Ron Paul’s Vote For Prenatal Gendercide Proves He is a Prolife Fraud



ron-paul

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) was one of only seven Republicans (see also here) to vote against the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act of 2012 yesterday.  He is complicit in the bill’s failure.  Selective Sex Abortion are an ongoing practice.  There is documentation that this is occurring here in the United States.

Naturally impossible sex ratios at birth are also occurring in the United States, as documented in survey data from 2000 and after.  Skewed sex ratios (108), favoring boys over girls, have appeared in U.S. subpopulations mirroring the international data (Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans, and Filipino- Americans).  Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of Columbia University identified these trends, including a male bias of 50% among third-order births, in U.S. populations of Chinese, Korean, and Asian-American heritage.  “We interpret the found deviation in favor of sons to be evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage,” they write.[2]  This fact has prompted several U.S. states to ban sex selection abortion in their jurisdictions.  These states include Illinois (2008), Pennsylvania (2008), Oklahoma (2010), and Arizona (2011).

The federalism argument doesn’t wash here when you have the 14th Amendment.  I am disappointed, but not surprised by Iowa’s Democratic Congressional Delegation’s vote.  Congressman Paul came through Iowa touting his prolife position and record while trying to smear Rick Santorum’s.  Anyone remember this ad he ran before the Iowa Caucus?


Yet he couldn’t vote for this simple bill.  What a fraud.

Update: A transcription of Paul’s statement during debate.

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.

Congressman Paul seems to wish the 14th Amendment away.  We have a right to life which is given to us by God and enshrined in our Declaration as organic law.  Our Constitution in the 5th and the 14th Amendments clearly state that the right to life should not be taken away without due process.  So to argue the Feds can’t defend a basic right is ludicrous.  This isn’t to say that you don’t bring up some good points.  It is an imperfect bill.  I’d rather see us vote for imperfect bills that will help save lives than to do nothing until we get that one perfect bill (Sanctity of Life Act, Personhood Amendment, etc) that will protect all children that can finally be passed because we finally get the right make-up in Congress.

Also regarding the states’ rights argument I’ve asked Ron Paul supporters if they know of any state that has allowed murder, and if there was a state that suddenly codified a right to commit murder would they support the Feds getting involved.  No rational person would think it would be ok for a state to allow murder, but Ron Paul would have you believe that it is ok for a state to do so as long as the person is still in the womb.

Connect with Caffeinated Thoughts!

  • Ronpaulita

    Ron Paul is correct. It’s unconstitutional. Abortion is a moral issue. Not a federal government issue. Now our tax dollars are being used to support abortion. If anything, it shod be handled at the state level b/c we can accomplish so much more there in regards to abortion. This country has got to get back to the constitution, and our morals.

    Besides, this setup, they knew they didn’t have the votes, and it wouldn’t pass, but they sent it through anyways. Prob a setup to discredit Ron Paul. People judge, but he is a Good Samaritan that has delivered babies for free, is running to save our country (instead of retiring at 76).

    May god grant fresh oil on these seeds of truth I’m planting about Ron Paul. He is a blessing from above. He is a man of integrity. He is a Christian. He has never taken $ from lobbyist. He has a 100% constitutional voting record. He is the choice of the troops. He is the only candidate who served in the military. He has more minorities serving as his delegates to Tampa than Obama has for the DNC.

    Read Pastor Jacobs Article “Who is the Most God Fearing Candidate” (Hint – Ron Paul)

    • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

      Yes I’m sure it was done to discredit Ron Paul… oh brother.

      No abortion is a right to life issue… besides every law reflects morality so your point is moot.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Hart/1718962778 John Hart

       Ron Paul is right about limiting federal power but he has made a fatal error on this issue, the same error that cost him his chance to be president.
      Principled government must be limited to three functions. If those limits are breached, government will be drawn into a death spiral that will destroy the society that formed it.
      1. Provide stable currency and regulate markets that provide everything else.
      2. Protect property. Rights are the property of individuals government is formed to protect. Not seeing this is the fatal flaw of Paul’s reasoning. He doesn’t believe Federal government has an obligation to protect human rights, that it belongs to the states.
      Rights come from God, not states, when they violate individual rights the Constitution was written to protect, the infringement is within the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Paul thinks the Union was formed to protect states rights, when it was actually formed to protect individuals from states, that’s it’s primary purpose.
      3. Promote welfare, NOT provide for it, by giving credit (tax) to those who provide it. State government doesn’t need to be absolutely bound by this principle as long as the Federal government has jurisdiction to prevent abuse, but government religion (charity) isn’t the best way to advance culture and promote general welfare.

  • Ronpaulita

    God is in control. Put your faith in the government and it will fail you every time. Abortion is a MORAL issue.

  • AlabamaNative

    The Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutionally enacted. I wish it was possible to “wish it away”. It was the Fourteenth Amendment that gave us forced, school busing, removed prayer from the schools, and legalized abortion nationwide. Sure, Mr. Hart, you can claim all that was judicial activism, AND IT WAS! But, when the Congress stretches the Fourteenth Amendment far beyond the intentions of even that amendment’s drafters, it makes it no less right than when the courts do it. If you accept that Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass this bill, you have to also accept that the Supreme Court had the Constitutional authority to legalize abortion nationwide through Roe v. Wade. Either you believe this, or you’re a hypocrite. I want abortion outlawed nationwide just as much as you do sir, but you can’t shred the Constitution just to get something done that’s good.

    • David Shedlock

      The Constitution was “unconstitutionally” enacted. The Articles of Confederation required that its Congress vote for a new document and that it be ratified unanimously by the legislatures of the 13 colonies/states. Instead they held a national convention, did not vote on its ratification, and sent it to state conventions instead of state legislatures.

      Christian Patrick Henry knew what was coming and famously said “I smell a rat”. The Framers then created a document that instituted a secular government that would not allow religious tests.

    • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

      Well I’m sorry it does exist, and yes it has been abused.  It has also protected many of our citizens from grave injustice.

      The Roe decision was based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment saying it violates a woman’s right to privacy…
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html Right to privacy?  I don’t see that protected… but it does clearly  say “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      Roe V. Wade was a poor decision, period. 

      It failed to protect life.

      They also based their decision on the 9th Amendment, so I guess we can wish that away as well.  Right?

  • Bill

    Dr Paul’s position is very consistent. The Federal government has no authority in this area. It had no authority to impose abortion through Roe Vs Wade and to even make laws restricting abortion is to acknowledge that it had the authority to impose Row Vs Wade. Simple. 

    • David Shedlock

      So does Paul support a 10th Amendment Right for states to totally ban firearms?  Can states outlaw the right to trial by jury?  Can they arrest Paul if they don’t like the speech he is making?

      No, he doesn’t, because he thinks these things are more important than a right to life.

      • funkdefino

        You read the 10th Amendment… didn’t understand it and clearly didn’t read any others. Bravo to you!

      • David Weber

        ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…”

        If your claim to fame is actually having read the Constitution perhaps your next endeavor should be reading comprehension. Simply put, the states cannot outlaw the 2nd Amendment by way of the 10th Amendment because the 2nd delegates power to the United States by way of the Constitution.
         I bet you are one of those people who think Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves too. You should stop taking people at face value and read things for your self before you jump into the foray,…

      • Nibarger John

        The Constitution does not provide a protection of life, liberty or property.  Those are declared in the declaration of independence.

        There is nothing in the Constitution dealing with murder.  Each state has its own murder laws, including what constitutes murder and the degrees and types of murder.  There is no single “murder” charge.  There is 1st degree or premeditated murder, 2nd degree which is intentional but not premeditated, there is manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc.The fact of the matter is, most people who scream about the Constitution and its protections have either never read it or have it confused with other documents.

      • David Shedlock

        I think I understand. This great document you keep touting allows states to kill its citizens, but not take their guns away, is that right?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Hart/1718962778 John Hart

         We the People- The Nation was formed to protect the rights of People not States. If the document was referring to States it wouldn’t have used the word people.of
        the United States,
         in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
        Justice,

        Justice is protecting and balancing individual rights. In terms of States is has little meaning. 

        insure domestic Tranquility,

        Peace and tranquility between states to prevent wars that would hurt individuals.

        provide for the common defense, Protect people in states, eliminating the need for states to have armies.

        promote the general Welfare,

        Of people, not states.

        and secure the Blessings of Liberty

        Life, Work, Wealth, and Happiness are the blessings of Liberty, individuals rights, not states.

        to
        ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
        for the United States of America.

        Without Life, Liberty means nothing. If the Union wasn’t formed to protect individual rights, what was it formed for?

      • ImRight_UCanSayIt

        The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence do not provide anything… they simply declare to the World and to our Government what a few of Our Natural Rights, Our God Given Rights are! The Constitution doesn’t protect me from anything, the fear that we will rise up as a people, because we know Our Rights and will defend them to the death, protects us from the tyrants.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Hart/1718962778 John Hart

      I am a Paul supporter but he is incorrect on this issue, as are you.  The Union was formed for one purpose, protecting individual rights. If protecting life, the most primary right, doesn’t fall within the jurisdiction of Federal government nothing does.

      The same idiotic reasoning in Dred led to the War Against the States by Federal government. America is responsible for the direct slaughter of more than fifty million of it’s children. This isn’t a states rights issue, it’s a gendercide ffeticide “issue” on the road to the abolition of man.

      Wake up and smell the fetuses roasting, see the baby parts in the little pills, read the hype of embryo experimentation and pray God will grant us enough time to kill the Beast that’s taken over our once proud nation.

  • Benjamin

    I’d like to know who the other 6 were. Wonder if it was cause the had the fortitude to stand up for the American people and the United States Constitution. Would be nice if that was their position, as well.

  • David Shedlock

    I probably would not have voted for this bill, either (though not on constitutional grounds).  On the grounds that we have had enough bills passed that didn’t stop a single abortion (The partial birth abortion ban for starters). If the law were to pass, do we really think a single arrest would be made under the law?  Why would anybody declare their reason for abortion if this were the law?

    • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

      I agree with you David. 

    • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

      I agree with you David. 

      • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

        So let’s pass a bill with teeth then Bob.

      • http://kansasbob.com Kansas Bob

        Right after we elect a president who will sign it Shane..

    • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

      I believe it would stop some yes.  If you’re against the practice you vote for the bill – period.

      Is it a perfect bill?  No.  But I guess if we’re going to let perfect be the enemy of the good we’ll just have to hold our breath and do nothing until we can either strike down Roe or get a Life Amendment passed.  I think you and I believe that we can’t just leave this up to the states – though I admit that is far preferable to what we have now.  Paul supporters’ argument about it being up to the states I find wanting unless they’re ok with a state suddenly saying it is ok to commit murder.

      • Watchtower

        Shane Vander Hart said:  “Paul supporters’ argument about it being up to the states I find wanting unless they’re ok with a state suddenly saying it is ok to commit murder.”
                    __________________
        I expect, Shane, that they would protest this if they thought it would affect them personally.
        A sizable portion of the Libertarian movement either favors or would conscientiously allow homosexual marriage, legalization of drugs and other immoral, libertine philosophies and practices. But I wonder if States started passing laws that would allow the imprisonment, confiscation of property of libertarians if they would be so ideologically devoted to their “political doctrines”.
        Let me be clear that I do not wish any of these evils on Libertarians or any one else. It is just after many years of hearing their arguments and observing their tactics, I do not think that they are as “pure” as they claim to be.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jim.pruitt59 James Pruitt

        No one is pure. Not even you. The Libertarian philosophy suggests that adults should have the freedom to decide how they should live their lives without hurting someone else or having the government intrude on their personal lives. They also believe in individual responsibility too.
        Gay marriage is constitutional as it stands now because Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law and the First Amendment.
        The Drug War is a total failure. We imprison people for smoking pot? Why not tobacco and alcohol? We know how destructive those drugs are.
        The Mob grew under Prohibition, look at how much crime occurs over drugs.
        Think about it.

      • Watchtower

        I stand by my earlier post.

      • Nibarger John

        Murder charges are filed by the district or prosecuting attorney’s office, who has “discretion” based upon the “evidence.”

        Murder is charged if discretion and evidence are met; and then a jury must convict in trial.

        Laws do not stop anything.  They punish those who break them, when caught; charged and convicted.

      • TheyWantToLive

        I think abortion is baby murder but I acknowledge that you cannot legislate morality. No one is going to argue murder is acceptable in any form, but pro-choicers will continue to argue that abortions don’t kill anybody. It’s a ridiculous argument, but you can’t change people’s minds with laws.
        No form of any prohibition has ever worked. Even when abortion was illegal it still occurred. Things will continue as they are until the morality of society is changed, and that will likely be a slow but gradual process. Leaving it up to the States will at least allow us to know where morality is most needed, and from there we can work towards outlawing baby murder in those areas.
        The main reason I don’t trust Federal solutions is because States don’t have an issue with ignoring Federal law. Prime example: 17 states now have medical cannabis laws despite the fact that cannabis is illegal under Federal law. Proof that Federal law only goes so far as its enforcement. A Federal solution would require a new agency or taskforce to ensure that the law is being obeyed and that those who break it are being punished. Based on all this, I’d have a hard time supporting any Federal ban because it’s much harder to enforce and uphold.
        The questions we really have to ask are; Are women only getting abortions because they are legal? Would these same women keep the child if abortion was illegal? Or would they find a way to get an abortion regardless of the laws in place? We need to know the answers to these questions before we go anywhere further.

      • http://shanevanderhart.com/ Shane Vander Hart

        Every law that is passed is legislating morality.  The question is whose morality are we legislating?

      • ShamanX

         If you’re a United States Congressman named Ron Paul you vote in a way that’s consistent with the constitution .

        And yes this issue is nothing but a politicized red herring in federal politics that allows principled people to be smeared over an issue that has no business in the purview of the federal government.

        Nice hatchet job

  • funkdefino

    Ron Paul is a true statesman! His vote is based on the constitution not his personal beliefs. This is called fighting for our freedom, and understanding the slippery slope of legislating based on morality and convenience.

    Thank you Dr. Paul for once again showing America that you are incorruptible. He can’t even corrupt himself!!

    So proud to have voted for you!

  • David Loper

    Anyone who wants to understand why Ron Paul voted the way he did simply needs to look up the text of the “Sanctity of Life Act” which Ron Paul has sponsored 3 times and has been sponsored by others as well. I agree with Amash that this bill out have stopped no abortions and is simply a bill to police thought and politicize abortion as a campaign issue.

  • RicShaw

    I am sure his vote was due to some obscure attachment in the bill which required building a bridge to nowhere that will cost 20 gazillion dollars that we don’t actually have!  But go on and rag on  the last congress person left with an ounce of integrity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Troy-Loop/1064176643 Troy Loop

    if it walks like a loon…..

    • ImRight_UCanSayIt

      If it walks like a Loop…

  • Pingback: Ron Paul, Obama, Planned Parenthood Support Gendercide « Steven Birn Speaks

  • Pingback: Ron Paul, Obama, neither pro-life! Both support Gendercide! - Watchwoman on the Wall

  • http://www.facebook.com/jchathaway John C. Hathaway Ocds

    I think the “sex selection ban” is a pro-life fraud, just like the “partial birth abortion” ban.  The NRLC should be called the “National Keep Abortion Legal As Long as Possible Committee.”  It’s all about getting pro-lifers to vote Republican, not about getting Republicans to outlaw abortion. 
    You cannot say, “These abortions are wrong and those are OK.” Imagine if people said of Nazi Germany, “It’s OK to gas these Jews but not *those* Jews.”  It’s absurd, and reflects a total lack of horror at the abomination that is abortion.
    And most Republicans and the NRLC support artificial contraception, which is also a pro-life fraud, since, as the Supreme Court has said, abortion and contraception are inextricably linked, and abortion will be legal so long as contraception is legal.