On The Main Blog

Creative Minority Reader

Ron Paul Voted Against Sex Selective Abortions

I can't imagine why he would've done this. You?

Somebody has to call Ron Paul out. It might as well be me. LifeNews is reporting that Democrats defeated the House’s proposed ban on sex-selection abortion. How about we take a look at the individuals, not the parties? Check out the voting record. Twenty Democrats voted for the ban. Seven Republicans, including Ron Paul, voted against the ban.
Continue reading>>>

Your Ad Here


TerentiaJ said...

This headline is misleading. Ron Paul voted against banning sex selective abortions, so actually he voted for sex selective abortions, not against them.

Sophia's Favorite said...

What TerentiaJ said.

I'm actually surprised, I thought for all he was an isolationist imbecile who favored drugs, prostitution, and slavery, he was at least anti-murder.

Awesome. I no longer even have to reserve one speck of respect for him, he's simply scum. That simplifies things immensely.

CWrites said...

I can't slam him quite that hard without hearing from him on it, so I am going to give him slim benefit of the doubt that while he has spoken eloquently in defense of killing the unborn, even educating The View ladies on the topic (Teaching Joy Behar something is no walk in the park), he has also said he thought this was a matter for the states vs. the federal level, saying he wouldn't support a constitutional amendment. That is my first speculation. My second speculation is it is in line with his intellect being solid logic wise and him speaking truth on a number of issues other politicians long sold out on, but having an overwhelming deficiency in pragmatism. How else would someone be in Congress that long and accomplish nothing other than thought articulation?

M. Swaim said...

PREFACE: I don't want Ron Paul to be Mitt's running mate.

However, I can tell you exactly why he voted against the bill- because it would list sex-selective abortions as a federal crime, and he didn't want it handled on a federal level. He's argued before that abortions should be illegal, and that when performed, they should be prosecuted on the local level rather than the federal level.

Right now, most murders are prosecuted at the local level, unless they're things like the murder of the President or a foreign diplomat, the blowing up of an airplane, or other major offenses. With as many potential sex-selective abortions going on in this country as there are, you can imagine the court (i.e. taxpayer) costs involved in prosecuting all of them, and the ammo that could give to the Other Side.

Not every well-intentioned pro-life legislative idea is a practically implementable pro-life legislative idea. But it certainly provides the opportunity for the "hey- wait a second" people who think about unintended consequences to get blasted. This time around, I think Paul had thoughtful reasons to vote the way he did, even if you disagree with him.

Me? I think the best part about this bill, even though it would have had some really complicated consequences, is that finally a light is being shed upon one of the darkest aspects of the culture of death, and upon the hypocrisy of the so-called feminists who defend unregulated abortion at all costs. For that, I applaud this bill's authors.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

I wonder what Mark Shea thinks about this, hmmmm?

Anonymous said...

You'd have to have a glimmer of understanding of Constitutional government and not be a knee jerk state worshipper wanting government to rule on every aspect of our lives. Here is the man himself on his vote:
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN
who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly
abhor abortion. And I certainly share my
colleagues’ revulsion at the idea that someone
would take an innocent unborn life because
they prefer to have a child of a different gender.
However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the
Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this
bill is unconstitutional. Congress’s jurisdiction
is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution.
Nowhere in that document is Congress
given any authority to address abortion
in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme
Court usurped the authority of the States in
the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or
argued abortion was a Federal issue.
I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it
creates yet another set of Federal criminal
laws, even though the Constitution lists only
three Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and
counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are
expressly left to States under the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating
to abortion certainly should be legislated by
States rather than Congress.
I have long believed that abortion opponents
make a mistake by spending their energies on
a futile quest to make abortion a Federal
crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work
to undo Roe v. Wade and give the power to
restrict abortion back to the States and the
people. It is particularly disappointing to see
members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose
ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce
Clause when it comes to the national
health care law, which also abuses the Commerce
Clause to create new Federal crimes.
Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is
precious and should be protected. Therefore
we should be troubled by legislation that singles
out abortions motivated by a ‘‘politically
incorrect’’ reason for special Federal punishment.
To my conservative colleagues who
support this bill: what is the difference in principle
between a Federal law prohibiting ‘‘sex
selection’’ abortions and Federal hate crimes
laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize
thoughts by imposing additional stronger
penalties when a crime is motivated by the
perpetrator’s animus toward a particular race
or gender.
I also question whether this bill would reduce
the number of abortions. I fear instead
that every abortion provider in the Nation
would simply place a sign in their waiting room
saying ‘‘It is a violation of Federal law to perform
an abortion because of the fetus’ gender.
Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is
permissible under Federal law.’’
Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on
this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically
flawed bill, Congress should use its
valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist
Federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws
restoring abortion. This is the constitutional
approach to effectively repealing Roe v.
Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and
piecemeal approaches, true conservatives
should address the horror of abortion via the
most immediate, practical, and effective manner
possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion
to the States.

Paul said...

Anonymous nailed it in the comment above. If you can't imagine why a candidate would do something, maybe you should actually do some research in order to find out before writing an entire post based on your unsubstantiated feelings towards a man.

Anonymous said...

Again, his words only prove that he worships the Constitution. (Over worshiping God and His Commandments) Life is a federal issue. It is the first federal issue, in fact. The purpose of the founding of our country was to protect the right to life (among others) and the Constitution is correctly viewed as the tool used to secure those rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence. (As Abraham Lincoln, among others, considered it to be).

Anyone who would not guarantee the right to life, in law, at the highest national level, but would instead subjugate it to the vagaries of the state where it may or may not be guaranteed, threatens those lives. In a position of power, that person's votes and actions may cause lives to be lost.

Anonymous said...

If the Constitution was intended to outlaw abortion it would have expressly done so. This is a STATE issue. Those who call for the GOVERNMENT to force good reveal their willingness to make the state the final arbiter over all and that is a state worshipper. Ron Paul believe sin LIMITING the state, even on issues where he is personally against something. That is integrity. Only a fool can't see
that allowing the state to decide matters like this means the state can then also use it against you. Let the state decide who can marry and they will soon decide who must marry, give the state the power to decide abortion and soon they will be deciding everyone must get an abortion. Do the hard work, change peoples way of thinking so they won't get abortions instead of the lazy and immoral way of state force.

CWrites said...

anonymous is Paul against the 13th and 14th amendments too? In order to strengthen the right to life, liberty, and happiness Lincoln gave morality the strength of law. Too bad Paul has so little to show for his years and years and years in govt vs President Lincoln.

Popular Posts