Women Who Support Ron Paul: What About Your Reproductive Freedom?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

His Sanctity of Life Act would overturn Roe V. Wade, state that life "begins at conception", removes federal jurisdiction (you can't take your case to the supreme court or use the privacy rights from the US Constitution) and give states the power to protect unborn persons.

First off, Paul is writing checks his ass can not cash..
This would never happen even if Paul wanted it.
Paul is promising the world.
To over turn ROE V. Wade is pretty much a pipe dream now..
It would take a constitutional amendment.

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
www.usconstitution.net...

That said, if a women wants to get rid a child bad enough she will.
Legal, not legal, it does not matter. You will have doctors still willing
to do it *black market* style.

If the supreme court was going to let states decide that decision of making it legal
or not, they should of done it before they made the practice legal in every state..

Originally posted by satron
This is how I interpret his position: He is against any federal law governing that a life could be terminated.

What about the Sanctity of Life Act which defines life as occurring at conception AT A FEDERAL LEVEL and calls it a person??? It's a personhood move. Defining a fetus as a person...

What happens when you kill a "person" on a federal level?

Praetorius, thanks for showing up! Do you have a response for this concern.

My personal thoughts on Fed vs State is....if it were a State prerogative on legality, there would be a lot less abortions in any States that were opposed to it. People would be less likely to get pregnant in the first place if it were not an easy 2 hour trip to Planned Parenthood to deal with unwanted births.

reply to post by popsmayhem


It would NOT take a Constitutional Amendment. This is what I'm saying!

His Sanctity of Life Act REMOVES federal jurisdiction, meaning the feds can't make laws about it and the Supreme Court can't hear state's cases about it. So, if a woman is punished in her state for having an unapproved abortion, she has no recourse to take it to a higher court. She's SOL.

Unconstitutional Wars?
Patriot Act?



Do You agree with these also?

Long list of Federal enactments infringing on Americans way of living I can live without.


Your body your right,unless there's a FEDERAL law.

So if the federal Government,without Ron Paul there to change it, says its illegal to have an abortion,you are all right with that also?


Got it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Sounds EXACTLY like political dogma.

Ron Paul has publicly stated that his beliefs about abortion were set in stone when he had to witness the abortion of a baby that was well into it's term. However, he has clearly said he wishes to give the ultimate control over this issue back to the states.

If women are going to base their decision not to vote for Ron Paul solely on this issue, I personally find that absurd. I wonder how those women will like it when those who seek to destroy America finally are successful and our fate is in their hands. By then, we will have few rights at all. I can't imagine the wonderful LAWS they will have imposed upon the population by then.....dictating everything that matters to us....probably even our reproductive organs...ON A FEDERAL LEVEL.

Get a grip!!

My patience for this issue has come to an end. Go ahead, people, place your votes specifically on the issue of a woman's reproductive organs. In ten years we'll see how happy you were about that decision when the Land of the Free is now the Land of the Slaves (we're already halfway there).

Your thread is an EPIC FAIL...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Hello dear.

As far as your OP, please see my response on page 2. I consider it primarily a matter of the involved likelihoods as compared to existing and significant affronts to the same violations of liberty that we already have in place on many other subjects, which I see only Paul taking any steps to address.

As far as the personhood/"life beginning at conception" argument, as I addressed in one of our discussions elsewhere, with a little further thought the concern somewhat falls flat.

The states already have their own authority to handle legal terminations of life prematurely and determine how to address them, as in cases of manslaughter, justifiable homicide, state-inflicted death (death penalty), and so forth. Recognizing that life begins at conception on a federal level would be no more of a federal prohibition on abortion than the already-recognized lives of these involved cases is a murder charge - it simply would be up to the states to address accordingly (which I know is your concern).

Given the alternatives and existing violations, though, in light of the realistic possibility of such ever coming to pass - I honestly don't think this is worth scuttling Paul. I know it worries you, but I simply don't see it going anywhere in the first place, nor outweighing everything else.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Well put NightGypsy.
Couldn't have said it better myself!

Originally posted by sonnny1
Unconstitutional Wars?
Patriot Act?

Do You agree with these also?

I do not. I am pro-freedom.

Your body your right,unless there's a FEDERAL law.

Or a state law... under Ron Paul.

So if the federal Government,without Ron Paul there to change it, says its illegal to have an abortion,you are all right with that also?

I am pro-freedom. I would not be OK with ANYONE changing the fact that abortion is legal in the US. And I won't vote for someone who would support action to change that.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I am pro-freedom. I would not be OK with ANYONE changing the fact that abortion is legal in the US. And I won't vote for someone who would support action to change that.

Good...then don't.....it's your right as an American.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

It would NOT take a Constitutional Amendment. This is what I'm saying!

His Sanctity of Life Act REMOVES federal jurisdiction, meaning the feds can't make laws about it and the Supreme Court can't hear state's cases about it. So, if a woman is punished in her state for having an unapproved abortion, she has no recourse to take it to a higher court. She's SOL.

OKKKKK, well then how does he pass the sanctity of life act?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Well if you are too poor to afford a bus ticket i guess you really need the abortion since you obviously cant afford to raise children. As for not having a family i agree with you that you will need outside assistance but how does forcing someone to help through taxation going to help make society into a better place?

I don't think you will find a single person who completely agrees with everything that a politician says.

For example, I happen to be pro-choice. I do not like Abortion at all, but I think a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her own body.

So, that is one thing I disagree with him over. However, as has been stated, he wants to delegate the responsibility to the state level, rather than federal. He wants to leave it up to the state. Which means it wont be up to him at all.

So what he thinks about it is entirely irrelevant and therefore a moot point for you. He is taking away his ability to decide whether it is legal or not. Bringing it down to a more local level which will understand the needs of their state even better....

Yes, I agree, no one can understand your needs better than you, however, making it more local,will be better. I see the state understanding your needs far better than the federal government.

He is not and would not outlaw abortion, he is simply giving the state it's right to legalize or outlaw.

Personally, I see that as a step in the right direction.

But of course, this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Well if you are too poor to afford a bus ticket i guess you really need the abortion since you obviously cant afford to raise children. As for not having a family i agree with you that you will need outside assistance but how does forcing someone to help through taxation going to help make society into a better place?

Filosophia, that is an excellent point.

Star, star, star.....

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I looked through the Bill you linked to:

www.govtrack.us...

H.R. 2533? Is this what you're referring to?

Beyond all the legalese, your term "Federal" is pretty vague. The Supreme Court is the Legislative Branch, so even the separation of powers would exist in that debate.

Being that this Bill was written in 2009 with no updates and just sitting there, I doubt it's high priority and nothing ever really came of it except referral to Committee.

I don't know what the "worry" is with regards to the OP.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Jack Squat

 

He's not against states rights to make it ILLEGAL, either. In fact, his Sanctity of Life Act gives states the method and means to make it illegal and to punish as they see fit.

Nice edit.

edit on 1/2/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

So either way you take away someone's rights ~

The rights of the voters to vote on social policy - or - the right to an abortion per some states.

At least with the latter there will absolutely be options for the mother to travel in order to exercise her right to an abortion.

If you take away the voters ability to vote on social policy per the state, there is no where to retreat to in order to reclaim that right.

All that said, the Constitution only lists four crimes. It left civil/criminal law and social policy up to the states.

The right to ban - or - sanction abortion nationally is simply OUTSIDE of the Govt's purvey. It's really that simple.

And uh, not to mention but we no longer have the right to a trial by jury ... seems a little more pertinent to address rights that have been lost as opposed to those that *might* be lost. That's just my opinion though.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
However, he has clearly said he wishes to give the ultimate control over this issue back to the states.

Yes. And I think the control should be with the INDIVIDUAL, not the government. The federal government should protect our Constitutional rights, not turn them over to the states.

If women are going to base their decision not to vote for Ron Paul solely on this issue, I personally find that absurd.

This is FAR from my only issue with him. I have many.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


I am pro-freedom. I would not be OK with ANYONE changing the fact that abortion is legal in the US. And I won't vote for someone who would support action to change that.

I am as well and no one is doing that! He is handing over the right to allow it or ban it. Some states will and some states wont. He is taking away his ability to outlaw it, so again, using his opinion on this matter, against him is moot. He will not make it illegal.

He is simply giving the state it's rights back, like was originally intended for this country.

If your state does not allow it you go to a state that does. As for your argument about not being able to afford to go to another state. If you can't afford to get to another state, then you can't really afford a baby.... Maybe keep your pants zipped.

Of course we have cases of women getting pregnant after being raped. If it is illegal in your state and you can't afford to go to another state. There are more options than abortion, you know.

Again, I am pro-choice as well.

What this comes down to is the state being allowed to decide, rather than the federal government. That's it.

If you are looking for a candidate to vote for in which you agree with everything, you will never find them....But if this particular issue affects you that strongly. I guess you should start looking at which other candidate you like the best. Just don't expect to agree with them 100%

Peace and love.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Look Heretic,

I understand where you are coming from. I know plenty of people that are not going to vote for Dr. Paul because of MANY issues.

This issue though is one that regardless if he became the President or not,will never go away.

The Federal Government has become a cesspool of incompetence.

If you are pro-freedom,as I believe you are,it is the right of the person,the human,the individual to do as they want. Laws are meant to change on a State and Federal level.

I dont think Dr. Paul is going to do anything that is Unconstitutional.MHO

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by satron
This is how I interpret his position: He is against any federal law governing that a life could be terminated.

What about the Sanctity of Life Act which defines life as occurring at conception AT A FEDERAL LEVEL and calls it a person??? It's a personhood move. Defining a fetus as a person...

What happens when you kill a "person" on a federal level?

Praetorius, thanks for showing up! Do you have a response for this concern.

All it did, I believe, was to establish when the fetus is considered a person. It left the personhood, at conception, to be defended by the states, if they choose to do so. I also think a part of the act was to cut federal spending, but I'm not sure.