Skip to comments.Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade
Posted on 01/24/2009 8:44:42 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Yesterday, January 22, saw a veritable army of pro-lifers participate in the 35th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. This demonstration of public sentiment was first held in 1974 to mark the first anniversary of the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision. In that decision, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that all state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. Since then, an estimated 50,000,000 babies have been killed in the womb in the United States.
As we observed yesterday, ever since the Roe v. Wade (and the less publicized Doe v. Bolton) decision, the primary strategy among pro-life people has been to overturn Roe by electing so-called pro-life Republican presidents who will appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, this strategy will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
...at yesterdays rally, Gray told those gathered that the battle for life had to be won at the federal level, that it was not enough to send the issue back to the states, where abortion could be legal in one state and illegal in the next.
Of course, that strategy overlooks the fact that abortion, like other crimes, was criminalized on the state level prior to Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was Roe v. Wade that interjected the federal government into the abortion issue in the first place and at the same time made abortion on demand legal throughout the United States. Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Fortunately, there exists a simpler, more practical strategy to protect life (and other things we cherish), provided for in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This section allows Congress to strip the Supreme Court of any cases (e.g., abortion cases) where the Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction. Congress can also limit the jurisdiction of any lower federal courts, since Congress created those courts. Congress could make Roe v. Wade a nonproblem overnight, since by prohibiting the federal courts from hearing abortion cases the states could then put back in place anti-abortion laws.
This remedy has already been introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the new (111th) Congress as H.R. 539, the We the People Act. H.R. 539 would remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts from cases related to the free exercise or establishment of religion; the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction (e.g., abortion); the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation (same-sex marriage).
The legislation would also prohibit the federal courts from relying on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in the above list. In other words, it would remove Roe v. Wade and similar decisions from judicial precedent.
Hmmm ... 50,000,000 ... that probably would have turned SOCIAL SECURITY into a minor Annoyance Instead of the Major PITB it has become!!
Shortsighted Liberal MORONS!!
Of course, we all know that Ron Paul is just another “fringe kook”! /sarc
Not this insane radical left congress..........
The author of this piece apparently hasn’t heard of the results of the last election.
Not only will new restrictions on abortion not be put in place, but the present minimal restrictions will be wiped away.
It is likely that taxpayer funding for abortions will expand.
IOW, the train is headed in the opposite direction.
The Constitution... what’s that?
The only positive out of this election (besides no more McCain) is that Obama was pretty shy about the abortion issue and actually it was rarely brought up...and tried at least flaunted some of his pro-life supporters. Not to mention, the appointment of Ray Lahood in the cabinet. I remember in 92 the Dems were trying to outdo each other on the issue. Not to mention, Clinton had a pro-abortion litmus test for his cabinet. It gives a glimmer of hope that at least public opinion is turning.
Excellent idea: HR 539. I shall write supportive letters to my political leaders and follow its progress.
Individual states could decree that life begins at conception.
I agree w/ this - I would assume this means it gets passed down to the states/local govts. for a vote so it is state by state and more federalist? If that is the case - love her or hate her, that’s why I was a fan of Gov. Palin because she kept saying she wanted states to have more control and less govt. intervention. Nobody and No law is perfect but this article is my ideal for how govt. should be run.
“another federal solution ...”
Ummmm, don’t they mean “another FINAL solution ...”
If Obama has one pro-life member of his cabinet, or high-ranking in his administration, let me know and I’ll believe he doesn’t have a pro-choice litmus test. He said he has one for judges. He’s against the Born Alive Protection act, he’s for FOCA and wants it to be one of his first acts, he’s reversed Bush’s order banning funds to agencies performing abortions abroad, he’s restarted funding for embryonic stemcell research, he’s removed some of the protection for medical personnel declining to participate in abortions and FOCA will take that further.
Obama’s propaganda glamour machine will be called in to go to work on public opinion regarding abortion. I am not optimistic.
I know you're being sarcastic, but the Ron Paul hatred was so intense prior to the primaries here that there were some FReepers accusing him of being pro-abortion just because Paul didn't support a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.
I'm all for a constitutional amendment, but in the short term I would rather see R v W overturned and states deal with abortion. Of course, Eternal Vigilance will vehemently disagree with me.
“50,000,000 ... that probably would have turned SOCIAL SECURITY into a minor Annoyance Instead of the Major PITB it has become!!
Shortsighted Liberal MORONS!!”
Killing innocents trumps their social programs, I guess. Sad.
Don’t forget the shortages of healthcare workers, etc. Who knows what 50,000,000 Americans would be doing. It’s almost assured there were genius innovators in there (not that it makes the other lives less valuable, just giving a concrete example of the loss).
“Who knows what 50,000,000 Americans would be doing.”
Good point. And one of them might have had the cure for heart disease, and another for cancer.
You know mathematically that there is only one logical point at which life begins, and that is conception.
It is a fact that abortion kills a human life.
I asked a woman who was pro choice to prove to me that the babies that were being killed were not humans, and of course she could not. She tried to change the subject to viability, and I told her I was not interested in viability, only whether or not the baby was a human.
She tried to use the common liberal BS, and I called her on everyone of her illogical points. Then of course she got mad. I told her that I pray for every woman who has had an abortion. She asked me why would I pray for them. I replied that I would not want to meet GOD if I had killed one of his children. She turned white, and I asked her if she had an abortion. She said yes.
I told her to repent,and to seek GOD’s forgiveness, and to save as many children as possible from being aborted. I do not know if she has repented. Pray for her.
I know that when we meet the MAKER we will feel the suffering and pain that we caused in this world as part of our judgment. I would not want to feel the pain and suffering of these poor defenseless children that are being killed.
GOD save us.
The question of citizenship/personhood in the law is traditionally reserved to the individual states as intended by the framers. These matters are best addressed on the state level. This is why I have always supported federalist candidates and will continue to do so.
The 14th amendment took the definition of citizenship out of the hands of the states, and the language of the amendment makes personhood an unavoidable federal issue, since the amendment requires equal protection of all persons.
The federalism/states’ rights approach to abortion is inoperative.
Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?
The states CAN address the issue, if we had politicians with any leadership, guts and intelligence.
Hard as it may be to conceive, Ron Paul is wrong here; the 14th Amendment requires the Federal government to define personhood. In Roe v. Wade it did so, wrongly; if that definition were indeed rectified it would indeed require the Federal government, under the equal protection clause, to strike down abortion everywhere.
There is, barring another constitutional amendment, no longer any possibility of a house divided on this issue.
Well, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me the 14th amendment defined federal citizens, but never removed the definition of state citizen.
14th Amendment. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How would the federal government circumvent a state giving the rights of citizenship to the unborn?
Because the federal government has already declared the unborn nonpersons—state law cannot overturn federal law.
If passed, it would define life as beginning at conception.
If that happened, the Preamble, 5th, and the 14th amendments would apply to protecting the lives of the unborn,
an admission made by the court in their Roe v. Wade ruling when Justice Blackmun wrote;
If this suggestion of person-hood is established, the appellants case, of course, collapses, for the fetus right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
Last year Hunter's bill had over 125 co-sponsors.
The republicans had the majority in the house from 1994-2006. Were these bills ever passed or even voted on?
With ultra sounds/sonograms there is no longer any question or confusion about the person-hood or humanism of an unborn child.
Recently someone I know had an ultra sound at 7 weeks pregnant. She commented how the new baby looks exactly like her little boy.
Another question for those that believe this issue should be relegated to the states:
Is the definition of murder left up to the states to define or is it federally set?
And this is precisely why the 14th Amendment was passed—to prevent the states from determining, for instance, that freed slaves were not legal persons.
Can you name the bill(s) that Dr Ron Paul started to curtail abortion?
He has been in Congress since the Ford days, there must be dozens.
Yeah, brilliant. 535 members of Congress are all going to stand up and say “Hey, make me the target!”
This idea is dumber than something Gov. Moonbeam, Jerry Brown, of California would cook up.
Any tactic that does not disable the "human shield" defense of abortion used by American woman is doomed to ignominious failure.
Extending "choice" to men is the only realistic approach to curtailing the female monopoly on "reproductive rights."
A 3 day old baby isn't capable of taking care of itself...it is not viable without outside help...so I guess murdering living babies would be fine by her as well. And suppose the woman had a 25 year old daughter who was in a car crash and was seriously injured and wouldn't live without medical assistance...guess she believes her daughter ceases to be a human for a time and she may be allowed the choice rather to kill her daughter or not. Viability is not a rational, moral argument.
With the blood of 50,000,000 babies on their hands, liberals owe the nazis an apology.
Murder falls under state criminal jurisdiction.
Im what decision did the federal government make such a declaration? Seems to me they have tip-toed around the issue.
“Pro-choice” for individuals or “pro-choice” for states, either way, the babies are dead, and so is the heart of our founding documents.
The 14th Amendment was passed because the federal government desired the ability to define 'personhood', something that it was never given by the Framers.
But a contract of this nature actually existed in a visible form, between the citizens of each state, respectively, in their several constitutions; it might therefore he deemed somewhat extraordinary, that in the establishment of a federal republic, it should have been thought necessary to extend it's operation to the persons of individuals, as well as to the states, composing the confederacy.
It was apprehended by many, that this innovation would be construed to change the nature of the union, from a confederacy, to a consolidation of the states; that as the tenor of the instrument imported it to be the act of the people, the construction might be made accordingly: an interpretation that would tend to the annihilation of the states, and their authority. That this was the more to be apprehended, since all questions between the states, and the United States, would undergo the final decision of the latter.
Volume 1 - Appendix, Note D, Section 1
St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution of the United States
The 14th Amendment is pure, legalistic slight-of-hand in an effort to give the appearance of federal control over the States.
In fact, you can see the hubris yourself in the quote by one of the 14th's co-sponsors:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, 1866
How about that! Congress decided it could re-write the Laws of Nature.
For those with a penchant for truth, the 'limits of the United States' can be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.
Here is an excellent article on the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
IMHO, the general government has illegitimately ASSUMED a power that it was never intended to have, and our Republic has suffered greatly for it.
or they would have been on welfare
You know mathematically that there is only one logical point at which life begins, and that is conception. It is a fact that abortion kills a human life.What this would imply that life ends at the death of the last cell.
If this suggestion of person-hood is established, the appellants case, of course, collapses, for the fetus right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.Even if it were the case, it would not prohibit abortion.
In a democratic system it is not possible to reverse a judicial decision you disagree with unless you have overwhelming public support.
It is highly debatable whether there is at present even a bare majority for repeal of Roe. Certainly politicians, media, academics and other elites are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping Roe in force. Probably a 2/3 majority in the general population would be required just to make it an even fight.
The only way a dramatically unpopular initiative can be passed is to have the Court find such a “right” hidden in the Constitution. So far, only liberals have been able to use this tactic.
Talking about possible methods for overriding Roe in these circumstances is like talking about how if your aunt had b*lls she’d be your uncle. The statement may be technically accurate, but it is comprehensively irrelevant.
Well, it is okay with the ObombUs and his only accomplishment the born alive, or whatever it was called, bill in the IL state sInate.
Whether or not it was a good idea, the 14th Amendment exists, and was duly passed by the process the Constitution described, which was something envisioned by the framers.
Even Brennan acknowledged that if the personhood of fetuses were recognised it would require the states, under their existing criminal statutes, to punish and act to prevent abortion.
Sorry; that’s Blackmun, not Brennan.
Blackmun, in Roe v. Wade:
“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
“All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the l9th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972); Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 470 P. 2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971).
Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.
It's obvious that certain "Pro-Life" activists were worried about their livelihood. A great deal of progress was being made in bringing the issue back to the states, where it belongs.
WWRTD? That is, What Would Randall Terry Do if the abortion battle were won? I think he realized five years ago that success in fighting abortion would lead to less attention for himself, so he spiked the decades-long strategy that was bearing fruit, and pushed for a Roe-justifying strategy of Federal primacy.
Ron Paul ping
And there are plenty more implications. Consider the fact that half of the time that conception occurs, the zygote passes from the mother's body without coming to term even without artificial abortion! Think of all the homicide investigations that would be required.
And what of those who absorb a twin in the womb...manslaughter charges?
Attempts at politically defined science are absurd. Legal banning of abortion is one thing; trying to legally define reality is another.
No, it wasn't, no it doesn't, and it was nothing envisioned by the Framers since it attempt to turn the entire Compact inside out and give the federal government total control over the People.
Here is a paper by Judge L.H. Perez explaining why the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional.
Congress has the authority to regulate immigration, but it has NO authority to create citizenship.
In Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, he describes the people residing in the areas of exclusive jurisdiction and legislation.
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
IMHO, unless and until the People understand that those of us outside the areas of exclusivity enumerated in the Constitution are STATE citizens, not 'US' citizens, we and our children will have only privileges, not rights.