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.”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Stop these lies

moderate this fool.

You have reduced yourself

to a parrot. And not the first time.

Rand had made TWO mistakes today

1) Rand pushes for multiplying the poor and crippled (anti-abortion laws.) Free people should procreate based on their ability to feed their children. People should use all available technology to prevent severe deformity, like Dawn syndrome. Children must be loved by their parents without relying on charity or goodwill from others. Religious simply "love" the poor and use misfortune of others as a gateway for their own entry into haven, with humility. Church has no tools to create prosperity, only to encrease the number of poor. GOP will have no future if it sticks with religious collectivists whose morality is the same as that of socialists (sacrifice individual man for common good, create more poor.)

3) Rand pushes for amnsety to illegal Mexicans. That is the rare issue where I side with Mitt Romney (self deportation) rather than with Rand Paul. Immigration and gay issues should be put on the back burner until capitalism is restored: welfare ends, pride parades for heterosexuals are allowed.

Spoken like a true bot!

Machines can't count;
No grammar;
Oxymorons throughout.

Rand only supports amnesity

Rand only supports amnesity with secure boarders.


11m + 11m future spouses + 33m future kids. Hell no. Rand needs to check his vision. I wonder if he had an eye exam himself.

Here. While it has been


While it has been widely reported that Paul backed a pathway to citizenship, the Kentucky Republican never used the word “citizenship” in his speech. Instead, he argued for a solution besides “amnesty or deportation” and said conservative Republicans should start by “acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.”

In a statement, Paul spokeswoman Eleanor May said Paul’s plan was not a path to citizenship.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-immigration-...


But that manuvering is lost for general public. Look at Yahoo comments today, how many folks scorn Rand. Plus residence status allows welfare, food stamp, free education, etc in many states.

Realistically, how the hell

Realistically, how the hell can we afford to deport or detain ALL of those illegals? Why not have them on record and pay taxes?

You should

look at real numbers. Government support (housing, education, welfare, food stamps, free clothes, free medical insurance, etc) cost more than a double or tripple minimum wage rate. It is better let them work and keep all their unpaid "taxes" or leave if they choose to. I am also against automatic US citizenship to illegal immigrants' children born here.

This is a problem that I can

This is a problem that I can safely say I do not know an answer to.


Clenard Childress discusses how Abortion is Eugenics, designed to destroy Black Americans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHM957-4cHE&feature=player_em... Fred Hammond’s powerful testimony on abortion: Before my mom passed away she revealed an amazing story. 3 months before she had she revealed the final peace of my puzzle. She said to my daughter, myself, that she was crying that she was sorry. She said Fred, Fred was a boy and I am looking at her, at 47 years old. I am like what are you talking about. She said when I made the mistake I went and had a dnc done. She said I went to the clinic and it was illegal to do it in the 50s and 60s and I had you aborted. And I was supposed to go home and have a miscarriage and bring you back in a bag and I looked at her and I said ha. She said I had it done there was blood. I got up. I went home. 2 days nothing. 3 days nothing. She decided to go back and said I dont think it worked. And then she said she didnt think it worked they looked and said no its still there will get it this time. As she lay there and they got the tools she sais she felt like god was going to kill her and she got up and ran out with her clothes on. Now here is the deal. Here is why I dont have time to play church. At the end of the day when I was supposed to be discarded and the tools came in to kill me to crush my head or whatever you are supposed to do the lord took his hand pushed it in the air and pushed me back out of the way and they thought they got me. But at the end of the day god had a plan for a broken situation. And even though the trials have been crazy and from that moment on life was just rough but god hid me even in life things started to act crazy he still I see him taking his hand pushing me back. And I am not the guy who tries to sit up and act like he is so much better than anyone else. I am just telling you right now god chose me to do something and I am going to do it to the best of my ability like Rosa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eXOM9...


Disagree with Rand here...

This is probably the only issue for which I respectfully disagree with Ron/Rand Paul. The argument for the Act is by no means absurd. It is a logical and reasonable interpretation of the 14th Amendment. However, to me, it seems inconsistent with libertarian principles to force a woman to bear a child -- at least to a certain point. States should be able to decide on this issue.

You've framed it very negatively

"it seems inconsistent with libertarian principles to force a woman to bear a child" could just as easily be written as "it seems in line with libertarian principles to protect the right of individuals to their life, including those most weak and vulnerable".

I have a few questions regarding libertarian principles (and i mean these sincerely):
- Once giving birth, does a woman or man have any legal duty to raise their child?
- And if they do not, do they have any legal duty to ensure that if they do not wish to raise their child, that they find a suitable adult who can raise the child?
- And if they don't, does that mean they are they able to leave the child on the streets alone to die because they should not be *forced* to take care of a child or ensure they have a good home?
- If i am walking along the street on a cold winters night and i see a baby freezing to death, would it be *force* to suggest that government is allowed to convict me of murder (or some similar charge) if i did nothing and allowed that baby to die?

To me, the idea of being forced to have a child as one is forced to pay taxes (or some other form of coercion) are apple and oranges. This is a completely different thing. We are talking about the natural biological function of a woman here who is carrying a life inside of her. This life is temporarily completely dependent on this woman and the concept of force can't be treated the same as policy issues.

And i apply the same principle to the last question i asked. If there is a life that is temporarily completely dependent on me (say i find it on the street freezing to death), to say that i am being unjustly *forced* to ensure that it is safe is something i simply cannot accept.

answers to your questions

(These are my own opinions only )
#1 - no
#2 - yes
#3 - not applicable, since answer to #2 is yes
#4 - no

I think #1 & #2 are self-explanatory; as long as you can find somebody else to raise the child, then you should not have to. But yes, if you bring a child into the world, you have a responsibility to make sure it is cared for.

The distinction with #4, in that instance, it was not the adult passerby who created the problem. While it would be deplorable for the person to ignore the baby, the libertarian view would not raise it to the level of "crime" where you should now be punished by society, i.e., failure to remedy a problem that you did not cause.

I understand what you are

I understand what you are saying. But if a woman said, "Look, I made a mistake. I got pregnant. I'm 3 weeks in (as opposed to like 8 months). I can't afford a kid and I am mentally unstable to support one at the moment. I also don't want the rest of society to be forced to take care of it...," it seems incompatible with a free society for anyone to say I AM FORCING YOU TO HAVE THAT CHILD. Plus, the Act would only push those wanting abortions into the black market where numerous things can go wrong.

What about adoption. Lots of

What about adoption. Lots of families are willing and waiting. Also, things have changed since abortion was in the black market. There are a lot of options.

Real libertarians don't trample on defenseless babies

Rand : you are the man

No, if they truly believe

No, if they truly believe abortion is murder, they throw eighteen year old mothers in jail.

Why isn't Rand, or any other...

Republican who claims to believe in capitalism, making Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks THE ISSUE? TBTF should be the Republicans main issue because it's the antithesis of capitalism, in fact, it's socialist fascism. The consequences of TBTF banks in Cyprus present a golden opportunity for Republicans to make fascist banks THE ISSUE in upcoming mid-term elections. It also gives Republicans the opportunity to point out Obama's absolute failure to end TBTF as he promised. I fact, Dodd-Frank, Obama's financial reform legislation has institutionalized TARP for big banks and allows the F.D.I.C. to spend Trillions on future bailouts without Congressional approval. Don't take my word for it, listen to what Rep. Brad Sherman and libertarian economist Jeffrey Miron say about Dodd-Franks's Resolution Authority.


If Mitt Romney had made Obama's failure to deal with TBTF a central issue in his campaign, he would be President. Why? Millions of people on the left and right adamantly oppose the continued existence of TBTF because of the potential for future bailouts. The fact that neither party will seriously address TBTF demonstrates bipartisan support for fascism. Even KC Fed President Tom Hoenig says TBTF is "inconsistent with the concept of capitalism" and calls for Glass Steagall to be reinstated as a means to break up big banks. For more info check out these links to Hoenig's comments and my post on derivatives:


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

It seems the real issues are

It seems the real issues are getting overlooked. Endless wars are the number one issue here....

Yes, endless wars because

Yes, endless wars because they kill innocent people.

Who are the main beneficiaries of...

perpetual war? It's the fascist TBTF banks who finance the Global Military Industrial Complex as a means to create a fascist global government.

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

Ron has said it before

You don't know for a few weeks after conception that there was a conception. I beleive in life but there is no liberty with federal policeman in your bedroom. How many women will be thrown in jail for miscarraige(which is very common)by over zealous prosecutors? It will happen. Changing hearts and minds is the best way to go. Needless to say I don't have a lot of confidence the justice system -too many incentives for the courts and law enforcement to abuse it for personal gain

Government is supposed to protect our freedom, our property, our privacy, not invade it. Ron Paul 2007


if a fetus is given personhood rights, then upon death there must be an investigation. If the mother caused a miscarriage, say by having one too many cups of coffee, she could be put in jail for murder. Sounds crazy right? Not really. That fetus has the same rights as anyone else, so this would definately happen. It would be the ultimate control of man over woman.

Or let's say a woman did not tell her husband she was pregnant, and he decided to "wrestle" like they always did, and she had a miscarriage. Guess who would be going to prison for murder.

It creates way too many grey areas, and it is just another republican ploy to take away your liberty.

Really? One too many cups of

Really? One too many cups of coffee? There actually is no way of proving that a miscarriage occurred because of one too many cups of coffee.

Most miscarriages occur because of abnormalities. I've had two because we later discovered that I have a blood disorder which has now been linked to most miscarriages.

One can carry a baby full term while using crack. Coffee will not be investigated as a murder weapon. That is silly.


..ambitious and zealous prosecutors are not above using such "silly", specious, and contrived charges in selective prosecutions.

Please don't concede to the state any more authority than it already arrogates to itself.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

You make excuses because of your bias

but you are not thinking clearly about this. State and government attorneys will use every law to find convictions, especially if accusations are made.

One over zealous doctor/father/lawyer, and a precedent is set.

Even IF every single miscarriage is determined to be at no fault of the mother, having had two miscarriages your self, and the grief you went through, would you have liked to have sat in a room being questioned by law enforcement during your time of grief? Want that extra stress added to you? If you went through that once, would you have ever tried again for a child knowing IF it happens again you are a repeat offender?

I fully understand that life is precious, and every child DESERVES a right to born, and in a perfect world they would be, but we have a system of laws and consequences in this nation, and the more people push and push for this, the more it will backfire.

Ultimately, look. If a woman has an abortion, it does not affect you one bit. Not a single bit. So why would you put the millions of other women in jeaopardy because of one woman who makes an ill informed decision?

Because people need to take

Because people need to take responsibility. How can you be against the killings of all those innocent lives but not the killings if innocent babies?

To append

It does not influence me one way or another if someone has an abortion that I do not know. That is a choice they must make, not me. I am only influenced if they keep said child, and I end up paying for their care. If anything I am burdened less by someone who has an abortion (even if the government pays for it) than I am by someone who keeps it and goes on welfare.