Posted on 08/08/2007 8:22:47 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Ron Paul Repeats Commitment to Overturning Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor August 8, 2007 Lawton, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. He said he would work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president and elected to the White House.
Paul said he was pro-life and would make reversing the decision a top priority.
He also said that more people should be exposed to what abortion does to an unborn child and women who have them.
“The country should see what is happening and when they see the violence of abortion and what it really means, maybe they too would change their attitude about abortion,” said Paul.
Paul, a Texas congressman, also said he would make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions and explained that his training as a gynecologist taught him that human life is valuable.
"Life is sacred. The most obscene thing government could do is to ... use your money to commit abortion," he said to loud applause.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Bravo Ron! I love the guy
Ping
BUMP
Ping
States rights. When you open that kind of law, what’s to stop it from spreading to other kinds of activities?
Golly, if Roe vs Wade were overturned, abortion would become a state issue, just like other forms of homicide.
Pandering to one-issue voters won't get him the nomination.
I agree most with you. He could have done something about this a long time ago.
Even the most strident pro-life congressmen (Dornan, Hyde ect) never introduced such a measure. It would take a constitutional amendment overturning a Supreme Court decision. Otherwise, I am sure the congress would have gladly overturned a number of the decisions that came out the Supreme Court in the 60's-70's regarding 1st Amendment and defendant rights....Not to mention that infamous flag burning case in 80 which drove everyone nuts for about a year.
Ron Paul’s $400 Million Earmarks
(shrimps are in the constitution?)
FOX News | 8/8/07 | Brit Hume
Posted on 08/08/2007 6:43:04 PM PDT by LdSentinal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1878477/posts
You aren’t suggesting that it would be a bad thing to follow the Constitution, are you?
And what does that have to do with Roe Wade?
I’ll wait for a pro-life candidate that isn’t crazy.
Simply a brilliant reply
Ron Paul Introduced this.
1st Session
H. R. 1094
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
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 `Sanctity of Life Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress—
(1) the Congress declares that—
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof—
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates—
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any case pending on such date of enactment.
SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act or the amendments made by this Act, or the application of this Act or such amendments to any person or circumstance is determined by a court to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected by such determination.
see my last post. If I am not mistaken, I think he has introduced this many a session, only to be ignored.
I like the whole voting against bills he places in committee piece myself...
We already have lots of laws like that, where crossing state lines makes it a Federal crime. Good thing too. Helps to reduce UNDESIRABLE behavior.
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.