34 votes

Rand Paul Proposes Federal "Life at Conception" Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Thursday, Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human. This legislation does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

"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."

"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”

SOURCE



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You are so right

Catholic Hispanics are the reason Pro-Life Republicans do so well in California.

the birth control Review volumes 1 through 3 edited by Margaret

Sanger. More children from the fit less from the unfit is the cheif issue in birth control. The emphasis is on control rather then prevention: http://books.google.com/books?id=k0IsAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA3&dq=...
Birth Control Review, Volumes 5-6 Margaret Sanger editor: Birth Control: to create a race of thoroughbreds: http://books.google.com/books?id=qAkiAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA56&dq=%22...
Correspondence between Sanger and McCormick: Where the present need of financial support is most needed, and B. What the present prospects are in contraceptive research. I will answer B. first because I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them. Contraceptive research needs tremendous financial support: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zhSYABm...

jhon

If Roe v Wade is overturned Death Penalty should be abolished

in all states. Right to life should apply to everyone of all ages.

Apples and Oranges

""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."

People convicted of murder have received due process of law. Unborn children have not received due process of law.

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

This issue is AS IMPORTANT

as the drones issue, one which the majority of people here applauded Rand for standing up for us. Those who don't think so are picking and choosing which constitutional rights are important, or who they think deserve them. Its easy to forget about those who can't speak for themselves.

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

How about the WAR issue??

How about the WAR issue??

Or... they dont consider a

Or... they dont consider a fertilized egg a human. Dont forget that one.

An Abortion/Breast cancer victim. If you choose Abortion or use

hormonal conctraceptives your future will look like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2KrbM5x2kk
Abortion made breast cancer a young woman’s disease in the U.S., as well as in China. Before abortion became accessible in the U.S. in 1973, breast cancer had been considered a disease that grandmothers developed. Like the U.S. government, the Chinese government has not publicly acknowledged abortion as the cause of the increased number of breast cancer cases. Both nations have aggressively pursued population control measures during the last two to three decades. Recognition of abortion as the reason for the increased number of cancer cases and deaths would be politically explosive and could conceivably cause political unrest. Does your cancer fundraising group tell women that the breast is not fully matured from cancer vulnerable lobules into cancer resistant lobules until she has a full term pregnancy? Do they tell you that combined oral contraceptives contain the same drugs as combined hormone replacement therapy, but in higher doses? Did they warn you about these risks when the evidence was available in the mid-1980s?It’s not hard to understand why they aren’t telling women the truth! Some groups are led by feminists who previously worked for Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Action League or the American Civil Liberties Union. How would it affect donations if they told women that their abortions have caused them to develop breast cancer? Here is some basic information that the cancer fundraising industry and the abortion industry don’t want you to have.: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/FAQ/

jhon

You might want to fix that typo

You accidentally spelled the "Klanned" in "Klanned Parenthood" with a "P."

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!
http://andrewnapolitano.com/index

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

This is where he loses me, as

This is where he loses me, as I'm pro-choice. Rand shouldn't even utter the word 'abortion'.

David Earl Williams III for Congress
http://dewforcongress2014.com/

I was pro choice too until I

I was pro choice too until I had done a research paper over abortion in college and it changed my mind. I don't necessarily think the morning after pill is bad but removing a blastocyst (the small cluster of cells the developers into a human figure) I don't believe in that. I could be wrong and it's been awhile since I had done the paper but doesn't the morning after pill just kill the fertilized egg (zygote)?

this type of legislation

would be a basis for banning the morning after pill and the "killing" of fertilized eggs.
It would be a basis for banning a morning after pill for a teenage rape victim.
It is going to be viewed by many as very extreme legislation. If you review a lot of comments on news feeds from the general public, you very often find unfair remarks about Rand Paul being part of the "extreme right" ... so this type of action does not help dispel the reputation that people are trying to paint

What about the choice

of the unborn child? Doesn't that human being deserve a choice? Do you reserve constitutional rights only for the people you think should have them?

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

Choice of what?

What choices does unborn have? What choices does even one week old baby have?

What do you mean by choice? This is important to know before we can even talk about the question of deserving.

"Air is the very substance of our freedom, the substance of superhuman joy....aerial joy is freedom."--Gaston Bachelard--

Why the hell...

Why the hell is Rand talking about abortion?! He has the power to unify many on the left and right on civil liberties and fiscal responsibly. But with that power, he has the ability to make the same mistake that every libertarian-leaning republican has made, discussing religion and abortions. HE SHOULD NEVER MENTION THE WORD ABORTION, EVER! FOR ANY REASON. It is way too polarizing, the left will use this to paint him as an antiquated bigot that ultimately hates women. We need to focus on the issues at hand: massive debt, the Fed, our constant wars/foreign interventions and the growing police state. Without first addressing those issues, there won't be much of a reason to be pro-life.

Politics over Principle

Isn't that how we got in this mess in the first place?

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

any country that accepts abortion

is not teaching its people to love, but teaching them to use violence to get whatever they want.

abortion

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn’t that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” Is her vision being fulfilled today: http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

jhon

It's a shame when you have to pass a law

to point out the obvious.

Ok great! No more abortions BUT...

What about the unintended consequences?

http://www.dailypaul.com/278796/how-do-we-handle-the-uninten...

LIFE: Why Ron Paul is not a libertarian in the 'French sense'.

'Life' is exactly why many people are not libertarians in the pure lawless sense of the word. It is another reason Ron Paul was castigated by some of the core 'French Revolution libertarians' back in the 1980s, and one of the reasons for which he split from them.

Right to person-hood of the fetus is already established in law in America. Like many other facets of life, the courts tend to ignore common law and even legislated laws, at their discretion, and act as if law is arbitrary in their hands.

The two main areas of person-hood which come first to mind are 'person-hood of the fetus', and rights of an heir. Life at conception of the fetus is recognized clearly by the underlying science. But more importantly, at conception the person conceived has immediate rights such as to 'not be killed', and to inheritance.

The word homicide, or killing a human being, is also relevant and applied if a child in the womb dies at the hand of mankind. It is either justified or unjustified! If death occurs or is provoked in the womb, it is nevertheless a homicide and termed 'abortus provocatus' in the law, a provoked abortion. The reason for this term is not well known but understandable: abortion is a physiologically process of a woman's body, part of the natural process of termination and cleanup. Those who cause this process to take place are provoking the process. As such they are instigating the termination of life, justifiable or non-justifiable homicide, depending upon the cause.

Additionally, a child at conception becomes heir of the parents or line of inheritance, be that name, property, money, throne, or any of many other possibilities. This is a fact of law! This has been so in recognition that the point of conception, religiously, scientifically, actually, philosophically, and any other 'thing' for the last six or seven millenia, the being of a process of life which is not stoppable except by destroying that life.

This life is a process which continues to grow despite the many alterations of the state of the mother, despite the abundance of food or lack thereof, and in fact has continued through the near starvation of the mother to a conclusion, often with the newborn baby far healthier than the weak mother!

At some point the historically very new and bizarre action of mankind to perform self destruction, needs to be seen in the light of truth. It is a sad and bizarre truth that contrary to any other life form of all of nature, in very recent history, for reasons usually self centered, human mothers have literally become willing to take away the life of their own unborn child.

All of society had better face the reality of that life again, that it begins in the womb as an act of personal responsibility, or life will entirely cease to exist in all it's forms: as free and independent, in liberty, and eventually, even in slavery!

It follows as surely as night follows day. Then we will have returned to the dark ages. Life will again have become merely subject to the will of the strongest, the lords over the serfs!

If Republicans were serious about...

protecting children in the womb, they would point out that those who murder pregnant women are also charged with murder of the fetus. This glaring contradiction when applying the law demonstrates the hypocrisy of pro abortionists who believe this method of killing a fetus is murder while abortion is not.

http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.StandUpForYourRights.me/?p=1264 (Fast and Furious hearing)

Well said.

Well said.

We must remember that the

We must remember that the system in America has a structure to it, however badly damaged through years of centralization. This system is federalism. The general government was never supposed to answer every and all problems. It was conceived with strict, enumerated powers, primarily concerned in foreign affairs. States, the units of this system, were those that would be expressing its unique habits and customs, overseeing its various internal problems and affairs. The general government would be silent in terms of a state’s internal policy, unless that state explicitly called forth help. The majority of crimes, whether it be arson, murder, sexual aggression, and, what’s under discussion, abortion, were under the sphere of the state’s policy. As far as the general government is concerned, murder is not prohibited, nor is abortion prohibited, nor is any other crime prohibited, save those expressly in the general constitution. Thus, to urge legislation that would increase the power of the general government at the expense of the states and localities is not a prescription to our moral problems. In fact, it reminds me of what the great conservative intellectual of the 20th century, Robert Nisbet, had to say about criminalizing all abortion from the national state:

From the traditional conservative’s point of view it is fatuous to use the family—as the evangelical crusaders regularly do—as the justification for their tireless crusades to ban abortion categorically, to bring the Department of Justice in on every Baby Doe. . . . From Burke on it has been a conservative precept and a sociological principle since Auguste Comte that the surest way of weakening the family, or any vital social group, is for the government to assume, and then monopolize, the family’s historic functions.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

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

You talk about progmatism and law

What about MORALITY? You either side with collectivist dogma of religious who value miracles and revelations more than reason OR you side with rational morality of a free individual.

What are you asking? And what

What are you asking? And what exactly is your complaint?

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

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

There is no

individual liberty in a collectivist religious dogma or miracles. Love to universal neighbor is the same love for humanity, fratenity, or society - collectivism. Libertarians must reject any introduction of religious morality into public life. No matter whether it is on local, state or federal level.

Why are you directing this to

Why are you directing this to me?

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

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

It's a troll.

Liberty_First is a troll. It only spews out non-sequitur arguments generally propagating wars and Israel. It makes sense it likes abortions. I am sure it is for gun control too. It has about two statements it uses in reference to Ayn Rand vs. Rothbard. Neither makes sense so no one argues.

Definitely it comes here from somewhere near either Washington or Montgomery, Alabama (headquarters of the Southern Poverty Law Center).

ABORTION CAUSES BREAST CANCER

By Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
Most women in the United States are unaware that having an abortion increases the risk of developing breast cancer. The fact that abortion causes breast cancer has been nearly completely suppressed by the media because it is a politically incorrect issue. More than 30 studies have confirmed a relationship between having an abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer. Since 1960 there has been a surge in the number of women developing breast cancer in the USA. Currently every woman in this nation has between a 10 and 12% chance of developing breast cancer.
Dr. Joel Brind, Professor of Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City College of New York has been crusading to get the information that abortion is a major factor in the causation of breast cancer to the public. Not one magazine or newspaper was willing to print his findings. His research was finally reported in Lancet, a fine English medical journal.
When you enter a Planned Parenthood Clinic to have an abortion do they tell you that this procedure increases your chance of breast cancer by 50%? If a woman has an abortion at anytime, her chance of developing breast cancer goes up by at least 50%.
In November 1994, a National Cancer Institute (NCI) study done at Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Wash. showed a clear link between having an abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer. This NCI research disclosed that if the abortion was performed before age 18, the risk was increased by 150 %. If the woman was over 30 and had a family history of mother, sister, grandmother, or aunt with breast cancer the risk went up by 270%. The most ominous finding was that every woman who had an abortion before age 18 and had a family history of breast cancer developed breast cancer by the age of 45. There were only 12 women in this study who fit this category, but they all developed breast cancer. (Source: November 1994 National Cancer Institute report of a study performed at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington).
A Howard University study in December 1993 confirmed these NCI findings but had a longer follow up. By the time the women who had an abortion reached the age of 50 the chance of breast cancer had increased by 370%.
The story for multiple abortions is even worse. The more abortions a woman has the greater the risk of breast cancer. A study from France showed that a woman with a family history of breast cancer who had 2 or more abortions increased her risk of breast cancer 6 fold.
In Lithuania it is common for women to have had 5 abortions by the time they reach 25. They are experiencing an explosive increase in breast cancer in young women.
Many women believe that there is nothing wrong with having an abortion. Proverbs 14:12 states” There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death.” Abortion not only kills the child it jeopardizes the life of the mother.
Why does abortion increase the chance of breast cancer?
Dr. Brind believes that abortion leaves the breast cells in a permanent suspended state where they are neither dormant nor mature and that these cells are susceptible to undergo malignant change: http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james3.htm

jhon