Skip to comments.Life At Conception Act Introduced By Senator Rand Paul
Posted on 03/20/2013 8:32:36 AM PDT by EXCH54FE
click here to read article
I survived! And am better, just the energy isn’t filled up yet.
Happened to some friends of mine. Severely malformed.
Not one other Republican has ever proposed a Constitutional solution to abortion such as this. It sweeps aside Roe v. Wade like yesterdays trash.
With all due respect to Rand Paul supporters, and I may end up being one of them, the article explaining Paul's proposed Life at Conception Act has the overtones of a publicicy stunt for 2016 imho.
More specifically, the first paragraph in the article subtly sidesteps the constitutonal reality that Congress has no constitutional authority to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution.
"According to Senator Paul, S 583 does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions."
Article V of the Constitution clearly indicates that only the states have the power to ratify proposed amendments.
The problem with the statement above from the article is this. Since the states have never amended the Constitution to define life as beginning at conception, there is no enumerated right which defines when life begins that Congress can enforce via 14A imo.
In fact, although John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, had worded 14A to indicate that it applied only constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities to the states, he had more clearly stressed this point about enumerated rights in the congressional record imo.
"Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution (emphasis added)." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871. (See bottom half of third column.)
(Note that activist justices ignored this clarification, imo, when they not only hid behind the 9th Amendment to apply nonenumerated abortion rights to the states in Roe v. Wade, but wrongly legislated state legislative powers from the bench in order to do so.)
Next, patriots who have read Section 1 of 14A can tell you that the excerpt from Section 1 in the referenced article left out the first sentence of Section 1. The problem with the first sentence is that it contains wording which arguably weakens Paul's proposed Life at Conception Act.
14th Amendment, Section 1 begins as follows.
All persons born (emphasis added) 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. ...
So all that justices have to argue is that unborn children aren't regarded as citizens, and therefore have no constitutionally protected rights.
So although I'd probably support Paul for 2016, I'm disappointed in Paul for what may be a publicity stunt by proposing the Life at Conception Act. But hey, since constitutionally indefensible DOMA undoubtedly won some votes from Constitution-ignorant voters for incubment lamakers, the Life at Conception Act may win some votes for Paul whether Congress passes it or not.
That was prescient of him. He's been pushing this hard for several years now.
...there is no enumerated right which defines when life begins that Congress can enforce via 14A imo...
LOL The enumerated right is the right to life. All his bill does is define when life begins. There is no new right being defined here. Nice red herring.
The unborn are not citizens, they are persons. Persons who are not citizens do have constitutional rights. Otherwise we could just gun down illegal aliens in the streets because they have no rights.
Thanks for the ping! I always like to read good news! :)
This is very good news.
Thanks for the ping, Jim! We haven’t had much good news lately.
Different story today...special privileges are being extended...for the vote.
The Fifth Amendment also supports this: “...nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
While I appreciate what Senator Paul is trying to do, although Section 1 of 14A defined general citizenship, it did not introduce new rights for all citizens, so no rights for the unborn imo. What Section 1 did was to extend the scope of enumerated personal rights protected by the Constitution to the states and insured equal applicaton of laws. Section 1 also gave Congress the power to legislatively force the states to comply with constitutionally enumerated rights.
And although I'm dissapointed with the wording of Sec. 1 where unborn children are concerned in the context of today's issues, I've noted a likely reason why Bingham didn't foresee the need to protect unborn children as follows.
Consider that the reason that citizens, mostly rural pioneering families in the 19th century, had many children is this. It was commonly expected that some children would not survive to adulthood. So prohibiting abortion was probably Bingham's least concern when he led the drafting of Section 1 of 14A.
As a side note concerning activist justices wrongly finding so-called abortion rights in the 9th Amendment in Roe ve Wade imo, then applying such rights to the states via 14A, please consider this. Not only does Bingham's wording of Section 1 of 14A, along with his clarification in the congressional record concerning this issue, clearly indicate that 14A applies only enumerated constitutional rights to the states, but also note the following.
Bingham had read only the first eight amendments to the Constitution to the HoR, ignoring the 9th Amendment, as examples of constitutional statutes containing constitutional priviledges and immunities which 14A applied to the states.
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those first eight amendments are as follows: " --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871. (See top half of second column.)
Bingham's ommission of the 9th Amendment is further evidence, imo, that Bingham had intended for 14A to apply only enumerated personal rights to the states, as opposed to activist justices putting on their "magic glasses" to subjectively read abortion rights into 9A and then applying this so-called right to the states via 14A.
Again, i think that the reason that the first sentence was edited out of the excerpt from Section 1 of 14A in the referenced article is the following. Sen. Paul is essentially inadvertently(?) pretending that his proposed Life at Conception Act is simultaneously a constitutionally enumerated right and also its own 14A-based congressional remedy to the infringement of this "enumerated" right.
It doesn't define life either. Some things are self-evident.
Oh, the leftist media won’t have to tear him down. We’ll do that all on our own.
At least he wants to *really* secure the border.
Reagan did it. Are we going to keep slaughtering the 90% conservatives on the alter of perfection?
