Posted under Pro-Life & Ron Paul
The bill to ban sex selection abortions failed yesterday. It had more than majority support, but the method by which it was brought up required a two-thirds vote. (This alone should tell you that Republican aren’t serious about passing pro-life legislation.) I bring this up because Ron Paul voted no which is sure to be demogogued by the Paul haters. (Check out the comments already at the first link.)
First of all, If I was in Congress I would have voted for this bill based on the belief that a lower procedural principle (federalism) should not trump a higher transcendent principle (life). Also, the ammo a no vote gives to anti-Paul demagogues who are not going to fairly present his rationale is not worth the upholding of the lower procedural principle in this one case.
That said, Ron Paul did not vote to “murder female babies” and the demagogues know it. Ron Paul’s vote was based on jurisdiction issues and was technically correct if perhaps foolishly consistent.
And how many of these people who say they support life also support wars of choice against Muslim that don’t meet Christian Just War standards?
Andy on 02 Jun 2012 at 4:45 pm #
This is how I responded to someone…
=========
Joe:
Do you believe Ron Paul is pro-life?
Andy:
He’s not perfect, but he drafted the “Sanctity of Life Act” which would define when life begins and thus overturning Roe v. Wade. All the candidates have said this is needed to overturn Roe, but it was Ron Paul who has actually done this. Yes, he’s the most prolife candidate of the bunch, including Rick Santorum who voted to send your federal tax dollars to subsidize abortifacient contraceptives. I hope Bachmann will carry the Ron Paul torch and press such an Act annually until it’s passed, like Ron Paul did.
Joe:
Paul voted AGAINST the legislation banning abortion based on gender.
Andy:
Many of these bills are red herrings to attract & mislead the ignorant and will lead to little if any less abortion, but they’ll certainly make headlines, like they’re designed to do. If the bill was passed, the abortion industry will just have a “don’t ask don’t tell” unwritten policy on this. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban also had no impact, actually making late term abortions even more brutal and cruel to the baby, and made proabortion politicians like Specter look like heroes for voting for the ban, while he knew it would have no impact. And most prolifers continue to be ignorant of these red herrings.
And there may be something on this bill’s constitutionality, as well as “legitimizing abortion” like the Laci-Conner bill did which Ron Paul also voted against. The Laci-Conner law was the first time in history where abortion was actually approved within federal regulation, and maybe this recent bill did the same. I haven’t yet read it or any response by Ron Paul, but I suggest you do the same before you pass judgement.
Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade, not put band-aids on a severed limb.
Andy on 02 Jun 2012 at 5:07 pm #
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&id=1979:statement-on-hr-3541
Statement on HR 3541
Mr. Speaker, as an Ob-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues’ revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different sex.
However, I cannot support HR 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress’s jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the states in the Roe V. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a federal issue.
I also cannot support HR 3541 because it creates yet another set of federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by states rather than Congress.
I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe V. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the states and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new federal crimes.
Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a “politically incorrect” reason for special federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a federal law prohibiting “sex selection” abortions and federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator’s animus toward a particular race or sex.
I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying “It is a violation of federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus’ sex. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under federal law.”
Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe V. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the states.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 02 Jun 2012 at 8:45 pm #
Red;
Rich Spencer’s article today on the metapolitics of ‘abortion’ is pretty good, and in line with my post about Peter Thiel:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/the-meaning-of-life/
It’s a good piece to consider with your position.
roho on 03 Jun 2012 at 2:07 am #
Stop fooling around and vote ALL incumbants out each ellection for decades.
Aaron on 03 Jun 2012 at 5:37 am #
I pretty much agree with the Ron Paul quote above. I’d just disagree on the practical aspect: Bills like this are not (only) gimmicks and distractions. They’re attempts to whittle away at Roe v. Wade. More restrictions on abortion are a Good Thing, even if they’re unenforceable. They show that the “right” to abortion can and will be qualified.
I’m kind of puzzled by this one from Red Phillips: “If I was in Congress I would have voted for this bill based on the belief that a lower procedural principle (federalism) should not trump a higher transcendent principle (life).” I have no idea what “transcendent” means here – isn’t biological life an immanent good? – but the Constitution provides for a way to protect unborn life: by amending the Constitution. I’d think that for a constitutionalist, that would be the place for overriding federalism for the sake of a higher good. I’d think that a constitutionalist would say, “Amend it or obey it.” Once you decide that Congress has the power to legislate “trancendental principles,” you can kiss the Constitution good-bye.
RedPhillips on 03 Jun 2012 at 5:46 pm #
Aaron, how can you make murder legal? Murder is inherently illegal. The state (meaning the government or actual state in this case) can not make what is inherently illegal legal. They can just refuse to do their job and protect the innocent.
I am not comfortable with a states’ rights argument with regard to abortion that ends up coming off like moral relativism. Assuming a return to states rights pre-Roe regarding abortion, California might refuse to enforce the inherent laws against murder, and there is nothing I could do about that, but IT WOULD NOT BE OK that CA looks the other way at murder. It’s not OK that China has a forced abortion policy either, there just isn’t anything I can do about it.
As things stand now, a Constitutional Amendment ain’t happening for the foreseeable future (assuming God spares us the fire and brimstone we so surely deserve) because shamefully there is neither the political nor the popular will to pass one, so the tactic of getting around Roe (by jurisdiction stripping or SCOTUS overturning it or state level defiance etc.) is one that might save some babies now, vs. hoping for an Amendment which isn’t going to save any babies any time soon.
The point of my argument in the post is that this was a purely symbolic vote for symbolic purposes. No sense getting on the wrong side of the symbolic point to make a lesser symbolic point. Paul voted for the partial birth ban which had similar jurisdictional problems, likely because he knew he couldn’t get away with a no vote. He would have been rhetorically hammered by pro-lifers.
Feltan on 04 Jun 2012 at 8:46 pm #
I like Ron Paul’s rationale, but I like Red’s better.
When human life in quantity is at stake, forgoing strict interpretation seems not only prudent but also a moral imperative.
Regards,
Feltan
Aaron on 07 Jun 2012 at 4:07 am #
Well, there’s no such thing as “inherently legal” in positive law, which is what the Constitution is. You make murder legal the same way you make slavery legal. Both are evil (at least American Negro slavery) and, arguably, contrary to natural law, and both have been permitted by the Constitution. This has nothing to do with moral relativism. Like it or not, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to enact statutes like this.
I’m not saying that we should always obey the Constitution or the law in general, but it seems pretty likely that a doctrine of “higher transcendent principles” overriding the clear meaning of the Constitution will be used mostly by the left against the right.
Aaron on 07 Jun 2012 at 4:09 am #
Typo: that should have been “inherently illegal,” of course.
RedPhillips on 07 Jun 2012 at 8:59 pm #
“it seems pretty likely that a doctrine of “higher transcendent principles” overriding the clear meaning of the Constitution will be used mostly by the left against the right.”
This is undoubtably true. I just don’t think it was worth falling on your sword in this case. This bill was a symbolic strike at abortion. If nothing else, manage to not be there when the vote is taken. To come down as a no vote is simply going to be used against you more than the lesser symbolic point is worth.
Aaron, was there a law against murder when Cain killed Able? Yet murder was inherently wrong, was it not? Meaning it is against the law of God. Man can not make licit what God makes illicit. Man can simply fail to legally proscribe it.
Kirt Higdon on 08 Jun 2012 at 4:12 am #
I’ll have to spoil my reputation as a “contrarian”, but I really have to go with Red on this one. The law of God trumps the Constitution, which is only man-made law. That Red, a partisan of the Constitution Party, points this out is a good indication he has his priorities right. I voted for Pastor Chuck Baldwin in the 2008 general election and I am confident that he, though the candidate of the Constitution Party, would not place the US Constitution above the law of God.
JAMIE on 15 Jun 2012 at 11:28 pm #
I understand that Ron Paul is a big “states rights” person and excuses many of his votes with that excuse. But the Federal Government is given jurisdiction over some things, and I thought that LIFE was one of them. Isn’t it LIFE, LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS? Didn’t the Founders agree that LIFE came from the CREATOR and that government had a role in protecting life? Should we abolish all Federal Laws concerning MURDER? That’s what abortion is, murder of the innocent. Sorry, I can’t go along with Ron Paul. States’ Rights do not trump the RIGHT TO LIFE.