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.