26 votes

Rand Paul: New Personhood Law Will End Abortion ‘Once And For All’

U.S. Senator Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, is advocating for Congress to make a new law, a “personhood” law, called the Life at Conception Act,” establishing that human life begins at conception, and extending the 14th Amendment to all fetuses.

Paul in the audio message calls law “legal mumbo jumbo,” yet tells supporters, “we in Congress have the right to legally define when life begins,” regardless of what the truth is.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


Rand Paul Introduces Life at Conception Act


allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

The exact opposite stance of his father...

who says that the Federal Government should had absolutely nothing to do with abortion, and can't legislate a policy for all 50 states.

What more proof do you need that Rand is not in fact his father?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

If Rand keeps going about

If Rand keeps going about this, not a chance in hell he will win the presidency in 2016. The majority of Americans won't support a candidate who would outright ban abortion. People here may not agree with abortion, but need to understand this.

One step at a time...

...he's got to win the Republican primaries first, and a strongly pro-life position could help him there.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

the quickest way for rand

the quickest way for rand paul to be labeled a right-wing nut. Stay as far away from this as possible unless you like losing general elections 3 in a row!

Ron Paul 2016

Wouldn't it be better if we

Wouldn't it be better if we overturned Roe v. Wade or is that the point of this version of the Life at Conception Act?

Sure ... just pass a law ...

... THAT will end abortion.

Just like laws have ended murder, drug use, prostitution ...

More laws always solve the problem.

Sure, Rand.

this is proof

that Rand does not understand his fathers message.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Great Point

This is exactly what I was going to point out before I refreshed the page and saw your comment. Thanks for being there before I was!

While I admire some of Sen.

While I admire some of Sen. Paul's efforts in standing up for liberty, this is absurd. More Federal regulation of personal choices. "There ought to be a law " doesn't sound like a mantra of liberty. There will be no triumphant entry to 1600 Penn in 2016. This alone will prevent it. How can their be liberty in a state where the government "protects " you from the moment before the post coital cigarette is finished? Prohibition of an act is far different from the extinction of it.


As a non-religous person (agnostic) I don't share the same passion against abortion as some of our religious friends here. However, as a classical liberal I do believe that one of the very few roles of the government is protection of life. So the govt has the responsibility to protect life - the question is now what life is, and from that standpoint I do think that there ought to be something that defines when the life starts. Also, while I do agree with abortions when the mother's life could be endangered, etc, I despise the idea of people just thinking to themselves "Oh, let's have unprotected sex and if we get pregnant we'll just abort the fetus". That betrays a wanton disrespect towards life and disrespect of nature and living things in general.

That said, conservatives need to get off of their high-horse and stop thinking that you can ban abortions while ignoring to talk to kids about sex, and unprotected sex in particular. You can't have it both ways - premarital sex will happen, whether you like it or not, and if you don't educate these kids about protection, pregnancies will happen. And abortions resulting from those pregnancies will also happen, whether in a doctor's office, or with a coat-hanger or drano-margarita cocktails.

Finally, there has to be an easier and less costly access to adoptions. There are many couples out there wanting children but not able to have them, and there is probably an equal number of parents who don't want their children. This seems to me like a win-win solution, but for some reason we still go to abortion as a first choice.

What is absurd is that you think your life is of more value..

..than someone who has no right to theirs.

As doctors Rand and Ron have a sense about them that causes them to strategize how to save lives, and as many as possible in both the short and long-term.

This strategy is downright awesome and it further demonstrates who in congress are pro-life and who are liars.

Rand Paul 2016



Enjoy the awesome strategy.

Enjoy the awesome strategy. Roe v Wade legalized what was happening in back alleys DESPITE the illegality of it. New laws and more government involvement in peoples lives is contrary to the message of liberty in my opinion. And this alone will be an albatross on the neck of any presidential ambitions Sen Paul may have. And yes, protection of life is far more important than any job ambitions, but making something illegal will not end its practice. History teaches that.

Right... Just like federal

Right... Just like federal drug laws have allowed for only 56 cases of marijuana use. Sure.

jaseed's picture

My Donation

on the way

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

76% of the reasons women get abortions are Economic Based

So -- Rent a Womb

If 52M people (easily the number of people "of means" who want abortion to end) put $25 to $50 per month they can get anywhere from 40% to 60% of all abortions to end. It would give $3250 per month to these women -- I don't recommend you just hand it to them; a private 501 c-3 could dole out the money in terms of "benefits" (mentoring, skill building, rent, food etc, paying off school loans).

If we gave up $100 per month we could develop a dynamic foster-care / orphanage system -AND- have enough to stave off 40 to 60% or 400K to 600K abortions per year.

Each 501 c-3 would "chose" the women also -- making sure to have even numbers per capita from each race, but to be selective among them: Based on number of kids they have now, drug history, genetic analysis (viability). Since you can't save 100% might as well develop a rubric to get the healthiest kids possible and the women who could "possibly" become "mommies" and "self-reliant" afterward.

This would not include women who intentionally seek fertility pills or whom are artificially inseminated.

again you are wrong

64% of women who get an abortion were going to have the baby until they were pressured by a third party to get one, It is undetermined how many of these "pressured" events were really someone such as a parent or boyfriend/husband/pimp physically taking the girl to the abortion clinic and making them get an abortion then, but the fact is that most abortions happen to women who were going to have their baby so if you are pro choice you should want to make abortion illegal.

What is the sampling size -- bad statistics - bad argument

your "source" links back to it's own organization -- it was 64% of those "polled" not 64% of the nation.

I took statistics from many sources and came up with a mean average of them all -- given that none of the sources were using the same poles I think it is drawing from a wider pool.

But I will agree to let go of statistics-makes-proof type arguing if you are -- because I'm not personally invested to go back and site all the sources, I pooled them into an excel doc and don't have the links.

Let's look at if from your conclusion:

"If I am pro-life (I'm assuming this is what you meant) I should want abortion to be illegal"

I don't want anything to be "illegal" -- I want a society that naturally puts a higher value on the life of children (potential consumers, savers, and entrepreneurs) and women -- as well as the elderly.

I believe that Mises argument for consumer-sovereignty if meditated on deeply enough can create a free-market wherein that happens (natural value).

In a Consumer-Sovereignty the producer and entrepreneur are 100% dependent on the consumer.

Profit-Bursts under Corporatism:

1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Gov't Boom-Bust Interventionism

---The poor and middle class are spenders
---The wealthy seek to please the consumer and gov't
---Gov't Loans

Profit-Bursts under a Free-Society

1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest

---The poor and middle class are savers
---The wealthy seek out "borrowing" from the poor and middle class
---The wealthy seek to please ONLY the consumer
---No Gov't Loans

Thus Consumer-Rule -- more importantly everyone in such a society has ever increasing (albeit slowly) returns on their savings -- Because the wealthy can only have dynamic returns from entrepreneurs and they can only borrow from the poor and middle class (predominate savers)

This type of society has near perfect reciprocity.

Thus to ensure lots of consumers, entrepreneurs, and lenders the wealthy would demand that the un-born and mothers be protected from poverty-decisions. This would include the % that is "forced"

It should be somewhat obvious that voting and lobbying are not part of said free-society (voting results in the circumvention of consumer-will and lobbying is bribery or the purchase of said politicians future votes).

Without voting and lobbying you cannot have things be illegal.

The best argument against you is that if YOU are for a free-market-society then you are for "PRIVACY" which means you will never know what procedures/solutions a doctor and their client come up with.

Abortions will be performed but they will be far far far fewer in number.

I Hate This Issue

Do we violate the liberty of a woman who wants to have an abortion?

Or, do we not protect the life/liberty of the unborn child inside her?

Good luck.

No Woman wants an abortion

I have never met a woman tell me she is saving money to get an abortion. I have not met the woman who given the choice of a three day cruise to Mexico, new wardrobe, gold, or abortion would pick abortion as first choice.

Unwanted pregnancy.

It takes TWO, and as it stands, men are getting a free pass on one hand, after all, they can say, "It's not mine", (unless awoman has the legal power, retained attorney to force a DNA test), ECONOMICALLY speaking, the men who support abortion, see it as a easy way out, and while it's not their first choice between a golf club membership, yaght club, surfboard.. it's the kind of investment that gets rid of baggage, far more esy for the man than the woman, who, because of the acceptable sexism in this nation, already has a more difficult challenge of competing with "the golf club".

Men should be held accountable for the sperm/seed. In many ways, because of abortion, we are a backwards and ignorant culture of death. How can we expect to stop wars, we we can not stop the slaughter of the most innocent among us, our own flash, some deny is human flsh, no matter how small.. conception is life. It is the spark of LIFE.. and some hate life, believing the world is already over populated.

If pregnancy was esteemed, rewarded, and it empowered women and men, then we would see abortion far less, but we live in a society that esteems youth, corporate competition, even the movies show abortion as the dark side of a person's life, because no one wants an abortion.

Ron Paul: "Unless we

Ron Paul: "Unless we understand…we must protect life, we cannot protect liberty."
i.e. if you don't protect life, everyone's liberty is at stake?

That being said, There seems to be some discussion as to whether Rand's legislation will put the life issue into the hands of the federal government instead of the states. And whether there will be intrusive laws and "checkpoints" ensuring the life of the unborn instead of just shutting down the abortion machine.

Sorry Ron, that is not logical.

The argument is over what the definition of life is. Once that definition is established, we can them protect it and liberty.

If the definition is conception, viability, birth, or some other arbitrary point during a pregnancy, it does not prevent us from protecting life and liberty after that point is reached.

And as I have pointed out before, when a significant portion of the population disagree with a law, like drugs, gambling, or prostitution, that law is widely violated, hence difficult to enforce, and enforcement of this law creates hatred and disrespect for government and then even laws with popular support lose respect too.

Liberty involves letting other people make what you think is a mistake when there is substantial disagreement over what is or isn't moral.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.


...when life begins at conception there are no human determinations to be made as to what life is and as to what constitutes life and whether certain lives are worthy of life.

