- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Rep. Paul Ryan Co-Sponsored Anti-Abortion Bill With no Exceptions for Rape, Incest, Mother's Life
If GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney picked Rep. Paul Ryan for his vice president to woo the ultra-conservative vote, he certainly made the right choice.
Mother Jones reports that Rep. Ryan co-sponsored HR 212, the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which gives states the authority to ban all abortions, without any exceptions mentioned, such as the mother's life in danger, rape or incest.
The bill confirms that the fertilized egg would have "all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood."
Mother Jones reports the bill said:
(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and
(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Oh...my...God....is this a
Oh...my...God....is this a person that is seriously being considered a candidate? Is it a person people actually vote for? I am not American but I try to keep up and understand....but this is 50 years back in time in my country...he would be FORCED to step down!
What would be stopping the
What would be stopping the states from allowing for such language in their various laws under his bill?
Why is the political left so vehemently against expanding States' Rights as provided by the 10th Amendment?
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
There is this little case
There is this little case called "Roe v. Wade." States cannot override the constitution or ruling by SCOTUS. For example, states cannot violate any of the other amendments such as the second. Constitutionally protected rights either through direct literal enumeration or SCOTUS precedent apply to the federal government and the states. What would prevent southern states from ignoring other federal laws such as the 1964 civil rights act under your argument?
State's rights from the tenth amendment do not trump the supreme court.
If people want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, then either start a constitutional amendment OR pass a law that violates Roe v. Wade and bring it before SCOTUS.
I find it very hypocritical by Tea Party folks who toss around the tenth amendment as justification to restrict abortion in the name of "freedom." Really? What about the ninth amendment, which seems to be the forgotten amendment in this debate:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
It is certainly arguable that privacy, and by extension, control one's body, which is the justification behind Roe v. Wade, is also covered by the ninth amendment above and beyond the other arguments used to justify the ruling..
I noticed you didn't answer
I noticed you didn't answer either of my questions.
It is my opinion that Roe v. Wade was a faulty opinion on the grounds that it wholly ignores the right to life. The right to life should be the most protected right. Without it, all other rights are moot, wouldn't you agree?
THAT the right to life itself is paramount was what the (re)proposed law sought to affirm. Eventually, our society will realize the folly of Roe v. Wade's total disregard for human life and rethink abortion as a viable wedge issue/birth-control method. In the rare cases of rape, incest, or as a remedy to a real risk of life to the expectant mother, abortion is--and should be--an acceptable medical procedure.
As a vehicle for ginning-up votes; campaign donations; talking points; etc, abortion is ghastly. All abortion supporters should check their reasoning accordingly.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Actually, I answered both
Actually, I answered both your questions. You didn't like the answers.
First, states rights do not trump other rights. Abortion is a NATIONALLY protected right that states cannot pick and choose to enforce or protect. Consequently, both the federal law and any similar state law are dead on arrival.
Second, the same answer applies. States cannot overrule federal jurisdiction on established supreme court precedent. This being said, there is quite a bit of latitude in how abortion is regulated from state to state.
You can think Roe v. Wade is a flawed ruling, but it is has held up to multiple challenges. Short of amending the constitution itself, this is likely to remain as written.
I find it very hypocritical that you support "freedom" except when it comes to a woman's right to control her own body. Very sexist, very typical, and very disappointing.
Most abortions are first trimester, so your comments about it being ghastly reflect the false impression that late term abortions are common. In fact, late term abortions are infrequent. For most women, the fetus they abort is not viable under any circumstances. Whether the rights of the mother stand over the rights of the fetus is a purely religious point of view. Pro-choice does not mean "support abortion." It means not making a moral choice for someone else. The "right" answer is better education and access to birth control to reduce unintended pregnancy in the first place.
"Actually, I answered both
"Actually, I answered both your questions. You didn't like the answers."
Show me where you answered the questions, then. They were:
"What would be stopping the states from allowing for such language in their various laws under his bill?"
