Rand Paul

wants to pass a Life at Conception Act to “end abortion on demand once and for all.”

Senator Paul, R-KY, recently recorded a message for the National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA), talking about the legislation, which would declare unborn babies legal persons from the moment of conception and give them Constitutional protections.

The senator says Congress can legislatively overturn the Supreme Court‘s Roe v. Wade decision by passing a “personhood” law called the Life at Conception Act.

The law would establish that human life begins at conception, and extend 14th Amendment protection to babies in the womb.

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the 1973 ruling that if a fetus can be defined as a person, the “right” to abortion “collapses, for the fetus’s right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

U.S. law does not currently define an unborn child as a legal person.

Senator Paul, who has a medical degree, says in the message that science and biology confirm that life begins at conception.

In the message, Paul slams Roe v. Wade, which he says, “played God with innocent human life” and “invented laws that condemned more than 56 million babies to painful deaths without trial.”

Some of my readers may remember this lunatic and his mad father.  They are actually serious about confronting the evil of abortion.  So the GOP–with a chutzpah you have to admire for sheer brass–got their rank and file prolifers to *condemn* them for “only” wanting to overturn Roe and send abortion back to the states.  You may say, “But I thought prolifers have wanted to overturn Roe for years?”  Yes.  That’s right.  It was a standard goal since the late 70s.  But when the GOP needed a way to convince people to vote for the duplicitous pro-abort cynic Mitt Romney, they suddenly spread abroad the meme that what had hitherto been a feature (“Wants to overturn Roe”) had suddenly became a bug (“Only wants to send the matter back to the States!  Ron Paul is pro-choice if a state keeps abortion legal!”).  It was a disgusting trick, but prolifers fell for it and wound up denouncing one of the few serious prolife voices in the GOP while damning to hell voters who would not buy a man who supported abortion “for the health of the mother” (i.e “always and for any reason”).

Happily, Romney is now gone and Rand Paul is still here–doing the right (albeit quixotic) thing and trying to pass a Life at Conception bill.  I doubt it has a snowflake’s chance in hell.  But it’s still the right thing to do.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

    There’s one descriptor that’s missing from both Pauls in this article, libertarian. That’s part of their worldview as well.

  • Robert

    What are you talking about, Mark? Romney was also running on the idea of overturning Roe v Wade. In fact, many conservatives faulted him for not being for more than that, as well. Also, as TMLutas says, the Pauls are very libertarian, which you supposedly also oppose. It seems to me that your anti-GOP rant is just that…rant. There is a lot about the GOP that I don’t agree with, but I don’t get some of your unbalanced posts. In fact, Rand Paul supported Romney. I give him credit for that. Even Ron Paul’s son realized that it makes sense to pick the best available, electable option. :p

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      “some of your unbalanced posts”

      That’s the word I was looking for. When I read this I thought ‘wait a minute.’ Granted there is something to say for that bold, Quixotic plan to take a stand you know is guaranteed to fail. And if I assume the ‘GOP’ is always wrong, stupid and evil all the time, I’m free to interpret everything any member of the GOP does in the worst conceivable light. But it could be maybe, just maybe, there might be a couple non-Paul Republicans who really believe that the best way to save as many unborn as possible is to fight battle by battle, even if it means limiting some abortions now, and trying for others later.

    • http://znfrey.com/blog/ Zach Frey

      “most electable”? Yeah, how’d that work out?

      • John C

        Yes, “most electable”. Do you think Paul, Perry or Cain would have done any better?

        • Steve

          If Romney was the “most electable” that the republican party could muster, especially under these deplorable conditions that should have guaranteed defeat for Obama, then all we have left is Quixotic plans. The “victory is most important consideration” and “vote republican because the alternative is worse” theories have only given us what is worse. I don’t know if Rand Paul can win an election, but we all know that the pantywaist republicans that they’ve been offering can’t. I’m done voting for them.

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            “If Romney was the “most electable” that the republican party could muster, especially under these deplorable conditions that should have guaranteed defeat for Obama, then all we have left is Quixotic plans.”

            Exactly. I’m not convinced Ron Paul couldn’t have done at least as well as Romney. All of the polls done when all main candidates were still in the race showed Paul doing as well as Romney and better than Santorum and Newt. When Paul’s ideas got a wider hearing, I think he may have well won. But regardless, we know that guys like Dole, McCain, and Romney can’t win. Might as well try something different (if one is sane, that is – but see, the GOP doesn’t really want to win, unless it’s someone they can comfortably control – which means generic candidates who usually lose)

            • http://backoftheworld.com Ryan M.

              “When Paul’s ideas got a wider hearing, I think he may have well won.”

              This is anecdotal, but I live in Massachusetts–and I know an awful lot of young-ish Lefty intellectuals that said that if the choice was between Paul and Obama, they would have gone with Paul, based solely on his foreign policy… it turns out a lot of them are pretty disgusted with the drone strike nonsense…

              Are there enough of those types around to have swung this past election the other way? I doubt it, but it is one of those things that make you say “hmm…”

              • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                “Are there enough of those types around to have swung this past election the other way?”

                When you consider that Paul’s support among Republicans was at least 10% or higher, and that at least half of those supporters did not vote for Romney, there’s an extra 2% of the electorate right there. And I also knew some Obama supporters who told me they’d vote for Paul over Obama. Then again, a few Romney supporters probably wouldn’t have supported Paul. My guess is, though, that just simply by being serious about the national debt and serious about curtailing unnecessary military adventures, he would have won the election. We’ll never know…but it sure would have been nice to find out.

  • Salvatore Spatafore

    I think Rick Santorum would have done better

  • ivan_the_mad

    I hope that his effort bears much good fruit.

  • Obpoet

    This points to the problem. Even the best intentioned lawmaker will fail at this attempt. It will always circle back to the SCOTUS. Want to end abortion? Change the court.

    • John H.

      SCOTUS can’t overturn an amendment. They amend the Constitution. SCOTUS must legislate based on Constitutional precedent. SCOTUS has already ruled on life at conception, and they basically said, “I don’t know. There’s not precedent. Let congress define when it begins, then we’ll legislate accordingly.” Rand Paul is doing exactly what needs to be done to “overturn” Roe v. Wade. The only thing that can trump an amendment is another amendment. Once an amendment is enacted, it’s the law of the land.

  • Robert

    “Most electable” as in the general election. :p

    It was Romney or Obama…or the various other third party and write-ins. How did they do? Rand Paul supported Romney. Regardless, the election is old news.

  • Paulus Magnus

    No offense, but why get all “Oh joy, oh rapture!” over a bill that’s introduced with absolutely no chance of passing? All it accomplishes is polishing a couple of pro-life credentials and having people ignore the sheer nuttery of many of his other positions, many of which are antithetical to Catholic teaching.

    • Mark Shea

      I’m not sure where you are seeing “rapture”. Simply acknowledgement that it’s the right thing to resist the abortion regime. This guy didn’t accomplish much either. But some of us still think he did the right thing.

  • http://ohnimus.wordpress.com Christian Ohnimus

    Meanwhile, the establishment GOP from McCain to Romney to Boehner wants to drop social issues like abortion and focus on what really matters: “the economy” (corporate welfare) and “national security” (unjust war abroad and a police state at home). Because abortion is just one of those peripheral issues that doesn’t really matter.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mccain-to-pro-lifers-state-your-position-then-leave-the-issue-alone

    Once again, the Pauls prove themselves to be the ones truly in line with conservative and Christian values while the Republican establishment throws principle out the window for the short-sighted goal of “electability”. All they’ll get is irrelevancy.

  • tz

    Strange how the Church’s insistence on immigrants who have been here a while – which is 100% in agreement with Ron Paul – was added to the “religious freedom” list very late, after he could not have won the nomination.

    Ron Paul sponsored the “Sanctity of Life Act”. RTL is RNC. We had a GOP HR, Senate, and WH, but they didn’t want that either.

  • Obpoet

    But this effort will die even before it’s born. How ironic. The only viable solution is via SCOTUS. Why look elsewhere? How did the last election further the prolife movement? I’d say it took a #10 curved currette to the cranium.

  • Chris-KABA

    it shouldn’t have been a “doomed effort” any of the times Ron Paul introduced the same thing, when the “pro-life” GOP had majority control of every branch of government…

    But it was ignored ….

    Much of the GOP things they should remove the entire abortion issue from their plank. I agree.

    Maybe then, people who think it’s an important issue would finally get the guts to get off the TOP reservation.

  • Obpoet

    Important issue or not, it has long ceased to be a legislative issue. It is now a judicial issue (as well as the moral issue it has always been). It is time to leave congress, the GOP, the Democrats, and start barking up the judicial branch if the issue matters to you. Stop with the nonsense about elected officials, save one, the President. He nominates the justices.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X