That is the slippery slope upon which liberty of all human kind rests. Do you not know about the Pathway of Death where certain people are starved to death and payouts are made to reach such set goals?


The Champion of Liberty, Dr. Ron Paul, introduced the Sanctity of Life Act in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011 which removes court and death industry oversite of life into that of Liberty whereby all human life is deemed worthy to sanctify here in these United Sates:

"(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);"

So, Henry, if you find it logical to leave the sanctity of your life upto someone else, please then, continue down the slippery slope whereby you may cause yourself and an untold number of other human lives to pre-determined, premature death at the whim of some political board whereby money speaks.


"...when life begins at

"...when life begins at conception there are no human determinations to be made as to what life is and as to what constitutes life and whether certain lives are worthy of life."

You are human (unless there is something you aren't telling us), and you just made that determination.

Is an acorn a tree?

You seem to be so certain that life begins at conception. Is what results immediately after conception a human life? That is what we are arguing about, and you can't logically use your argument as proof of your argument.

Even God hasn't given a fetus all the attributes of human life; otherwise it could immediately after conception survive outside the womb.

I point out that a large segment of the US population has reached a conclusion inconsistent with your belief system; a large segment of the population that otherwise might join in the liberty movement is repulsed by the "holier than thou" position of anti-abortion candidates; and laws that do not have substantial support are widely violated and bring disrespect upon the government that attempts to enforce them.

It is no more a slippery slope to define human life, for example, as beginning with viability than it is to allow a jury to determine someone's innocence or guilt, and then recommend a death penalty. In either case rational thought goes into the determination.

I think that one problem for the liberty movement is the core of those indoctrinated into religion, and they not being able to see that there are alternative moralities, just as justifiable, as the dictates of one's religion. If you believe that only what your religion has determined to be moral is absolute, there is no possibility for you to coexist with others who arrive at different conclusions about what is moral. It may be your view that your God has set up the rules, but for those who not accept the existence of Gods or worship other Gods those rules are just your religious fantasy, as they see morality coming from rational thought or from another God with different rules. You place the liberty movement in the position of denying liberty to others by imposing your religious indoctrination on them, and that is what countless people see when you insist on placing them in jail for carrying out what they regard as living their lives morally, and making choices that they regard as reasonable and beneficial to themselves and to later children the might choose to bring into the world.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

I don't think it has anything

I don't think it has anything to do with religion. Viability can be between 24-28 weeks per wiki. You are telling me a 7 month old baby does not have human attributes?

At what point, Henry, does conception become human? Would you like to be the one to decide? What if you decide wrong?

No, I am sticking with Ron Paul on this issue. It was a state issue before Roe v Wade and should be a state issue now. But that does not mean that life cannot be defined...have you been to a nursing home lately?

I wonder if people are kept alive for the almighty dollar? You know social security is signed over the nursing homes to house the elderly. What are we going to say about that when the issue comes up?

As far as my views, I am going to be paying for Obama care I suppose, socialized medicine, by which my money and everyone else’s will be lumped together and then parceled out as politicals deem best, but to whose benefit?

No, I don't think there is anything wrong with granting life to that which is living. Only living cells divide. As far as I know an acorn lays dormant until it has moisture, soil and sunlight. That is not the case of the human embryo. The egg is dormant until it is met with a sperm and then life happens and a rapid pace of growth and change occur.

There are plenty of pro-life people who are not “religious” and there are plenty of “religious” people who are not pro-life.

I will stick with Ron Paul on the issue. I would have never supported Ron Paul if he had not been pre-life. It was the first thing I checked.


I don't want the government to be the one to decide.

If viability is not until 24 to 28 weeks, then sufficient human attributes are not present until then to say you have an independent human being. Those are God's rules, not mine.

I don't want to be the one to decide for others, and I don't you to be the one to decide for others either. I want the mother and the father, the people with the greatest interest in the situation, with the advice of medical professionals, to decide.

As far as old people and whatever issues you see, I don't see how this has any thing to do with abortion.

I don't think government should be paying for anything to do with abortion; it should be a private matter with the people involved making the decision and paying the cost. If they need financial assistance, then they need to look to family or to private charity.

It should be clear that this is a divisive issue among freedom loving people, and I think makes it difficult, if not impossible to move forward with the freedom movement. I supported Ron Paul in spite of his abortion position, but there are others who agreed with him fully except for his abortion stance, and would not vote for him on account of this, specifically both my daughters. And then there are they such as you who would not vote for a freedom loving person unless he agreed with you on abortion. What chance does freedom have when there are such divisive, and in the case of abortion, emotional issues?

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Your daughters have trouble

Your daughters have trouble weighing the issues, then. They're willing to support butchering innocents abroad so they have the right to abortion?

Should we also compromise on the war issue? That would SURELY "bring the liberty movement together."

My point is I'm sick of the issue but I don't think we need to compromise on it either way. People need to weigh the issue as not a priority.

Ventura 2012

I agree and at the same time I respect there independence.

I guarantee you we had many discussions on the issue, and while I am glad they are such forceful women, I would like to have convinced them that this should not be their deciding issue.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.