[TigersEye]

By following the powers offered to Congress in the Constitution, passage of the Life at Conception Act would reverse Roe v. Wade without the need for a constitutional amendment. - Rand Paul

Paul is wrong. The Constitution nowhere specifies that Congress has the power to redefine terms used in the Constitution.

Your premise is 100% wrong. No where in Paul's statement did he say anything about 'redefining terms used in the Constitution.'

[Sherman Logan]

Au contraire.

The Supreme Court, in the Roe v Wade decision, interpreted the term “person,” as used in the 14th Amendment, to not include a fetus. Whether this interpretation is correct or not is beside the point, they did make that interpretation.

So for Congress to pass a law specifying that the fetus IS a “person” protected by the 14th Amendment, it would necessarily involve Congress overruling the SCOTUS interpretation and substituting its own. Which, as I said, the Constitution does not give them the power to do.

The whole discussion is moot, of course, since Congress will pass no such law, not even the House.

[Sherman Logan]

There’s also that unfortunate first sentence in the 14th Amendment.

“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.”

I’m as pro-life as anybody, but it’s tough for me to extract from this that a fetus, which has not yet been either born or naturalized is somehow a citizen of the United States.

It also doesn’t say that the fetus is not a person. It doesn’t address that issue. But it does say only persons “born or naturalized” are citizens.