The bill grants the same constitutional rights to an unborn baby as any other citizen has.
The citizens of the various states do have different rights and different laws.
Under the Constitution, only treason, piracy and counterfeiting are federal crimes, nothing else.
It IS the conservative position to leave power to the local communities.
“The bill grants the same constitutional rights to an unborn baby as any other citizen has.”
How can a bill grant ‘Constitutional Rights’? Does this bill amend the Constitution?
“Under the Constitution, only treason, piracy and counterfeiting are federal crimes, nothing else.”
So rape is not a crime on federal property?
“The citizens of the various states do have different rights and different laws.”
Can a state violate my Constitutional rights?
“It IS the conservative position to leave power to the local communities.”
Then a ‘true conservative’ would support and defend a local community that decided those with red hair and blue eyes could not vote?
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.