion kills that baby (deprives it of its life, liberty, and opprotunity to pursue happiness) without its consent. If that baby is a human, then it's not an issue about women's rights--it's an issue about the baby's rights. That's why there have been attempts to legally that an individual human life begins at conception, in various states (by way of ammendments to those states' constitutions, I believe).

The entire abortion discussion hinges on the question of when human life begins. If it begins at birth, then abortion should be left up to the woman. If it begins at conception, then abortion is homicide of the most defenseless of all humans.

As far as Christianity is concerned, there are many who (I think) are mistaken about the role of the Christian as a U.S. citizen. Many Christians seem to get self-righteously angry about the morality of the nation. However, "true Christianity", as you put it, is not a passive love. There are many Christians who do believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent life, and are very passionate about protecting the unborn. You'll find many of them volunteering at pregnancy care centers and in groups who go to pray around Planned Parenthood centers. There may be some nuts out there, but these Christians are not the people who are burning down abortion clinics and trying to murder abortion doctors. These are often women who have had an abortion and have discovered the emotional and psychological pain of an abortion and, out of love, want to help pregnant women consider other options so they don't have to experience the same pain.

Thaks for expressing your thoughts and listening to mine.
-R

Fine

But don't complain about murder of adults either, that was the choice of the murderer and that's all, it's just a choice and we all make mistakes, let's not judge those poor murderers. We'll just live our lives and turn a blind eye. That's what Jesus wanted, to ignore the evil around us and never say a word to anyone about what we think is right or wrong.

Murderers

Go to jail when they kill people. They make a decision to kill. You obviously don't get my point.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson

Murder is murder

Murder is murder, and our point is, when you take a human life you commit murder and should be punished. Today we not only don't punish, we act as if nothing was done that was evil, we pretend everything is fine! It's just a choice. But all things are a choice, a murderer chooses to stab someone OR abort a child in their own womb. Both are murder. Now I can see that someone could be blinded or have their vision skewed by the endless propaganda that is spewed over this issue and commit that murder in ignorance, thinking that the child is just a "mass of tissue" (which we all are in some sense) and that it's not a human (despite having its own DNA code), but that's just a matter of education, or reeducation. But when someone knows it's a human and has an abortion, it's time to press charges.

Sorry about the snarkiness to one and all, this is a problem I recognize in myself and know I need to overcome.

Regardless

of what you think or feel it's a states issue is what Paul is implying.
It's unconstitutional for the feds to butt their noses into states issues.

Keepin' it real.

Pro-Choice...

...and I agree! Look, the djinn is out of the bottle now, and if R v W is repealed, MOST States will LIKELY keep it available - and I think that's a good thing. If you disagree, well, it will much easier for you to change the State/local laws (wherever this issue ultimately ends up being decided) than it would be to repeal a Federal law. Either that, or you could move to a place that is more in line with your ideals. The point is, there are really only three people in the entire world who should have a say in abortion, and I'll list them in descending importance: the mother, the father, and the doctor performing the procedure.

"Every generation needs a new revolution" ~Jefferson

Join ours - http://www.ronpaul2012.com

The Constitution Was made Solely For A Moral People....

Abortion is stench to my nostrils...To murder a man, a woman or a child, deprives society of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness..

How could you murder anyone and not suffer the pain of conscience, knowing you have played God, the judge of all living.

God gave the children of Israel the 10 commandments, not to live by, but to show them they had fallen short, they had missed the mark. It was an indictment..

You cannot will yourself to do good. You cannot will yourself to live by a commandment..."Of yourselves you can do nothing, God doeth the work."

We have a very, very wicked society and to sanction murder by abortion at any level, eventually will murder a country.

You can make laws to no end, but if you are an immoral person, you are incapable of living by them..

liberty?

I am for freedom , I understand that this nation was founded on christian principals,however if you believe in freedom then this issue needs to be left up to the people in each state to decide not for the Federal Govt. to mandate what someone can do or not do. You say immoral?
What about taking my money and giving it to a person that want's to have an abortion? I believe that is immoral and theft, of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But who's happiness?

James Steele Jr. Tennessee

The devil is in the details.

There is good evidence that when access to abortion goes down, the death rate of women goes up. By banning abortion, just as much life passes from the world, and more children loose their mothers.

Medical science does not differiate from a fetus that "naturally" aborts, and one that does not. The more a woman exercises in the first 18 weeks of pregnancy, the greater the likelihood of her body aborting the fetus, up to 100% if she is an active athlete. To ban abortion, and to enforce it, is to walk a very dangerous line of taking all liberty and dignity away from all women. I agree with you that abortion is a from of murder, but I believe it must be a legale one if we are to live in a free society and avoid big government interference.

There are some things l love about the Pro-Life movement, and the concept that life does indeed begin at conception, but making laws about what transpire's inside my body, could take my liberty away completely.

Two cups of coffee a day will keep the baby away, do we want to live in a world where woman are never allowed access to caffeine? Can you imagine the underground market this would make?

Edit : wikipidia for some sources to my statements : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#First_trimester

Exodus 1 : 15 Moreover the

Exodus 1 : 15 Moreover the King of Egypt commanded the midwives of the Hebrew women, (of which the one's name was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah.)

16 And said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the women of the Hebrews, and see them on their stools, if it be a son, then ye shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then let her live.

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches. - Luke 16

Best read the 14th Ammendment Boys and Girls

The 14th Ammendment to the Federal Constitution clearly states "nor shall any state deprive any person of Life ..."
I know Ron Paul has a very ProLife record and stance and for that I am thankful. But him saying that Life should be left up to states is clealy wrong. For if a state decided to legallize abortion it would be in direct violation of the 14th ammendment. The constitution already prohibits states from having such an disregard for life.

But is he saying "life"

But is he saying "life" should be up to the states? I read him as saying the penalties for abortion should be determined by the states.

And in spite of what the 14th Amendment says, an unborn child is legally not considered "life."

"Life Begins at Conception" States Ron Paul

In the words of Ron Paul "having delivered more then 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception" So he would disagree with you that an unborn child is not legally considered life.
Any state that allows Abortion violates the 14th ammendment, and in fact the federal government has every right to step in and stop this infanticide.
The 14th Ammendment was added to the constitution after the civil war, because some southern sates still held that slaves should be deemed as non persons without the same freedoms as whites. For example one southern state would not allow blacks to own firearms, which violated the 2nd ammendment. Therfore the federal government stepped in because of a clear cut violation of the federal constitution.
In the same manner there are many out there today that are trying to say that the unborn, just like the blacks during the civil war era, should be treated as non persons and that the states somehow should decide who recieves their constitutional rights and who does not.
No Sir, its a very black and white issue (no pun intended) Each person has a God given right that cannot be taken away from us by either the federal or State government. Unfortunately, to date no Executive branch officer has had the courage to step in and enforce this Constitutional protection of the unborn upon the states, by force if necessary.

Then you have a case

against the state.

Doesn't negate Paul's argument.

Agree with Ron Paul;

Agree with Ron Paul; returning jurisdiction over abortion to the states.

If a woman wants an abortion she will find a way. To make abortion illegal at the state level will simply create a black market. A middle of the road approach allowing abortion in some cases such as: rape, evidence of a severely deformed fetus, danger to the life of the mother if she carries the child to term.

Contraception, prevention, is most certainly the correct choice, and needs to be emphasized as the most responsible choice. Let us be Pro-Choice in this direction!

Having indiscriminate sex and becoming pregnant because you can count on the nanny state to make it right for you, is an avoidance of God given responsibility for choice. Allow abortion only in certain circumstance, as suggested above.

abortion...

such a sensitive subject even within party lines....the more i hear him speak his mind on it the more i agree with him

i know one thing...he has bigger balls then this entire forum put together...

.

"""limit the jurisdiction of activist federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion.""

Are you sure the word "restoring" shouldn't be "restricting?" And it should be clarified that it should be up to the states and not the federal government whether it is restored(continued) or restricted.

Declaration of Independence

Well put by other commenters. Also, I think the Declaration of Independence protects every one of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The state that legalizes voluntary murder/allows gasing clearly infringes upon these basic elements, and I think Dr. Paul would intervene federally. Remember, Dr. Paul won't just sit in his chair spinning around once he gets into office! Although he wants to extremely decentralize the government, Dr. Paul believes that the government does have responsibilities! Such as providing sound money, national security, and protecting liberties :)

If This Bill Passes

If this bill passes it will be another plug for Pro-Choice. Ron Paul is right on with his comment.

Joined the Liberty Movement in Anchorage, Alaska, 1977. Ron Paul supporter since 1983.
In Liberty from the Pacific Northwest.

Under RP's strict definition

Under RP's strict definition of what constitutes a federal crime, I guess abortion is not something the feds can intervene in.

But what if, for example, the Minnesotan state government started gassing its people. Or if Texas decriminalized murder? And Obama sent in the national guard to intervene. Would Ron Paul be criticizing Obama for federally intervening?

The Constitution does guarantee the residents of states a republican form of government. It guarantees them equal protection, the right to the rule of law, and a legal system. Abortion is the states specifically voiding all of those rights.

Even if you say, "the states have the right to legalize murder", which is an insane position I doubt the founders would have endorsed, it is inarguable that if the states criminalize murder, they must crimnalize murder against everyone, not just "born" people.

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

The states can and do legalize murder all the time

In cases of self defense for instance, and the states decide the conditions required to justify murder in self defense - which is very different from state to state. States also have very different death penalty laws. the death penalty is essentially state sanctioned, legal murder. Texas and Vermont have very different laws, should we send in the national guard because Texas has such a low bar for the Death penalty ?

Ron Paul is dead on right in this instance.

How can you claim the death penalty

is state-sanctioned murder? It's not murder to execute someone who murdered someone else.

Sure it is

What gives the state the right to kill. There is no self defense, and there is not even revenge. it premeditated, and the application of the penalty varies from state to state and even from person to person. Needless to say, there are alot of innocent people put to death - that's been proven.