Skip to comments.
Life At Conception Act Introduced By Senator Rand Paul
Freedom Outpost ^
| Mar. 20, 2013
| Tim Brown
Posted on 03/20/2013 8:32:36 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 next last
To: EXCH54FE
The Fifth Amendment also supports this: “...nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
61
posted on
03/20/2013 4:36:49 PM PDT
by
TBP
(Obama lies, Granny dies.)
To: TigersEye; All
All his bill does is define when life begins. While I appreciate what Senator Paul is trying to do, although Section 1 of 14A defined general citizenship, it did not introduce new rights for all citizens, so no rights for the unborn imo. What Section 1 did was to extend the scope of enumerated personal rights protected by the Constitution to the states and insured equal applicaton of laws. Section 1 also gave Congress the power to legislatively force the states to comply with constitutionally enumerated rights.
And although I'm dissapointed with the wording of Sec. 1 where unborn children are concerned in the context of today's issues, I've noted a likely reason why Bingham didn't foresee the need to protect unborn children as follows.
Consider that the reason that citizens, mostly rural pioneering families in the 19th century, had many children is this. It was commonly expected that some children would not survive to adulthood. So prohibiting abortion was probably Bingham's least concern when he led the drafting of Section 1 of 14A.
As a side note concerning activist justices wrongly finding so-called abortion rights in the 9th Amendment in Roe ve Wade imo, then applying such rights to the states via 14A, please consider this. Not only does Bingham's wording of Section 1 of 14A, along with his clarification in the congressional record concerning this issue, clearly indicate that 14A applies only enumerated constitutional rights to the states, but also note the following.
Bingham had read only the first eight amendments to the Constitution to the HoR, ignoring the 9th Amendment, as examples of constitutional statutes containing constitutional priviledges and immunities which 14A applied to the states.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those first eight amendments are as follows:
" --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871. (See top half of second column.)
Bingham's ommission of the 9th Amendment is further evidence, imo, that Bingham had intended for 14A to apply only enumerated personal rights to the states, as opposed to activist justices putting on their "magic glasses" to subjectively read abortion rights into 9A and then applying this so-called right to the states via 14A.
Again, i think that the reason that the first sentence was edited out of the excerpt from Section 1 of 14A in the referenced article is the following. Sen. Paul is essentially inadvertently(?) pretending that his proposed Life at Conception Act is simultaneously a constitutionally enumerated right and also its own 14A-based congressional remedy to the infringement of this "enumerated" right.
To: Amendment10
...although Section 1 of 14A defined general citizenship, it did not introduce new rights for all citizens, so no rights for the unborn imo. It doesn't define life either. Some things are self-evident.
63
posted on
03/20/2013 5:31:32 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
To: Jim Robinson; EXCH54FE; onyx; trisham; TheOldLady; DJ MacWoW; JoeProBono; RedMDer; musicman; ...
God knows this is a human being, why can't man comprehend the truth?
64
posted on
03/20/2013 6:17:44 PM PDT
by
vox_freedom
(America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
To: Jim Robinson
To: laweeks
Oh, the leftist media won’t have to tear him down. We’ll do that all on our own.
66
posted on
03/20/2013 7:47:39 PM PDT
by
Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: laweeks
At least he wants to *really* secure the border.
67
posted on
03/20/2013 7:49:00 PM PDT
by
Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: SoConPubbie
Reagan did it. Are we going to keep slaughtering the 90% conservatives on the alter of perfection?
I am really, really sick of watching good conservatives being eaten by their own and being forced to vote for a RINO.
68
posted on
03/20/2013 7:50:46 PM PDT
by
Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: 1010RD
That’s right! Forget liberty and personal responsibility! /s
69
posted on
03/20/2013 7:53:05 PM PDT
by
Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: laweeks
I also agree with him on everything else. I’m also happy that he wants to secure the border.
I can let ONE issue slide to save this country.
We are NEVER going to get the perfect candidate that ALL of us agree with 100%. (Heck, I don’t agree with most FReepers 100%) If we do, he’ll be slaughtered in the general election by the media and the left.
70
posted on
03/20/2013 7:55:50 PM PDT
by
Marie
("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
To: Marie
There’s just no place for it in modern America! ;-]
71
posted on
03/20/2013 7:57:52 PM PDT
by
1010RD
(First, Do No Harm)
To: vox_freedom
72
posted on
03/20/2013 8:18:58 PM PDT
by
RedMDer
(Support Free Republic)
To: RedMDer
Excellent!
73
posted on
03/20/2013 8:28:24 PM PDT
by
vox_freedom
(America is being tested as never before in its history. May God help us.)
To: vox_freedom
Thanks,vox! On the Rights of Life and Liberty, the Left has a losing argument.
Barack Obama argued that we should leave the survivors of the HEINOUS crime left in a hamper to die slowly.
74
posted on
03/20/2013 9:01:56 PM PDT
by
RedMDer
(Support Free Republic)
To: RedMDer
“the left has a losing argument”
yep, noticed that in the last 40 years and the last 2 elections myself.
//sarc
75
posted on
03/20/2013 9:05:41 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(http://asspos.blogspot.com)
To: Tailgunner Joe; All
Persons who are not citizens do have constitutional rights. Good point!
However, it remains that Section 1 of 14A, because of its inclusion of the word "born," indirectly defines people as those who have already been born. This minimally gives activist justices a license to strike down the Life at Conception Act if they choose to do so.
This is also why I've been arguing that activist justices wrongly ignored that abortion is not constitutionally enumerated right when they subjectivel found abortion rights in 9A and applied it to states via 14A.
Sen. Paul actually needs a constitutional amendment to do what he's trying to do with his Life at Conception Act imo.
To: TigersEye
It doesn't define life either. Some things are self-evident. I agree that some things are self-evident. But activist justices will predictably ignore their God-given respect for life.
To: Amendment10
If the possible opinions of activist Justices is the concern then there is no point in fighting for the Republic at all. It’s over.
78
posted on
03/20/2013 9:20:56 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
To: TigersEye; All
If the possible opinions of activist Justices is the concern then there is no point in fighting for the Republic at all. Its over. I respectfully disagree. The basic reason that activist justices are getting away with tearing the Constitution to pieces, imo, is because many flag-waving patriots evidently haven't bothered to read it for themeselves. This is why it's so important to reconnect Constitution-ignorant patriots, including Obama supporters, with the Constitution and its history, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers.
To: GeronL
Pro-Choice Slave Masters Losing War The pro-aborts are losing. They know it,and they hate it.
As LifeNews.com reported in January,CNN released the results of a new poll showing a majority of Americans want all or most abortions prohibited a clear pro-life majority.
Indeed,the winds of life are blowing free the foul stench of a pro-abortion
culture of death.
This is why President Obama and his fellow pro-abort zealot,HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius,have unilaterally,arbitrarily,and unconstitutionally forced, through Obamacare,every taxpaying American citizen to fund free abortion-on-demand. This draconian overreach is in perfect keeping with the 2012 DNC platform,which,for the first time,admits without shame:The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a womans right to
abortion,regardless of ability to pay.
Psalm 8:28 commands:Defend the weak and the fatherless;uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
To be sure,there can be none more oppressed than the tens of millions who,over four short decades,have been and will continue to be slaughtered within the safe haven of their own mothers wombs.
With its 1973 Roe decision,the U.S. Supreme Court put the governments official stamp of approval on mass murder. Since then,the battle lines have been drawn. This is war. They,pro-choicers, are the bad guys,while pro-lifers are the good guys. It really is that simple that black and white. Its good versus evil.
History will reflect as much.
To the unenthusiastic mother,politically motivated abortion violence is deviously portrayed as an acceptable escape from what may seem a desperate situation. To the innocent child,it is without fail and without due process execution by torture.
Consider the horrific practice of Partial-Birth Abortion,innocuously tagged Intact Dilation and Extraction. This is a practice so brutal and so needless that even the liberal American Medical Association (AMA) admitted that it is never necessary under any circumstances.
During a partial-birth abortion,the abortionist pulls a fully viable child often kicking and thrashing feet first from her mothers womb,leaving only the top of her head in the birth canal. This is so the abortionist can technically claim to be performing an abortion,rather than committing murder.
He then stabs the child through the base of her skull with scissors,piercing her brain until her kicking and moving about suddenly and violently jerks to a halt. Next,he opens the scissors to enlarge the wound,inserts a vacuum tube,and sucks out her brains,thereby collapsing her skull.
Her now-limp and lifeless body is then cast away like so much garbage.
Appalling,isnt it? Infanticide by any objective measure.
So,naturally,Mr. Obama,reasonable fellow that he is,agrees with the AMA,correct? He and other pro-choicers were the first to applaud the high court when it upheld a ban on this Hitlerian practice,right?
Wrong.
Barack Obama unbelievably called the Courts decision in Gonzales v. Carhart part of a concerted effort to steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women. In so doing,he revealed to the world that leftist support for abortion rights has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science or health care.
Moreover,consider Mr. Obamas opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It passed both houses of Congress in 2002 with overwhelming bipartisan support. Born Alive very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion when she is born alive further attempts to kill her must immediately cease,and steps must be taken to save her life.
Yet,incredibly,this president,while serving in the Illinois Senate,vehemently opposed the bills Illinois twin. He complained that requiring efforts to save the live victim of a botched abortion is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Barack Obamas solution? Finish off the little pest.
80
posted on
03/20/2013 9:46:34 PM PDT
by
RedMDer
(Support Free Republic)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson