Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Are The Seven RINOs That Voted Against Banning Sex-Selective Abortions?
America's Conservative News ^ | 06/01/2012 | America's Conservative News

Posted on 06/01/2012 12:02:30 PM PDT by ElIguana

ACN Staff) The House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would ban sex selective abortions on Thursday. Although a majority voted in favor of the bill (246-168), the measure reqired a two-thirds majority vote to pass. Many may be under the impression that the final vote tally was along party lines; however 20 Democrats actually voted in favor of the ban and shockingly, seven Republicans votes against banning sex selective abortions. Those Republicans were...

(Excerpt) Read more at conservativeamericaonline.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: abortion; prolife; ronpaul; sexselection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 06/01/2012 12:02:38 PM PDT by ElIguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ElIguana

Justin Amash and Ron Paul Rinos? I think I would trust those two in almost anything. The rest I am not sure about.


2 posted on 06/01/2012 12:06:08 PM PDT by David Isaac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac

Ron Paul, the Republican Presidential Candidate. He is worse than Al Gore.


3 posted on 06/01/2012 12:07:38 PM PDT by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ElIguana

I had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that?


4 posted on 06/01/2012 12:09:31 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ElIguana; humblegunner
Let me save my Freeper friends from this Blog Pimp.

Justine Amash (R-MI)
Charles Bass (R-NH)
Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
Robert Dold (R-IL)
Richard Hanna (R-NY)
Nan Hayworth (R-NY)
Ron Paul (R-TX)

5 posted on 06/01/2012 12:12:06 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun

Awwwww man, I was gonna go there.......To the pimp, just post youre article and I might have gone there, as soon as I saw no info I had decided to not go there....ever.


6 posted on 06/01/2012 12:18:09 PM PDT by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ElIguana

No decent American should support eugenics.


7 posted on 06/01/2012 12:22:05 PM PDT by Crucial (Tolerance at the expense of equal treatment is the path to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Robert Dold (R-IL)

Robert Dold was also on WLSAM radio telling the host that the problem now economically is "uncertainty." No, Bob. Dimwit. The problem is complete certainty that the government will continue to screw business over and that's why business is hesitating on investing any of its savings in expanded business.
8 posted on 06/01/2012 12:22:30 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

[ I had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that? ]

He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes


9 posted on 06/01/2012 12:25:28 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
No but the link explains it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?379007-Let-s-be-Honest-Why-Ron-Paul-voted-against-on-H.R.-3541

I think it's a copout under the cirumstances.

10 posted on 06/01/2012 12:27:56 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aliska

Ron Paul is right. Conservatives have long argued that abortion is a States rights issue. Why was this bill any different?


11 posted on 06/01/2012 12:31:40 PM PDT by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GraceG; LibertarianLiz; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; ...
[ I had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that? ]

He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes

Ron Paul has NEVER been pro-life; at best he is "personally opposed" to abortion, but pro-choice-by-state.

Either the baby being killed is a person or it isn't. If the baby is a person, his or her rights are protected under the Constitution. If the baby is not a person, what EXACTLY is it? Is there some evidence that it might turn out to be a giraffe or something?

The Constitution DOES NOT give each state the power to decide who is and isn't a person, any false notion of that is nullified by the 14th Amendment. The personhood-by-state experiment has already been tried once before in America and the result nearly destroyed the Republic.

12 posted on 06/01/2012 12:43:09 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
I agree that he's right but in the meantime sex selection abortion will be full steam ahead. I don't know how he voted on other abortion issues like partial birth abortion and don't want to take the time to research it.

It wouldn't have made any difference but that's not the point.

Ron Paul told a story about med school and how the doctors were aborting pre Roe vs. Wade. I wondered if he blew the whistle on them or kept quiet (I don't know what I would have done in a similar situation). I know he wouldn't perform abortions; at least I believe he's honest in what he says unlike a lot of others.

13 posted on 06/01/2012 12:46:01 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: VaRepublican

I wasn’t going to bite either. In fact, I’ll keep an eye out for ElIguana, our resident pimp, and make sure to avoid anything else they want to post.


14 posted on 06/01/2012 12:48:11 PM PDT by Bowtie52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
Ron Paul is right. Conservatives have long argued that abortion is a States rights issue.

Wrong. Such an ignorant claim is the province of Stephen A. Douglas democrats and Gerald R. Ford Republicans, not of conservatives.

States have no "right" to alienate the supreme God-given, unalienable right. In fact, they have an absolute duty to equally protect all innocent lives within their jurisdiction. Such is the primary reason for the existence of all governments, and all offices of government.

These are the ABCs of what America is. I'm shocked by how often I have to point out what to the founders was self-evident, or as-plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, on FreeRepublic.com, of all places.

15 posted on 06/01/2012 12:50:09 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; ...
Ron Paul is right. Conservatives have long argued that abortion is a States rights issue. Why was this bill any different?

Conservatives have NEVER made this claim.

And, for the record, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "STATES RIGHTS." People have rights, states have enumerated powers. Ron Paul and his followers are the ultimate statists, they are so beholden to a falsehood that will always result in the states taking away individual rights.

16 posted on 06/01/2012 12:51:12 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sr4402
LRonPaul. Figures. Thankfully, the loon has completed his last campaign.
17 posted on 06/01/2012 12:53:05 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes

No, it does NOT.

The exact opposite is true:

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What part of "no person," and "no State," and "any person," and "EQUAL PROTECTION," do you, and Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney, fail to understand?

18 posted on 06/01/2012 12:57:07 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
Conservatives have long argued that abortion is a States rights issue. Why was this bill any different?

Because until Roe v Wade is overturned, liberal Justice Blackmun made it a national issue.

19 posted on 06/01/2012 12:57:07 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I am torn now. I would argue the Constitution right to life, liberty happiness that sould apply to unborn as well as born.

Even if it went back to the states which is won't, only a few states would manage to ban it now. I was a teenager when it started, and women used to have to go abroad. Then New York legalized it.

20 posted on 06/01/2012 12:57:16 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ElIguana

You don’t have to be a RINO, just politically competent.
This is the stake that will end ALL abortion in the US.
The only way the left can leep abortion legal...is to outlaw ONLY abortions that will lose them the support of hedonistic women.

Period.

If this practice remains just as legal as other abortions...then the plug will be pulled on the abortion industry.


21 posted on 06/01/2012 12:59:09 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aliska
Of course Constitutional rights apply to the unborn, that's what the word "posterity" means in the Preamble.

As far as what other countries do, we can't be responsible for the inhumane practices of other countries.

The FACT remains that an innocent American is murdered every 24 seconds in an abortuary.

22 posted on 06/01/2012 1:00:49 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ElIguana

The Constitution explicitly and imperatively requires that ALL innocent persons be protected, regardless of gender.

That means it is not optional.


23 posted on 06/01/2012 1:03:58 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: David Isaac

Has Ron Paul ever actually voted for anything? It is probably easier to make excuses why he doesn’t support any particular legislation and appear principled than actually make a tough decision.


24 posted on 06/01/2012 1:09:29 PM PDT by Optimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Here is Justin Amash reposnse to his vote from his facebook page. He is NO RINO:
Justin Amash
Yesterday.

When did Republicans start supporting hate-crime legislation? Hate-crime bills, like H R 3541, are apparently okay if they have to do with a baby’s gender but not okay if they have to do with a person’s skin color or sexual orientation. Or maybe they’re okay if it’s an election year and Republicans are trying to make the President look like he doesn’t care about women. I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon.

Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the “wrong” reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the “abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”

The bill also shockingly makes it a crime for a medical or mental health professional NOT to turn in someone who they SUSPECT of having committed this thought crime. They can be thrown into prison for a year if they don’t “report known or suspected violations . . . to appropriate law enforcement authorities.” Free societies do not criminalize inaction.

I’m pro-life, and I think all abortion should be illegal. But Congress should not criminalize thought. And this bill won’t stop a single abortion if it becomes law. Every person seeking an abortion simply will sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby. Those of us who are pro-life should demand more from Congress. While we waste time on stuff like this, genuine legislation to protect life is ignored


25 posted on 06/01/2012 1:10:41 PM PDT by crosslink (Moderates should play in the middle of a busy street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
Ron Paul (R-TX)

I just won a $1,000,000 bet with myself!

26 posted on 06/01/2012 1:12:09 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

bump!


27 posted on 06/01/2012 1:18:08 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

Ron paul is a rules-based libertarian. That’s why you can’t trust these types to make the right decisions in cases like this. Paul is hard-wired and programmed and is not always capable of analysis or even reasonable thought.


28 posted on 06/01/2012 1:20:29 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

” had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that?”

Ron Paul isn’t as pro-life as he led some of us to believe; in fact, he has a mixed recordon abortion:

“Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)”

snip http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Abortion


29 posted on 06/01/2012 1:28:28 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The FACT remains that an innocent American is murdered every 24 seconds in an abortuary.

I know. I think about it a lot.

I'm watching an eagle family for a couple months now. Mom, dad, kids. How carefully she nurtures the eggs then the babies every step of the way. Dad shares in the tasks of hunting, protecting, a little setting on the eggs, feeding.

Now they are learning to fly and will soon be gone.

I know there are "exceptions" to most everything in nature, but this is the way it was intended for some creatures. Oh make that it's how they evolved and cats don't mate for one month to the next, never mind for life. One night during a storm, the mother eagle sat all night with the babies under her wings so they wouldn't get wet because until they get juvenile feathers, they're susceptible to pneumonia.

It really makes you think. They don't have free will. They will protect the EGGS and young at all costs to themselves. Except sometimes a sibling will kill a sibling, and the parents don't try to stop them.

So I'm mindful of how far we've gone astray because some among us think they know better.

30 posted on 06/01/2012 1:32:21 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

Paul is not pro-life if you look at his actual voting record and not listen to what he says.


31 posted on 06/01/2012 1:36:54 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
"....abortion is a States rights issue."

Hmm, that's what they used to say about slavery.

32 posted on 06/01/2012 1:41:12 PM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
I had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that?

Ron Paul's votes must always be framed in his unique (and not necessarily incorrect) view of the Constitution. His vote always needs such an asterisk. This is NOT in support of his vote, BTW>

33 posted on 06/01/2012 1:49:10 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Extraneous Wind sends ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

“He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes”

WHERE?

If that were the case, slavery would be legal in some states, but not others.

The Tenth Amendment is not the only amendment.


34 posted on 06/01/2012 2:05:31 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

“Ron Paul is right. Conservatives have long argued that abortion is a States rights issue. Why was this bill any different?”

They are wrong if they believe that. Although some might just want it to return to the states to save as many babies as possible.


35 posted on 06/01/2012 2:16:11 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ElIguana

Once again Ron Paul is right, if congress can make such federal laws they can make hate crime laws.

Ron Paul is the most pro life republican there is. As President he actually has a plan to end abortion in America unlike this GOP nonsense that is nothing more than political theater in an election frenzy.

Ron Paul - We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It also says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Thus, if an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, as Paul pledged was his position, states must protect the life of the unborn child just as they protect the life of any other person and Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to make laws to ensure that is the case.

In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an “addendum” in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.

“Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents,” said Paul.

“While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life,” Paul continued. “I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.”

In the same statement, Paul went on to say: “A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does—through state laws.

“To summarize my views—I believe the federal government has a role to play,” said Paul. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

“I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues,” Paul said. “The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

“As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” said Paul. “This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.”

In the same addedum to his Personhood Pledge, Paul vowed to stop enforcement of all Obamacare regulations, including the one that would force Catholic employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.

“I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans,” said Paul.

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, however, Paul criticized Santorum for talking about “who is going to pay for birth control pills”—an apparent reference to Santorum’s statements in opposition to the Obamacare regulation Paul said in December he would stop if he were elected president.

“Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?” Crowley asked Paul.

“Well, I don’t see how that’s possible,” said Paul. “And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I’m worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people’s social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-social-conservatism-i-think-its-losing-position


36 posted on 06/01/2012 2:28:07 PM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crosslink
Hmmmm...while that sounds good, I went to his campaign page and saw his support for other bills that do exactly what he is criticizing here.

Such as:

H R 3803, District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:
Bans abortions in DC if the baby is 20 weeks old or older.

To quote him, "I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon. Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period."

37 posted on 06/01/2012 2:57:37 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: free_life
Under tremendous pressure from certain quarters, including those I am most closely associated with, Mr. Paul has certainly tweaked his rhetoric on life a whole lot in this election cycle, that's for sure. It's quite sophisticated, frankly.

And yet, he still hasn't fundamentally changed his decades-long belief that states can allow abortion if they want to, thereby abrogating the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the absolute requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ron Paul Signs Personhood Pledge; Personhood USA Questions Commitment

38 posted on 06/01/2012 3:09:11 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

Abortion is a life or death issue.


39 posted on 06/01/2012 3:40:24 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: free_life

Paul is not pro-life.
He supports sex selection abortions.
He supports the transport of minors over state lines to get abortions.
He supports giving drugs to end pregnancy after a rape.
Not one of those is pro-life.
I do not care what he pledges, he does not vote the way he talks.


40 posted on 06/01/2012 3:44:08 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: free_life; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; ...
Ron Paul - We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

So, the states should be allowed to decide who is and isn't a person?

Should the states be allowed to declare blacks "non-persons"? That was tried once and the result was a disaster.

What about Jews, can they be declared "non-persons"? Europe tried that a while back and it was also a disaster.

In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an “addendum” in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.

In other words, he is "personally opposed" to abortion, but thinks each state should decide for themselves.

41 posted on 06/01/2012 3:55:54 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Frankly, I thought PersonhoodUSA's pledge was sorely lacking. It didn't actually require the candidates to keep their own oath to provide equal protection for all, within the responsibilities of their own office.

I made my dissatisfaction about this known to their leadership. In my opinion the whole exercise accomplished nothing except to give candidates "personhood" credentials who didn't deserve them.

Here is a real resolution, with substance and teeth, and it applies to all, not just presidential candidates:


http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/index.html 

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

A Resolution affirming vital existing constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.

WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and

WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and

WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and

WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person’s physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and

WHEREAS, All executive, legislative and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;

THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or decision of any court, or decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.

Sign the Resolution ...

 

42 posted on 06/01/2012 4:32:32 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Frankly, I thought PersonhoodUSA's pledge was sorely lacking. It didn't actually require the candidates to keep their own oath to provide equal protection for all, within the responsibilities of their own office.

The problem with the GOP is that, other than a few notable exceptions, Republicans have been paying lip service to the pro-life movement ever since Roe v. Wade.

The GOP seems to think they can claim to be pro-life in order to get votes, but they have no intention of doing anything about it once they are in office.

In reality, the GOP treats the pro-life movement the same way the Democrats treat Blacks and other minorities.

43 posted on 06/01/2012 4:46:27 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Yep.


44 posted on 06/01/2012 4:53:20 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Party like it's 1860.- America's Party - www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
In reality, the GOP treats the pro-life movement the same way the Democrats treat Blacks and other minorities.

*********************************

Yes, and also, the GOP and Democrats see we "social conservatives" in much the same way. How often have we been looked down on with disdain by "fiscal conservatives"?

Ron Paul's devotees are, like him, libertarians, with all that implies.

45 posted on 06/01/2012 4:57:12 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
Nope. But, where in the Constitution does it give the FedGov the power to have ANY say in this whatsoever?

Roe V Wade needs to go and the FedGov needs to stop interfering with the States ability to ban abortion.

Anything else requires an Amendment.

46 posted on 06/01/2012 5:06:28 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You keep trotting that penumbra out, but MURDER statutes are a State power.

Don't distort the Constitution to fit your goal. Liberals do that...

47 posted on 06/01/2012 5:09:40 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: svcw
Well... Wrong. On all counts. But thanks for playing.

All of you people willing to do the LIBERAL thing by ignoring the Constitutions express limits on Federal power are kinda missing the point.

Pass an Amendment or let the States handle it under Murder laws. As it should be.

48 posted on 06/01/2012 5:13:18 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: trisham

“Ron Paul’s devotees are, like him, libertarians, with all that implies.”

You mean principled and unwilling to flush the Constitution for expediency?

http://www.l4l.org/


49 posted on 06/01/2012 5:15:58 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Paul’s voting record is as I stated and not one of those is pro-life - not one.


50 posted on 06/01/2012 5:16:08 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson