Brought over from another thread, because it's hard to believe...
Brought over from another thread, because it's hard to believe...
I've brought this post over from another thread, because it's hard to believe that drbrumley and eVIe have actually read Ron Paul's 2007 bills. This post quotes most of the text of his two bills that are pro-choice, state-by-state. These emphatically state that he would not allow the federal government to interfere with the states murdering children.
If I am wrong about Ron Paul on this issue, about him being pro-choice state-by-state, I will endorse him for president on my radio show that airs on America's most powerful Christian station (Denver's 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT).
Ron Paul's H.R. 1094 [States' Rights] Sanctity of Life Bill of 2007 is an obvious states' rights bill, and utterly tosses the abortion issue to the states, with no prohibition to abortion, and explicitly by Ron Paul's 2007 bills (1094 & H.R. 300), the Supreme Court would have no jurisdiction to strike down, for example, California and New York laws permitting abortion.
Here's the text of Ron Paul's Sanctity of States' Rights Bill
H.R. 1094:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007'.
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 states' rights claim acknowledges the State's authority to protect lives, which means they can do so
if they choose, for this is also pro-choice, state by state. By Ron Paul's position and this Bill, no state has the obligation to prohibit abortion. In fact, the next section prohibits the U.S. Supreme Court from striking down laws, for ex., in California and New York that permit abortion:]
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
`...
the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review... any case arising out of
any statute... on the grounds that such statute...
`(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.'
So, in this extremist example of States' Rights, the federal courts would have to officially ignore state laws that regulate abortion (and by the way, the entire medical profession is regulated). And every regulation inherently authorizes and allows behavior, in this case, the slaughter of innocent children. But in truth, human rights supersede states' rights, and no state has the right to regulate the killing of Jews, raping of women, or aborting of children, because any such law would violate the fundamental rights to life and liberty, the upholding of which are every government's primary function.
And brumley and eIVe, Ron Paul's bill states: "a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." Likelihood? From conception? By 2007, the term conception had long been redefined in medicine (he's a doctor and must know) and in law (he's a congressman and must know) to refer to implantation, days after fertilization. And putting in federal law this likelihood comment shows how Paul's misunderstanding of fundamental issues of governance and right and wrong undermine the truth that any nation should stand upon. Correct would have been: "The Congress finds that at the moment of fertilization, the living human being possesses the inalienable God-given right to life endowed upon each of us by our Creator." Not: a likelihood of life from [implantation]. Good grief!
Justice and valid principles of governance did not come into existence with the ratifying of the Constitution. Thus Ron Paul is handicapped because he is not thinking outside of that box. Throughout the world, when men make a Constitution, from God's perspective, that is like a side deal between themselves (between men), and that is acceptable, only if it complies with God's principles of justice. And our Constitution has violated fundamental principles of justice and governance, and where it does, should be corrected. And Ron Paul allows his commitment to our American side deal to undermine God's requirement that no nation should intentionally allow the shedding of innocent blood within their borders.
And Ron Paul's
H.R. 300 repeats the same egregious misunderstanding of the fundamental responsibility of government, by requiring the federal judiciary to tolerate any and all state pro-homosexual and pro-abortion legislation. By not condemning the Libertarian Party's godless and immoral platform, Ron Paul is part of America's secular humanist problem, not part of its solution. And I blame Christian leaders and talk show hosts for not making it clear that for two decades, many believers were being misled into thinking that the Libertarians are a good match with Christian values, while in reality, the Libertarian Party is officially sexually immoral, murderous and godless.
Ron Paul's 2007 H.R. 300 "Act may be cited as `We the People Act'" and would have required the federal courts to permit, well... read it for yourself:
"The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-- (1) shall not adjudicate-- (A) any claim involving the laws.. of any State... relating to... (B) ...any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction..."
Ron Paul is a true Libertarian, and his America could be crawling with sodomite child-killers, and he would say that the federal courts should simply look the other way. That is not principled leadership, but immorality based upon the secular humanist value of tolerance, which is actually, apathy.
-Bob Enyart
