| Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President. I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation. As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected. It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision. What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins. Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not. This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path. Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty. |
Here's the entire link, I specifically liked this part: "If Rep. Paul believes that "life begins at conception" and therefore agrees with the core reasoning of the Personhood movement that all human beings should be considered legal persons with rights, then why would the 14th amendment's clear requirement that states grant equal protection to all persons not apply to making sure that state criminal codes protect the lives of born and unborn persons equally? Rep. Ron Paul would surely agree that if a state decided to decriminalize the killing of all human beings over 70, that state would be violating 14th amendment's equal protection clause, would he not?" http://www.personhoodusa.com/personhood-usa-rep-ron-paul-re-pledge So murder would be illegal per federal law, but enforcement of those laws would be up to the respective states. Let me think how the left wing legislators of WA State would punish abortion doctors: "Guilty as charged: $25 fine!" |
| Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. |
Yes.
:rotfl: We're on the same planet. Close enough.I'd be with you... If I was with you.
Hmmm... :think:
