GoddessDustyGold
Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Oh god  , do you want me to actually go through everything in that thread and point out why he voted against them.
No. Instead why don't you take a stab at defending something he supports, he authored it and has twice introduced it to the House, The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 and 2007.
Specifically explain how someone who respects the US Constitution and the balance of powers created there could justify Section 3 of the law.
After that I'd like to see how an explanation of how defining legally when life starts in Section 2 is compatible with letting individual states decide the matter for themselves, which is what he claims this law would do?
The text can be found from here (direct links don't work for some reason):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act#External_links
Alright, let's take a stab at it then. Any bolded emphasis in the copy and paste of the proposed law is Mine...
quote:
BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
This is the way I read it:1. As a moral stance and at the federal level, the Congress agrees that there is significant evidence that all life, even from conception and still in the womb, is precious. If passed, this would be a national statement of the "sanctity of life". 2. As a result of this declaration, the federal government has not necessity, nor the power, to become involved in individual states rights to determine on what level, if any, abortions are permitted within that state and according to that state's law. It is written as it is due to the federal law which disallows each state to make an individual law regarding a sensitive issue. It has become a national issue which takes away the rights of any given state. Each state has the right to protect, (or not protect), the lives of unborn children at whatever level the voters of that state feel this should be an option or should not be an option. This can also be read to limit the federal government's power to force abortion in cases where the fetus might be determined to be undesireable due to race, sex, age, etc. Sadly, the door is wide open as to the allowability of laws to come into being that woudl take personal decisions to maintain a pregnancy due to health defects, race, age of mother, etc. It is important to remember that unless power is limited, these things can, quite easily, begin happpening.
In other words, Ron Paul's purpose is to allow each state to decide that these lives can be protected, since, at the current federal law, they do not have this right and can be challenged at the federal level if they deny the right. It is written from that viewpoint precisely because the states hands are tied. You could also look at it from the aspect that late term and partial birth abortions could end up being legal in, say, California, but not Arizona. It works both ways.
"Okey Dokey, we do not allow abortion under certain circumstances in this state, but, of course, you are free to travel to any state (or, for that matter) any country where you would not be restricted."
Which leads us to the Section 3 which seems to be of concern to you:
quote:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.'.
Once again, I simply read this to be the necessary wording and reinforcement that each state can make their own rules regarding this very personal issue. If one state elects to only have the option of abortion available for the first 6 week, or 12 weeks, or whatever, there is no recourse for the complainant to take this to a federal level. They can travel to wherever an abortion is permitted under their unique and special circumstances. In addition., there will be no federal funding, federal facilities or federal personnel to assist in the performance of abortions.
In the end, all this bill is doing is attempting to negate the power to dictate to each individual state what they will and will not do about the abortion issue. And, if passed, it provides the ability for each individual state to create their own laws regarding the matter. It is not the business of the federal governement.
At this point, all states must provide the means for abortion and fund certain of those abortions by federal mandate. If a state chooses to continue to do this, that is fine. However, if any states choose not to do this, they are under the threat of federal interference to force them to provide such services. That is not a good thing. I would not necessarily stop at this issue, would it?
I have no problem with each state determining what they will permit according to the votes, and what may or may not be funded with tax dollar (at the state level). Apparently you do.
Frankly, a bill like this is precisely why I like Ron Paul. Not because he is personally against abortion. But because he is willing to take a stance and try to find a way to take this power (stanglehold?) out the the federal government's hand and give it back to the individual states where it belongs.
Hopting that this is readable as to tags, since formatting did not allow Me to place extra space between My commentary and the bill itself.
< Message edited by GoddessDustyGold -- 5/3/2008 9:20:46 PM >
_____________________________
Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom
|
RE: The Ron Paul Evolution - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread