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.

I am against it

in principle, but not in practice. In practice with our current legal system, more harm than good would be done.

Should someone be tried for

Should someone be tried for double murder of a pregnant woman?


It's a simple question: Is the fetus a symbiont or a parasite?
It's a complicated answer that ONLY the host mother is qualified to address.
In ALL cases it is homicide.
If SHE decides it is abortion.
If someone else decides against her consent, it is murder or slavery.

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

My point exactly. When

My point exactly. When someone murders a pregnant woman, it is double homicide. So than why isn't abortion homicide?

I am not used to pro life polititians

doing anything remotely against abortion. So all in all I find this just shows Rands honesty. Fact of the matter I am used to most prolife politicians voting to give money to planned parenthood.

Frankly I dont understand why so many on here act surprised, as far as I know all the pauls are pro life, and ron paul himself has tried to get this legislation passed.

Paul has said he is fiscally conservative, anti war and pro life. Are some of you suprised that he is actually keeping his campaign promises (we all know how rare that is), or that he doesnt fit your view of libertarianism, even though he has clearly said he is a republican.

It just shows you why

Rand is a Republican, and not a Libertarian. Right to life is part of the Republican party platform, not the Libertarian platform.

Support for foreign bases and

Support for foreign bases and unlimited aid to Israel is also part of the "Republican platform."

Which is exactly why many people are not libertarians...

'Which 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.'

(See above)

Let's be honest here. Ron

Let's be honest here. Ron split from the LP because of a poor showing in 1988 and because an opportunity opened up to win a GOP primary in Texas.

You don't know what you're

You don't know what you're talking about.

LIBERTarianism is based on LIBERTY. You cannot defend LIBERTY without defending ALL LIFE.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


The fetus

does not have the LIBERTY to use the mother's body without consent! What about the woman's liberty?

If i could not walk, would I have the right to make you carry me on your shoulders in order to survive? If I could not breathe, would I have a right to one of your lungs?

It is as simple as that.

The mother and father both

The mother and father both consented when they had sex, or at least consented to the risk involved. What of the defenseless child's liberty? Out of sight, out of mind? Is that it? Or because it's so small, it's worthless?

The fetus was given no such choice to be brought into the world, yet you're acting, as in your example, as if it is a sentient parasite. The fetus did not have a choice but to depend on the mother. To punish the child for the actions of its parents is the height of cruelty and brutality.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


Maybe they did, maybe they didn't

Maybe they used birthcontrol, condoms, and the woman thought she could not get pregnant, or the male was infertile.

Life finds a way. But it is not always consented to exist.

Regardless if the child is consented to begin life or not, if the woman chooses to take away that consent, then the fetus not longer has consent, and has no right to use of the woman's body.

If a woman gives herself to her husband, and later decides to take away this consent, is this not rape?

A woman, or man, has full control over consent of their body at any given time. This is the reasoning to Roe V Wade. It is a first amendment issue.

The only true method for

The only true method for prevention is abstinence. We all take a risk every time we CHOSE to have intercourse. It's the same as preventing stds. You may still get one. It's a risk you chose to take.

We as humans are sexual beings

abstinence is a pipedream. We take precautions, but mistakes get made.

And you can get crabs/herpes from a toilet seat, so bad analogy there.


We are *rational* beings with sexual faculties. We are not animals who do not have control of our passions. We have a deep need for food. Does that mean we are doomed to overeat? We can rationally understand that there is a time and a place for eating. Now, sex is not a need like food, exactly. We can't abstain from food entirely. But we don't need to give in to every passing pang of hunger. We have control.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Thank you. I am starting to

Thank you. I am starting to get exhausted from debating this.

Not likely. And you can't get

Not likely. And you can't get pregnant from a toilet.

Without consent? That's

Without consent? That's ridiculous. Most women consent to having sex. Therefor...

Ok let's extrapolate this further

let's say we only extend the right to abortion to women who have been raped.

Does this abortion get to occur immediately once the woman says she was raped, or must there be an investigation first?

If there is an investigation first, and this investigation takes 1-2 years like most do, and the woman is forced to have the child, does the woman then get the right to terminate the child post birth?

Or let's say the woman is found to be lieing about the rape, is the woman then tried for murder (even if the rape DID occur the the defendent had a great lawyer?).

Tooooo many cans of worms, do not open.

Educate people, help people make the right decisions, but do not go down this path of fascism.

If a woman lies about rape to

If a woman lies about rape to kill a man...than she should be tried for murder.

If our government stops supporting abortion, perhaps the people will start to take responsibility. There are a lot of other options available. Too many to justify killing another human.

The child should be

The child should be born.

Only the most depraved, senseless, cruel people in the world could tolerate punishing an unborn child for the crimes of its father.

And only a facist could call defending life "the path to fascism."

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


And who should then raise the rape child?

Should the mother then be punished by not only forcing her to carry the reminder of her rape for 9 months, and continued for the next 18 years? Would this create a stable person to raise a child? What if she has other children/husband. Should he be forced to raise a child that is not his?

How in any way does this insure the liberty of the mother?

Does anyone know what the #1

Does anyone know what the #1 reason for an abortion is? Statistically it is because the mother was not ready for it. Not ready meaning...not married, not enough money, career, age, ect, ect.

First of all...how selfish are we? There are a lot of other options out there.

I was 17 when I got prego. I have raised a wonderful son even though I was not married, not supported by a family, had no career, no money, and very young. I managed to do it. I worked hard. It wasn't easy. My son is now 15 and an amazing person! To think that I could have taken the easy way out.

not everyone is just like you.

I do not believe in abortion personally but would never impose that belief on someone else!

I commend you for raising your son, I really do,

but every situation is not the same.

You missed my point.

You missed my point. Statistically, I fit the bill. My point is, it's all a matter of choice. You make your own fate. A child does not possess the kind of power to hinder your abilities to a good life. I chose to work hard to provide a good life for my child.

Thank you very much for your decision.

If you hadn't decided to keep your son, the world would be deprived of his greatness. Thank you, and one day he'll thank you as well if he hasn't already.

While pregnant, my mother was told (by a doctor, mind you) that her coming son would surely have downs syndrome. She was so sure of it that she gave my mother the option to have the child aborted. My mother adamantly refused, saying she would love and raised the child no matter what was wrong. Not long after that, I was born. Without downs syndrome.

Imagine what could happen if people took responsibility for their actions and stopped taking the easy way out?

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


I commend you

However, consider had you had an abortion, never ever ever known that child or learned to love him, earned more money, become more financially secure, and then had children, providing them a vast superior life than the one you give your son (not bashing, just presenting an alternate reality for you).

At this point, would it not be benefiting your other children to have done this?

I know you love your son, and you can not imagine ever not having him, but this is because you kept him and fell in love with him, but had you not, you would love your other future children the same as him, and it would be a decision you would not regret as much. It's all relative, and it is all a personal choice.

When I was 18, I was dating a girl who told me she was incapable of having children. Something with her ovaries. We had unprotected sex. She lied. She became pregnant, had an abortion, and told me afterwards. I was angry for a very long time. But now I am married to a wonderful woman, and I have a son. Had she not had the abortion, my life would be drastically different, and my son whom I would die for would not be here. I never knew the first child. Never grew to love it, so in retrospect, her decision to abort the child, unbeknowst to me, was perhaps the best moment in my life, which allowed my current life to manifest.

Oh no...wait...I could not

Oh no...wait...I could not even get passed your first paragraph. My son has a vast superior life! Yes, it can be done even when you are "not ready" to have one. It's all about choices and a child does not posses the power to obscure you from obtaining a bright future. I tend to beleive that because of my child...I chose to make decisions which lead me to be successful. And guess what...I am successful and I did it all by myself and for my child. And now I am married and trying for more children. A child does not hinder your abilities...that's just selfish talk.

suggest you do read past the first paragraph

and again I commend you. But again my point was that a situtation like yours is relative to your individuality. You could not imagine making a different decision because you have already made that decision. Just like had you chose to abort, and your life turned out amazing, you would not be able to imagine what i would be like to have not made that decision.

it is all relative.