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

Comment viewing options

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

Correct me if I'm wrong

but I think I've heard Ron Paul say that the first step to repealing Roe v. Wade is passing the 'Personhood' amendment. Then it can begin the process of moving to the states.

What anti-abortion laws do

is set up legal challenges in which case the new laws would be found unconstitutional due to roe v wade. The attempt is then to appeal these decisions higher and higher until you reach the supreme court who could then decide to essentially rehear r v w, OR, dismiss the case and let the law stand.

I love that you get down

I love that you get down voted for stating a fact.

This is a federal issue

This is a federal issue because tax payers pay for abortions. That is his motivation here. Think about it.

So....then is education,

So....then is education, which has even more subsidies, also a "federal issue" in your view?

Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges.

It should not be a federal issue

It should be an issue of states rights.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

States should not have the

States should not have the right to kill people either.

I'm glad Rand is pro life and

I'm glad Rand is pro life and backs it up. I too am pro life. However, at the same time Rand is introducing this...Hillary is talking about her support for Gay marriage. This is going to get tricky.

Although I do agree with him,

Although I do agree with him, I wish Rand would have stayed away from this issue. It's going to be hard to rally main line Libertarians if you're trying to get the federal govt involved in abortions.

let your yes be yes and your

let your yes be yes and your no be no. does not bother me.

Whether you are pro or anti abortion,

you would be better off if people who believe in freedom could gain public support to get in power and eliminate much of the federal government. More government equals less freedom in most cases.

But the abortion issue drives many people away from freedom oriented politicians who otherwise would have better support. This is a losing issue because the public is equally divided and it is insane to try to impose the views of 1/2 the population on the other half. It never worked for drugs, prostitution, and gambling or when abortion was illegal. It won't work to outlaw guns either. Things that are popular are beyond the effective control of government and just give rise to organized efforts to provide them; look at organized crime and prohibition.

It is just plain stupid to throw away the small chance at gaining freedom peacefully over a hot button issue that drives people out of the freedom camp. It is about economic freedom and personal freedom and Rand (nor Ron) can't seem to grasp that abortion is a personal freedom issue for a significant portion of the population, which damages him and his other causes.

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

This is why Ron and Rand are Republican first, not libertarian.

"It is about economic freedom and personal freedom and Rand (nor Ron) can't seem to grasp that abortion is a personal freedom issue for a significant portion of the population, which damages him and his other causes."

Most Libertarians feel personal freedom outweighs the rights of the child. Ron and Rand do not. They believe that the child has the right to personal freedom, too. Perhaps it's the libertarians that 'can't grasp' that notion.

You are mistakenly linking

You are mistakenly linking Ron and Rand on this issue. Ron is quite clear that he wants to leave it totally to the states. Rand, on the other hand, wants a federal ban. Gigantic difference.

Not so.

Both Ron and Rand were pushing the personhood amendment, which would then allow Roe v. Wade to be repealed and THEN, you can make it a states issue. Otherwise, it's already a federal issue -- it's Constitutional.

This is quite different than

This is quite different than that. In appealing to the 14th Amendment, Rand has gone on record for a federal ban.

Yes...not to mention our

Yes...not to mention our federal tax dollars pay for them.

So Rand is pro life and

So Rand is pro life and actually backs it up with legislation, and the people here go crazy that a libertarian actually supports both life and liberty. As a few here have said, Rand has to take a hardcore conservative position on the abortion issue to make up for his more moderate to liberal positions on drugs and marriage. Rand is already being labeled a "social liberal" by some Republicans. Supporting this bill helps Rand overcome those attacks.

What I find interesting is

What I find interesting is that he is using the 14th Amendment. I not know much about past legislative...have they used the Constitution in the past?

You know...you are correct.

You know...you are correct. And just made me think. People are worried about gaining certain votes. I've seen comments made by democrats about Rands pro life stance. Well...those votes were never going to be his to begin with. And if his pro life stance is all they got on him...i guess we're in good shape. But I'll bet that a libertarian will vote for Rand over Hillary in 2016.

The big difference with Rand

The big difference with Rand (unlike Ron) is that Rand wants a federal ban of abortion. Ron is a states righter on this issue. Big difference. If there is a choice between Rand, Hillary, or Johnson, a lot of young folks (including young women) will vote for Johnnson.

But this is currently a

But this is currently a federal issue as a lot of abortions are paid for by federal tax dollars.

That's a trivial amount of

That's a trivial amount of money compared to the federal dollars spent for education and housing. Does that similar fact also make education and housing "federal issues?"

Lets replace the name Rand Paul

With the name Mike Huckabee in this article and watch this whole site go ape sh#t.

Why?

Because they're both pro-life? That makes them the same?

hear hear

In two years, Rand will be voting for those monstrous budgets in the name of party unity, and the lemmings on here will keep defending him.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I agree with Rand on

I agree with Rand on defending Life and Liberty. Life begins at conception my friend.

So you have no problem with any forms of guns being legal.

But now the morning after pill is an illegal murder weapon. And the federal goverment can now step in and arrest doctors and women and trial them for murder. I do not happen to believe that life begins at conception.This is my opinion just like it is yours that it does.

Plan B is a hormone pilll

Plan B is a hormone pilll like birth control but in higher doses used to prevent conception within the first 72 hours after intercourse. Do you know how long it takes for conception? Usually more than 72 hours. I support plan b.

do you disagree with Ron Paul

that is should be left to the states?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson