Posted on 06/09/2007 5:34:44 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
No. They are not the same at all.
Duncan Hunter's bill is wonderful. It simply recognizes the personhood of the unborn, to make it clear that the provisions of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments apply to them as much as to any other American. Ergo, killing them is as unlawful everywhere as it is to kill anyone.
As DugwayDuke has so capably illustrated, Ron Paul's bill does something else entirely. While recognizing the humanity of the unborn on its face, it illogically goes on and lays out a system under which CA and NY and MA babies can continue to be slaughtered, even if babies with the good fortune to be physically present in another State cannot.
This is a travesty, an injustice, and an abrogation of the right to the equal protection of the laws.
They not only have the authority, they have the sworn DUTY to do so.
But, is the intent here to say that they also have the authority to NOT protect the lives of the unborn?
THIS is the right Bill:
Right to Life Act (Introduced in House)
HR 618 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 618
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2007
Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. HAYES, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CANNON, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. RENZI, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. HERGER, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. FORBES, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. TIAHRT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. FORTUN.AE6O, Mr. AKIN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. FOXX, Mr. SALI, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. TERRY, Mr. PITTS, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. GOODE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. CARTER, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Right to Life Act’.
SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING- The terms `human person’ and `human being’ include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.
(2) STATE- The term `State’ used in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.
I wondered that also. But he is clear on personhood for the unborn, so I can’t believe he would think it’s an option. That would be psychotic.
I am little confused. Is this the one being put out by Ron Paul last year? or the one Duncan Hunter is putting up? What are the differences, if you will?
Ron Paul is quite clear that he personally opposes abortion but believes that it should be left up to the states. This is pretty much the straight libertarian party platform.
I too find it a bit psychotic to claim that an unborn is a person but to also claim that a group of people, a state, can pass a law legitimizing the murder of that unborn. Since the libertarian movement places so much emphasis upon logic and consistency with principles, I’ll leave the explanation to some one with more principles than I.
And, thanks for the compliment EV.
Ron Paul is a nice man, but he’s really not a conservative - he’s a libertarian.
Conservatives and libertarians have many REAL differences.
Ron Paul is pro-life, except his libertarian side came out when he voted for minors to get an abortion without their parents’ permission.
Parents should decide what’s best for their children - NOT Planned Parenthood, and NOT the government.
.
Paul’s law does *not* protect the right to life of unborn children, it merely removes jurisdiction from federal courts for cases involving abortion laws. Basically, that would leave abortion laws up to each state, and it is likely that even in states in which the legislature bans abortion state courts will declare such laws unconstitutional based on . . . wait for it . . . the never-overturned Roe v. Wade decision. This is a really, really stupid attempt at protecting unborn children without banning abortion.
What Paul has to do if he truly is pro-life is support Duncan Hunter’s bill that would use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to define “person” under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment as any human being from the moment of conception until death. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress clear authority to legislate for the enforcement of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, so Paul should have no qualms about it being an unconstitutional law.
Unfortunately, every single Justice who has ruled on Abortion since Roe -- including Antonin Scalia -- has stated that the Unborn are NOT "Persons" under the 14th Amendment.
The U.S. Constitution Amendment Fourteen, Section 1, begins with “All persons born….” No need to proceed beyond the word ‘born’ to know that the Right to Life Act of 2005 will be aborted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Right to Life Act of 2005 would have to be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, before the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider acknowledging the text. Republicans and pro-life organizations supporting this bill know this to be a fact. The Fifth Amendment will be interpreted in view of Amendment Fourteen, Section 1, “All persons born,” rather than adding the unborn as persons via the Fifth against the States via incorporation of the Fourteenth.
Paul Benjamin Linton is an attorney who specializes in pro-life litigation and legislative consulting, and has served as General Counsel of Americans United for Life. He wrote “How Not To Overturn Roe v. Wade,” 2002 First Things 127 (November 2002): 15-16.
The argument will be made that the recently appointed Roberts, and the probable appointment of Alito will change that fact. Who will convert Scalia, who stated:
In the 1997 case of Alexander v. Whitman, Alito stated that Kaylyn Alexander was not a "person" under the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade: "I agree with the essential point that the court is making; that the Supreme Court has held that a fetus is not a 'person' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The Right To Life Act must overcome four obstacles for a nationwide ban on abortion. We The People Act & The Sanctity of Life Act need only overcome three obstacles for a partial ban on abortion. ( “30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion,” Tuesday, October 05, 2004, FOXNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html ) They omit the SCOTUS obstacle. These bills should be less resisted than a nationwide ban, and should be easier to pass. They return the issue to the States where it was prior to federal court intervention in the early ‘70s.
Anyone supporting The Right to Life Act needs to include one of two LARGE, BOLD DISCLAIMERS:
Unless Hunter's Bill includes the language from Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act removing the issue from Federal Court jurisdiction, the Right to Life Act will be struck down by SCOTUS immediately upon passing the Congress.
At least Ron Paul's Bill, by returning Authority to the States (in which it was Constitutionally vested originally) offers the chance for Abortion to be outlawed by at least 30 States, and removes the Federal jurisdiction to strike down those State laws. Hunter's Bill, by leaving the Federal Courts "in the loop", would be struck down by SCOTUS immediately -- and so would accomplish exactly NOTHING.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, following the Roe precedent, the word “person” under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not include unborn babies. What Congressman Hunter’s bill (which is a new version of Senator Jesse Helms’s bill from the 1980s and which in turn was a new version of Senator Buckley’s bill from 1973) does is to use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which provides that Congress may enforce the amendment through legislation, to make clear that the word “person” in Section 1 includes unborn babies and that it would be a federal crime for a state to abridge such person’s right to life without due process of law. Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts will almost certainly rule that Congress may use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the provisions of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, since that’s what the clear text of Section 5 says. I have no idea how Justice Kennedy would vote, but it’s definitely worth a try.
Paul’s bill would remove federal court jurisdiction on abortion cases at a time in which the Supreme Court precedents provide for abortion on demand until the moment of birth (while it allows states to impose certain restrictions, none may be placed if the health of the mother, including her mental health, may be affected). If federal courts are blocked from hearing any abortion cases, Roe v. Wade and its progeny will never be overturned and you will still have courts in most of the 50 states claiming that there is a right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution. If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, then and only then would Paul’s bill actually be helpful to the pro-life cause, since it would not allow future federal courts to bring back Roe and since there would not be any federal pro-abortion precedent that state laws may follow, but right now Paul’s bill would be foolish.
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.