Paul bill gives unborn children constitutional rights

[Vigilante]

That would certainly have the SCOTUS going crazy, if passed...Perhaps with a President Trump?

WND ^ | 22 Jan 2016 | Jordain Carney
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights. The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals. Paul said the legislation "declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception." "Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way," he said. Paul's legislation is expected to be placed...

 

[aaronleland]

If Republicans are so worried about abortion then maybe they should support an actual conservative like Rand Paul. Nah. Would make too much sense. Go Trump!

 

[DarkFury]

If Republicans are so worried about abortion then maybe they should support an actual conservative like Rand Paul. Nah. Would make too much sense. Go Trump!

Conservatives put Paul in office. NEXT will be TRUMP!

 

[aaronleland]

If Republicans are so worried about abortion then maybe they should support an actual conservative like Rand Paul. Nah. Would make too much sense. Go Trump!

Conservatives put Paul in office. NEXT will be TRUMP!

Conservatives and Republicans who pretend to be conservatives put Paul in office. Now the fake conservatives will do anything they can to make sure Paul never wins the nomination, as they did with his father.

 

[Arianrhod]

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Human life is human life.

 

[Arianrhod]

Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

 

[S.J.]

I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".

 

[Arianrhod]

I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Miscarriages and stillborns are not willful acts. How stupid are you, anyway?

 

[Vigilante]

I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Apparently what happens NATURALLY, WITHOUT man's KILLING HAND involved is imprisonment material to your low IQ!

 

[S.J.]

I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

No, moron. It means butchers like Kermit Gosnell will be put out of business. Guess you'll have to find another way to erase your mistakes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That would certainly have the SCOTUS going crazy, if passed...Perhaps with a President Trump?

WND ^ | 22 Jan 2016 | Jordain Carney
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights. The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals. Paul said the legislation "declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception." "Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way," he said. Paul's legislation is expected to be placed...

Such is the ignorance and stupidity of Paul and others on the social right; their contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law comes as no surprise.

This 'legislation' would never pass, and appropriately so, it seeks only to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[Vigilante]

That would certainly have the SCOTUS going crazy, if passed...Perhaps with a President Trump?

WND ^ | 22 Jan 2016 | Jordain Carney
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights. The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals. Paul said the legislation "declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception." "Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way," he said. Paul's legislation is expected to be placed...

Such is the ignorance and stupidity of Paul and others on the social right; their contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law comes as no surprise.

This 'legislation' would never pass, and appropriately so, it seeks only to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Isn't it HARD to believe that this BLACK SHYSTER agrees with Abortion, after all the MILLIONS of BLACK BABIES PP has killed over the years! Makes one wonder just what kind of morals, ethics, and principles this lawyer brings to his clients... Oh, I forget, he IS A FUCKING LIAR FOR HIRE!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Human life is human life.

This fails as a red herring fallacy - the issue concerns when one becomes a person entitled to Constitutional protections according to the law:

'The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally."
[...]
In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

If Paul is going to introduce such legislation with the intent of it becoming law, it must conform with the Constitution and settled accepted law, which this proposed 'legislation' does not do.

Citizens are at liberty to decide for themselves when life begins, consistent with their own good faith and good conscience, absent unwarranted interference from the state, their right to do so safeguarded by the Constitution.

Likewise, a woman's right to privacy is immune from attack by the state, where government cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law.

 

[Arianrhod]

Human life is human life.

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

Miscarriages and stillborns are not willful acts. How stupid are you, anyway?

I'm not the one imprisoning women in El Salvador.

 

[Arianrhod]

I hope it becomes law. The unborn have suffered long enough under the tyranny of "women's rights".

So will he be imprisoning women who have miscarriages or stillborns like they do in El Salvador?

No, moron. It means butchers like Kermit Gosnell will be put out of business. Guess you'll have to find another way to erase your mistakes.

What are you talking about?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Paul bill gives unborn children constitutional rights"

Nonsense.

No one can 'give' anyone his rights – the right to privacy, as is the case with our other rights, are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Indeed, Paul seeks to violate the privacy rights of women, give more power to government, in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Arianrhod]

Will there be exceptions for anchor babies?

 

[Vigilante]

"Paul bill gives unborn children constitutional rights"

Nonsense.

No one can 'give' anyone his rights – the right to privacy, as is the case with our other rights, are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Indeed, Paul seeks to violate the privacy rights of women, give more power to government, in violation of the Constitution.