This means: what is preventing states from including rape, incest, life-preservation exceptions in their bills?
And
Why is the political left so vehemently against expanding States' Rights as provided by the 10th Amendment?
This means: why do folks like yourself choose to ignore the very valid argument that the unborn, being members of the human race, are systematically denied the right to life. That such a right is trumped by such specious arguments like: it is the woman's body (when clearly the infant is its own individual), and that you people spend so much time and energy defending such an imbalance or rights. I wanted to know why, but you failed to answer why, instead you offered the same tired argument, as if repeating it addressed the question.
The gist of this argument of yours is very similar to one championing slave-owners' 'rights' as trumping the individual slave's rights; or one championing a corporation's 'right' to mistreat their employees. It is pitiful that you are incapable of understanding this.
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
Ah... yes... the right wing
Ah... yes... the right wing canard that equates being pro-choice with being pro-slavery. Are going to point to Nazi death camps and communist purges next? How many flawed analogies can you consistently make?
Again, you are expressing your personal moral opinion. Rights are not equal, and they never have been. Children are under parental or government care until they are 18. Incompetent adults can lose control over their bodies forever, requiring medicine, etc. If you break the law, you lose rights. If you are drafted for the military, you can be ordered to die, (eg. "Storm that hill and target the machine gun nest over there"). You have equated the life of a fetus with the life of the mother. Others don't agree. This is the essence of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Your analogy with slavery breaks right here - the slave was an independent living person over the age of 18.
I do not support abortion. However, I recognize this as a personal moral choice that I do not have the right to impose on others. This is what makes me "pro-choice." My wife is pro-life, but since abortion has never even been a topic of discussion in our personal family decisions, it hasn't mattered.
In answer to your specific questions:
The tenth amendment does not trump the supreme court's rulings. I don't know how else to say this? What don't you understand?
Restricting abortion only to cases of rape and incest or when the life of the mother is at risk has already failed constitutional muster. Moving any law like this forward is a waste of time and money.
The only way to change this would be a right to life amendment. Go for it! Of course, Romney if elected could stack the court, so time will tell. The current court won't be changing anything.
How do you feel about birth control? Since methods like the IUD allow a zygote to form but prevent implantation, is that abortion? What about hormone methods which usually prevent ovulation? Hormonal controls do sometimes allow a zygote to form that cannot properly implant. Should birth control be legal? Isn't even a barrier method preventing a potential life from being formed? Griswold v. CT was the first case that recognized that the government does not have a role in regulating reproductive choices of legal consenting adults, and it formed the basis of the argument for Roe v. Wade.
Privacy is one of our most important rights.
What do you expect when
What do you expect when religion gets involved? People may think the younger generation, (I know I'm stupid so I'm not arguing my case) is dumb and feel entitled to everything, but most of us accept that the LGBT community has rights, and abortion is a choice, not something to be banned or forced, it's a choice between the mother and father if possible. I'm an Atheist and Humanist, used to be a for the lack of a better word, Christian.
I converted because I refuse to be associated with anything that spreads hate, intolerence and ignorance to things they can't understand or fear, that and what god can allow rape, murder and genocide to happen at all? Christianity is going down the road of Islam, and just like theres peaceful, respectful islamists, theres peaceful and respectful christians who really let the postive aspects of their religion shine.
It's the radicals, the extremists who pervert it to their own gains, who twist it beyond repair, and you know why I fear christianity over Islam the most? extremists are american born and raised, they can bring the ignorant, stupid and blindly loyal to their folds, people wouldn't vote in an islamic president, but when it comes to christianity or even catholism. That's a whole another story, Romney was a former or still a mormon, and he's by far the most likely to be the next POTUS, think about that one.
Such a bill is DOA as
Such a bill is DOA as unconstitutional.
Back to the Medieval era,
Back to the Medieval era, time for the believes to burn the non-believers at the stake, between Romney and Obama, we're screwed one way or another.