I am really, really sick of watching good conservatives being eaten by their own and being forced to vote for a RINO.
That’s right! Forget liberty and personal responsibility! /s
I also agree with him on everything else. I’m also happy that he wants to secure the border.
I can let ONE issue slide to save this country.
We are NEVER going to get the perfect candidate that ALL of us agree with 100%. (Heck, I don’t agree with most FReepers 100%) If we do, he’ll be slaughtered in the general election by the media and the left.
There’s just no place for it in modern America! ;-]
Barack Obama argued that we should leave the survivors of the HEINOUS crime left in a hamper to die slowly.
“the left has a losing argument”
yep, noticed that in the last 40 years and the last 2 elections myself.
However, it remains that Section 1 of 14A, because of its inclusion of the word "born," indirectly defines people as those who have already been born. This minimally gives activist justices a license to strike down the Life at Conception Act if they choose to do so.
This is also why I've been arguing that activist justices wrongly ignored that abortion is not constitutionally enumerated right when they subjectivel found abortion rights in 9A and applied it to states via 14A.
Sen. Paul actually needs a constitutional amendment to do what he's trying to do with his Life at Conception Act imo.
I agree that some things are self-evident. But activist justices will predictably ignore their God-given respect for life.
If the possible opinions of activist Justices is the concern then there is no point in fighting for the Republic at all. It’s over.
I respectfully disagree. The basic reason that activist justices are getting away with tearing the Constitution to pieces, imo, is because many flag-waving patriots evidently haven't bothered to read it for themeselves. This is why it's so important to reconnect Constitution-ignorant patriots, including Obama supporters, with the Constitution and its history, particularly the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers.
Excellent! Hopefully you will connect with the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Congress from establishing a definition of when life begins.
We’re having this discussion because flag-waving patriots actually didn’t know enough about the Constitution, particularly the Founding States’ division of federal and state powers evidenced by 10A, to remedy the situation when activist justices first legalized abortion. Justices needed to be impeached, imo, for ignoring Bingham’s clarification of how 14A was intended to work when the Supreme Court legalized abortion. But evidently everybody was asleep at the wheel.
Also, although I’m not really blaming Bingham, I regret that Bingham didn’t forsee major problems with respect to his inclusion of the word “born” in the language of Section 1 of 14A and the subsequent legalization of abortion in the next century. It arguably makes Sen. Paul’s proposed legislation look like a backdoor remedy for effectively overturning Roe v. Wade.
And I’m guessing that the prospects for a RINO-controlled HoR and liberal Senate and Oval Office actually passing his bill are next to nothing. But even if it predictably fails, it makes Sen. Paul look to good to conservatives in the long run.
It is a remedy for Roe v. Wade but I wouldn’t call it ‘backdoor.’ It’s a Constitutional solution to the lack of clarity about it in the Bill of Rights. As far as the chances of the Life At Conception Act passing now I agree. But in order to get any controversial legislation passed you have to put if forward over and over again. Rand Paul has been pushing this for quite a while now. No one else has.
With all due respect TigersEye, your statement brings to mind the liberal argument that Clause 5 of Section 1 of Article II, the natural born citizen clause, is not defined in the Constitution. But a little research reveals that nbc is a well-understood, well-documented legal term that the drafters of the Constitution were familiar with. This is why I don't put much faith into the side-door argument of claiming that "person" is undefined in Section 1 of 14A, particularly since Bingham also used the word born in that statute.
You sound more like the liberal arguing that a fetus does not deserve the legal status of ‘person’ accorded to all other human beings.
Noting that I have referenced evidence that corrupt, 10A-ignoring justices unconstitutionally legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade imo, I am skeptical of the approach that Sen. Paul is taking to resolve the issue, arguably a PC approach that appeals to conservatives.
Again, noting that I agree that life begins at conception, the post Civil War 14A was concerned primarily with protecting freed slaves, not addressing when life begins. And I think that past injustices concerning so-called abortion rights need to be resolved so that Constitution-ignorant patriots wise up to ongoing Supreme Court corruption.
Let me also note that the 14th Amendment was concerned with defining citizenship only not life or its Constitutional protections.
Whatever other conservatives think of the LACA, it appeals to me because I see it as the direct approach following the intent of the founding governing principles in the straightest possible line.
Purists on amnesty, but total sell outs on abortion.
Yes --- assuming, of course, that it was conceived from a human ovum and a human sperm. If canine gametes were used, it would be a dog. If feline, a cat. If equine, a horse. That's indisputable.
"If a nurse drops the test tube, is that manslaughter?"
If negligence or criminal intent are involved --- the same as if she dropped a preemie. That's by the way, one of the big reasons why babies should never be conceived in vitro. It exposes them to hugely magnified risk. Humans should be conceived only in vivo.
"If a mother has a fetus with no head, should she be forced to deliver it?"
If she has a fetus with no head, the fetus (actually, embryo) will perish very early (probably even before pregnancy is detected), and very naturally and probably very easily. No need to worry about "delivery" of headless babies; no need, either, to induce an abortion.
Do you think the infant should be killed?
Our Declaration of Independence --- in the light of which our Constitution is to be interpreted --- acknowledges that basic human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are given by God, innate, and neither awarded nor rescinded by Kings, Constitutions, Congresses, or Courts.
A fetus with no head or brain? I think that should be up to the parents. My friends had an abortion, even though they are themselves conservative and anti-abortion.
Do you believe that invitro fertilization ought to also be illegal?
This is a self-contradicting statement. They were certainly in a grievous, pitiable situation, the moreso because they discovered, under difficult circumstances, that they were actually pro-abortion.
Other mothers and fathers, in the same circumstances, decided not to slay the unfortunate child. They are the ones who are actually "anti-abortion."
An anencephalic child will shortly die. If he or she lives but briefly and breathes his last in his mother's arms, it is heartbreaking but it is not a crime. To kill him or her intentionally is something else. It's a denial of the child's humanity, a refusal of parental love and, frankly, homicide.
"Do you believe that in vitro fertilization ought to also be illegal?"
Yes. Thank you for asking. It makes the conceived child, first, a lab experiment and then, a kind of living property in a commercial transaction, subject to culling and disposal if not up to specifications, like a substandard lab rat.
This falls short of the respect which we owe to a human child.
Children have a right to be conceived in the marital embrace and accepted unconditionally. Anything short of that is wrongful from the point of view of the child's own dignity as a person, not a thing.
That says it all, with beauty.
Truth is usually quite simple and can be expressed in simple language.
There can be reams of details, but the basics can be said simply, so that everyone can clearly understand.
I’m afraid I’ll need a scripture to back that up. Not that you are necessarily wrong, but I’d like to hear God’s opinion on invitro fertilization.
You will not find in vitro fertilization in your Biblical concordance, for obvious reasons--- the same reasons you won't find BDSM, online porn addiction, party drugs, fisting, post-op transsexuals, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, artificial insemination, and Queer Studies Majors. These things are either technically or culturally unknown in Biblical times.
"You, Lord, created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mothers womb.
I praise you
because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together intricately
in the depths of the Eretz.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts,
How vast is the sum of them!
However there are Biblical principles which apply here, because although the Bible doesn't say anything explicitly about these perversions, it does say a lot about the wisdom of Divine Providence in the design of human nature.
In other words, God wrote both the "Book of Scripture" and the "Book of Nature." By this I mean, He is the Author of both: the Creation which He made, and the Scriptures He has given us to show forth His will.
Based on Genesis, we can see that God's original plan for us, "In the divine image He created him, male and female He created them" --- was very good. We know that our embodied maleness and femaleness, and the way we make love and make life, reflects His will and His wisdom.
Therefore when things go wrong for us bodily, for instance, the tragedy of infertility, the true ethical aim of medical practice, is simply to restore the original good natural design. We must aim to restore natural fertility, which means, the ability to conceive and bear children through natural marital intercourse.
Medical intervention is good when it heals injuries, cures diseases, strengthens functions that have been weakened or disabled. The whole key is to repair and restore back to normal.
Thee is nothing normal or natural about masturbating into a jar or a plastic baggie, handing your sperm over to a lab tech, meanwhile some woman's body (maybe your wife's) is forced into hyperovulation --- a pathological condition --- with injected hormones; then the ova are harvested, and the ova and sperm are mixed in a laboratory procedure which is not intimately personal and certainly not lovemaking; then the resulting offspring, in their vulnerable embryonic state, are scrutinized and any that are disfavored are culled and destroyed.
The whole procedure in intentionally the very opposite of normal physiological function; the results of procreation are treated like lab materials, not like nascent creations of God Who is the Lord and Giver of Life. There is no innate sense that human procreation is sacred, or that we are to "image" God --- the Creator God, Who made love and made life in the same sacred instant. Rather we force a technological process like the veterinary breeding of pedigreed dogs and race-horses, or the brewing of batches of bacteria.
In ther words, what was designed by Divine Wisdom to be intimate, veiled from public gaze, grounded in interpersonal love, beautiful in its intertwined meanings -- re-read Psalm 139 --- becomes instead a manufacturing process and a crass commercial transaction.
It confuses the categories of "person" and "product." Even legally, it degrades "child" into "property."
It does not restore natural fertility; in fact, it doesn't even try. It does not heal sexual intercourse as the natural source of life: it replaces it. It does not honor the conceived child: it treats the embryonic child as a thing to be bred or to be discarded, or even to be experimented on, sold, or flushed down the sewer as medical waste.
This fails to restore natural sexual health and disrespects sanctity of the beginnings of life.
Thank you, Mrs.Don-o. Poetic truth.
Stinker, the principles of truth are clear. It’s up to the clear mind, unfettered by envy, lust and greed, to apply the eternal principles to the changing times and circumstances.
They always apply, when viewed with a clear mind and heart.
Bhagavad Gita 5.16
When, however, one is enlightened with the knowledge by which nescience is destroyed, then his knowledge reveals everything, as the sun lights up everything in the daytime.