Home Page

Contents

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul abortion Book of Ron Paul abortion State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:88 Public relation debates. Oftentimes the big debates in Congress are more public relation efforts than debates on real issues. This is certainly true when it comes to preventing foreign aid funds from being used by any organization for abortions. I agree with and vote for all attempts to curtail the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds for abortion within or outside the United States. But many in the pro-life movement are not interested in just denying all birth control, population control and abortion money to everyone, and avoid the very controversial effort to impose our will on other nations. Believing money allocated to any organization or country is not fungible is naive, to say the least. The biggest problem is that many who are sincerely right to life and believe the Mexico City language restriction on foreign aid will work are also philosophic believers in internationalism, both social and military. abortion State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:89 The politics of it has allowed temporary withholding of IMF and U.N. funds in order to pressure the President into accepting the restrictive abortion language. Withholding these funds from the United Nations and the IMF in this case has nothing to do with the criticism of the philosophy behind the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and why the international government agencies are tax burdens on the American people. abortion State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:90 It is conceded by the majority on both sides of this debate that the U.N., the IMF, the development banks and even the funds for population control are legitimate expenditures and eventually will be funded. The question is only whether or not a public relations victory can be achieved by the radical pro-abortion supporters of the President’s or the pro-life supporters. abortion State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:91 We have at least started to debate the merits of any money at all going to population control, the United Nations or the IMF. This is where the debate should be. Even though the restrictions that the Mexico City language might place on foreign expenditures probably will not change the number of abortions around the world, the vote itself does reflect, through Congress, the sentiment of the American people, and therefore, its importance cannot be denied. But I am convinced that if the American people had the option of whether or not to send any money at all, they would reject all the funding, making the restriction debate moot. abortion State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:92 Most would agree with the fungibility argument, even when funds are sent for reasons other than family planning and abortion like military assistance. The amazing thing is how important the debate can appear by threatening to withhold greatly sought after IMF funds for an argument that does not get to the heart of the issue. What should be debated is whether or not Congress has the moral and Constitutional authority to use force to take funds from American citizens for social engineering around the world, much of which results in resentment toward America. abortion State Of The Republic 28 January 1998    1998 Ron Paul 2:93 The weak and ineffective conditions placed on foreign aid money to prevent abortions is hardly a legitimate reason for continuing the illegal funding in the first place. At times, in efforts to get more swing votes to endorse Mexico City language, some pro-life forces not only will not challenge the principle of our funding for birth control and population control overseas, but believe in increasing the appropriation for the program. If the Constitutionists cannot change the nature of the debate, we will never win these arguments. abortion Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:2 MEXICO CITY POLICY DETAILED The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for certain abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because, by itself, its effect tends to be positive rather than negative, as I say, I consider it largely ineffective. abortion Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:4 In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy requires more creative accounting, it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, prohibit funding of many abortions. abortion Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:6 LINKING THESE TWO ISSUES We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy language. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all. abortion Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998 26 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 28:8 THE SO-CALLED “BARGAIN” The so-called bargain here is maintaining the flawed Mexico City language in exchange for paying the alleged back-dues to the United Nations. But this, from a true conservative standpoint, is a double negative. In a world of so-called give-and-take, this is a double-take. This is no bargain at all. Obviously, the Mexico City policy is riddled with fungibility holes in the first place. Moreover, it is morally repugnant to undermine our nation’s integrity by trading votes in this fashion. Worse still, it is now apparent how willing “some” members have become to water the Mexico City Policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Even the abortion restrictive language has been diluted to state that “the President could waive the restriction on funding groups that perform or promote abortion, but such a waiver would automatically reduce total U.S. funding for family planning activities to $356 million, 11% less then current appropriations. In other words, Abortion is A-O-K if done with 11% fewer taxpayer dollars. Now that’s not worth compromising principle. abortion Unfortunate Passage Of Foreign Affairs Conference Report 27 March 1998    1998 Ron Paul 29:3 It was argued by many right-to-life advocates that the bill was worth passing because the antiabortion language was stronger than ever and would now be codified. Unfortunately, the antiabortion language was weaker than ever with a convenient, huge loophole for the President to continue funding countries and groups that perform and promote abortion, language now to be codified. abortion Child Custody Protection Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:2 Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, because it is seriously flawed. Although well motivated, the problem we are dealing with is the breakdown of the American family, respect for life and abortion, not too much freedom to travel between States. abortion Child Custody Protection Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:3 Having delivered nearly 4,000 babies in my three decades of medical practice and having seen the destructiveness of abortion, I strongly agree that legalized abortion is the most egregious of all current social policies. It clearly symbolizes the moral decline America has experienced in the last 30 years. abortion Child Custody Protection Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:4 However, Federal law restricting interstate travel, no matter how well intended, will serve no useful purpose, will not prevent abortions, and, indeed, will have many unintended consequences. abortion Child Custody Protection Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:7 Most importantly, this bill fails to directly address the cause of the problem we face regarding abortion, which is the absurdity of our laws permitting the killing of an infant 1 minute before birth, or even during birth, and a doctor getting paid for it, while calling this same action murder 1 minute after birth. abortion Child Custody Protection Act 15 July 1998    1998 Ron Paul 77:10 Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not. abortion Closer To Empire 25 March 1999    1999 Ron Paul 24:12 And what of communist China? Not only do they steal our secrets, but they violate their own citizens. Who should be more upset, for example, about forced abortion? Is it those who proclaim the inviolable right to life or those who argue for so-called reproductive rights? Even these polar opposites recognize the crimes of the Chinese government in forced abortion. Should we then stop this oppression of millions? Are we committed to lob missiles at this massive nation until it ceases this program? abortion Child Custody Protection Act 30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortions and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes. abortion Child Custody Protection Act 30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:2 As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the Constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps states’ rights by creating yet another federal crime. abortion Child Custody Protection Act 30 June 1999    1999 Ron Paul 69:4 Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children?? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes?? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions?? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not. abortion H.R. 1691 And Religious Freedom 15 July 1999    1999 Ron Paul 74:6 If one admires the Federal government’s handling of the abortion question, one will have to wait with even greater anticipation to witness the Federal government’s handiwork with respect to religious liberty. abortion Population Control 2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:2 Mr. Chairman, the amendment is straightforward. It prohibits the use of any money for population control, family planning, or abortion of any funds authorized in this bill, appropriated in this bill. abortion Population Control 2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:3 Mr. Chairman, the question really is this: Should the American taxpayer be required to pay for birth control pills, IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, condom distribution, as well as abortion in foreign countries. Those who believe this is a proper and legitimate function will vote against the amendment. Those who believe that it is not a proper function for us to be doing these things around the world would vote for my amendment. abortion Population Control 2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 84:4 Mr. Chairman, I mention abortion because although this bill does not authorize funds directly for abortion, any birth control center that is involved that receives funds from us and are involved with abortion, all they do is shift the funds. All funds are fungible, so any country that we give money to that is involved with abortion, for whatever reason, or especially in a family planning clinic, can very easily shift those funds and perform abortions. So this is very, very clear-cut. abortion Fungible Birth Control Funds 2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 85:2 Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point that we should not use the abortion issue to talk about fungibility and I believe that she is correct. I think it should apply to everything. abortion Fungible Birth Control Funds 2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 85:3 This is the reason I do strongly oppose Export-Import Bank money going to Red China. Their violations of civil liberties and abortions are good reasons why we should not do it, and yet they are the greatest recipient of our foreign aid from the Exim Bank. $5.9 billion they have received over the years. abortion Fungible Birth Control Funds 2 August 1999    1999 Ron Paul 85:7 And my colleagues say we want to stop the killing and abortions, but every time that the abortion is done with fungible funds, it is killing a human being, an innocent human being. So for very real reasons, if we were serious about stopping this and protecting the American taxpayer, there is nothing wrong with some of these goals. I agree. As a gynecologist, I would agree with the goals, but they should not be done through coercion. They should be done through voluntary means through churches and charities. That is the way it should be done. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, pro-life Members of Congress are ecstatic over the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, touting it as a good step toward restoring respect for life, and once again criminalizing abortion. This optimism and current effort must be seriously challenged. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:2 As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I strongly condemn the events of the last third of the 20th century in which we have seen the casual acceptance of abortion on demand. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:4 The Roe v. Wade ruling will in time prove to be the most significantly flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. Not only for its codification, through an unconstitutional court action, of a social consensus that glorified promiscuity and abortion of convenience and for birth control, but for flaunting as well the constitutional system that requires laws of this sort be left to the prerogative of the states alone. A single “Roe v. Wade” ruling by one state would be far less harmful than a Supreme Court ruling that nullifies all state laws protecting the unborn. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:9 By protecting the abortionist, this legislation carves out a niche in the law that further ingrains in the system the notion that the willful killing of an innocent human being is not deserving of our attention. With more than a million children a year dying at the hands of abortionists, it is unwise that we ignore these acts for the sake of political expediency. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:10 Pro-abortion opponents of this legislation are needlessly concerned regarding its long-term meaning, and supporters are naively hoping that unintended consequences will not occur. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:12 Although this legislation is motivated by the best of intentions of those who strongly defend the inalienable rights of the unborn, it is seriously flawed, and will not achieve its intended purpose. For that reason I shall vote against the bill and for the sanctity of life and the rights of the states, and against the selected protection of abortionists. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 30 September 1999    1999 Ron Paul 102:17 However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe versus Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of states and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not a federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (The bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status.) It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others. abortion Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) 27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 111:3 I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that. abortion Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) 27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 111:12 Being strongly pro-life, I’m convinced that the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 is one of the worst, if not the worst, Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. It has been this institutionalizing into our legal system the lack of respect for life and liberty that has and will continue to play havoc with liberty and life until it is changed. It has been said by many since the early 1970s that any legalization of abortion would put us on a slippery slope to euthanasia. I agree with this assessment. abortion Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260) 27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 111:13 However, I believe that if we are not careful in our attempt to clarify this situation we also could participate in a slippery slope unbeknownst to us and just as dangerous. Roe vs. Wade essentially has nationalized an issue that should have been handled strictly by the states. Its repeal of a Texas State law set the stage for the wholesale of millions of innocent unborn. And yet, we once again are embarking on more nationalization of law that will in time backfire. Although the intention of H.R. 2260 is to repeal the Oregon law and make a statement against euthanasia it may well just do the opposite. If the nationalization of law dealing with abortion was designed to repeal state laws that protected life there is nothing to say that once we further establish this principle that the federal government, either the Congress or the Federal Courts, will be used to repeal the very laws that exist in 49 other states than Oregon that prohibit euthanasia. As bad as it is to tolerate an unsound state law, it’s even worse to introduce the notion that our federal congresses and our federal courts have the wisdom to tell all the states how to achieve the goals of protecting life and liberty. abortion Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. 27 October 1999    1999 Ron Paul 112:7 I am pro-life. I am against abortion. I am absolutely opposed to euthanasis. But euthanasis is killing. Under our Constitution, that is a State issue, not a congressional issue. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:19 Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds, if not for thousands, of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:20 Since 1973, abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American rejection of abortion at the beginning of the century compared to today’s casual acceptance is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal, living entity, deserving protection of the law. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:21 Ironically, the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad. This loss of respect for human life in the latter half of the 20th century has yet to have its full impact on our society. Without a deep concern for life and with the casual disposing of living human fetuses, respect for liberty is greatly diminished. This has allowed a subtle but real justification for those who commit violent acts against fellow human beings. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:22 It should surprise no one that a teenager delivering a term newborn is capable of throwing the child away in a garbage dumpster. The new mother in this circumstance is acting consistently, knowing that if an abortion is done just before a delivery, it is legally justified and the abortionist is paid to kill the child. Sale of fetal parts to tax-supported institutions is now an accepted practice. This moral dilemma that our society has encountered over the past 40 years, if not resolved in the favor of life, will make it impossible for a system of laws to protect the life and liberty of any citizen. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:23 We can expect senseless violence to continue as the sense of worth is undermined. Children know that mothers and sisters, when distraught, have abortions to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Distraught teenagers in coping with this behavior are now prone to use violence against others or themselves when provoked or confused. This tendency is made worse because they see in this age of abortion their own lives as having less value, thus destroying self-esteem. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:24 The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to protect life, not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers’ funds to pay for abortions domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue to plague us well into the 21st century. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:25 A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with Government sanctions and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe v. Wade justified abortion using the privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:28 Roe v. Wade federalized State abortion laws and ushered in the age of abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if passed into law, will do great harm by explicitly excluding the abortionist, thus codifying for the first time the Roe v. Wade concept and giving even greater legal protection to the abortionist. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:29 The responsibility of Congress is twofold: first, we should never fund abortions. Nothing could be more heinous than forcing those with strong rightto- life beliefs to pay for abortions. abortion A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2 2 February 2000    2000 Ron Paul 5:74 With the acceptance of abortion, our standards for life have become totally arbitrary as they have become for liberty. Endorsing the arbitrary use of force by our government morally justifies the direct use of force by disgruntled groups not satisfied with the slower government process. The standards for honesty and truth have certainly deteriorated during the past 100 years. abortion THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT February 16, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 9:1 Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act. This bill would, in accordance with Article 3, Section 2 of our United States Constitution, prohibit federal courts (exclusive of the US Supreme Court) from hearing cases relative to partial birth abortion. abortion THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT February 16, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 9:2 One of the most egregious portions of the Roe v. Wade decision is that the ruling in that case served to substitute the opinions of unelected judges for those of state representatives when it comes to making abortion law. By doing this, judges have not merely taken on the role of legislators, they have also thrust the federal apparatus into an area that the founding fathers specifically and exclusively entrusted to state entities. Unfortunately, this aspect of Roe v. Wade has not received the attention that less critical portions of the decision have received. abortion THE PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION AND JUDICIAL LIMITATION ACT February 16, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 9:3 The legislation I am introducing today is aimed at moving us toward correcting the federal judicial usurpation of constitutionally-identified state authority. This legislation is needed now more than ever as certain “lower federal courts” have taken it upon themselves to continue the error-ridden ways of Roe v. Wade by overturning legitimate state restrictions on partial birth abortion. abortion PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000 April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:1 Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion has significantly contributed to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. abortion PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000 April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:2 As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I can assure my colleagues that the partial-birth abortion procedure is the most egregious legally permitted act known to man. Decaying social and moral attitudes decades ago set the stage for the accommodated Roe vs. Wade ruling that nationalizes all laws dealing with abortion. The fallacious privacy argument the Supreme Court used must some day be exposed for the fraud that it is. abortion PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000 April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:4 The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that would refuse to deal with the issues of violence, recognizing that for all such acts the Constitution defers to the States. It is constitutionally permitted to limit Federal courts jurisdiction in particular issues. Congress should do precisely that with regard to abortion. It would be a big help in returning this issue to the States. abortion PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000 April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:5 H.R. 3660, unfortunately, takes a different approach, and one that is constitutionally flawed. Although H.R. 3660 is poorly written, it does serve as a vehicle to condemn the 1973 Supreme Court usurpation of State law that has legalized the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure. abortion PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000 April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:6 Never in the Founders’ wildest dreams would they have believed that one day the interstate commerce clause, written to permit free trade among the States, would be used to curtail an act that was entirely under State jurisdiction. There is no interstate activity in an abortion. If there were, that activity would not be prohibited but, rather, protected by the original intent of the interstate commerce clause. abortion PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000 April 5, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 26:8 We should be more serious and cautious when writing Federal law, even when seeking praise-worthy goals. H.R. 3660 could have been written more narrowly, within constitutional constraints, while emphasizing State responsibility, and still serve as an instrument for condemning the wicked partial-birth abortion procedure. abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:2 At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert the following: TITLE VII — ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:9 (3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:10 (4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control. (b) Additional Limitation : None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to any organization which promotes or makes available– abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:16 (3) abortion and abortion-related procedures; or (4) efforts to change any nation’s laws regarding abortion, family planning, or population control. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 12, 2000, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul ) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes. Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:18 Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes all the funding for international population control, birth control, abortion, and family planning. This is not an authorized constitutional expenditure. It should not be spent in this manner. abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:19 More importantly, in a practical way, it addresses the problem of fungibility. Because so often we appropriate funds, whether it is funding for family planning with restrictions against abortion or whether we give economic aid or whether we give military aid. All funds are fungible. abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:20 So, in a very serious way, we subsidize and support abortion to any country that participates once we send them funds. This amendment addresses that by striking all these funds which are allocated for population control. abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:21 Population control and birth control in many of these nations is a serious personal affront to many of their social mores in these countries. Also, it is an affront to the American taxpayer because it requires that American taxpayers be forced through their taxing system to subsidize something they consider an egregious procedure. That is abortion. These funds go to paying for IUDs, Depo-Provera, Norplant, spermicides, condoms. abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:24 The Mexico City language is something I support and I vote for, and the attempt is very sincere to try to stop the abuse of the way these funds are used. But quite frankly the Mexico City language does not do a whole lot. If the President wants to suspend that language, he can and he takes a penalty of $12 million, a 3 percent reduction in the amount of money that becomes available for these programs. It goes from $385 million down to $373 million and the President can do what he wants. So there is really no prohibition. We as American taxpayers do support these programs. You say, Oh, no, they don’t. We put prohibitions. They’re not allowed to use it for abortion. abortion LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR ABORTION, FAMILY PLANNING, OR POPULATION CONTROL EFFORTS July 13, 2000    2000 Ron Paul 64:25 That is not true. I mean, the language is true; but it does not accomplish that. What it accomplishes is that these funds go in for buying birth control pills and condoms, and the money that would have been spent on birth control pills and condoms go and is used to do the abortion. I believe in the fungibility argument in its entirety, not just in the family planning. As soon as you give funds in any way whatsoever to a country such as China that endorses abortion, I mean, we are participants, we are morally bound to say that we are a participant in those acts. Even though we say, I hope you don’t do it and you shouldn’t do it and we’re not authorizing you to do it, we have to remember that funds are fungible and that they can be used in this manner. abortion Honoring The Success Of Catholic Schools 6 February 2001    2001 Ron Paul 6:6 Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to preform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding. abortion CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:115 The most dramatic change in 20th Century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legalization nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. The federal courts should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayer funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and the pro-abortion forces is far from over. If government were used only to preserve life, rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not be nearly so rancorous. abortion CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:116 Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choice are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly. abortion CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:117 Issues like abortion and euthanasia don’t disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such acts, the state is responsible for protecting life, rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for government than we currently have. abortion CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC — February 07, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 7:118 We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time, as long as government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatizes the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the states and without the federal courts or US Congress involvement. abortion POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:49 The most dramatic change in the 20th century social attitudes was the acceptance of abortion. This resulted from a change in personal morality that then led to legislation nationally through the courts and only occurred by perverting our constitutional system of government. abortion POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:50 The Federal costs should never have been involved, but the Congress compounded the problem by using taxpayers’ funds to perform abortions both here and overseas. Confrontation between the pro-life and pro-abortion forces is far from over. If governments were used only to preserve life rather than act as an accomplice in the taking of life, this conflict would not nearly be so rancorous. abortion POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:51 Once a society and a system of laws deny the importance of life, privacy and personal choices are difficult to protect. Since abortions have become commonplace, it has been easier to move the issue of active euthanasia to center stage. As Government budgets become more compromised, economic arguments will surely be used to justify reasonable savings by not wasting vital resources on the elderly. abortion POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:52 Issues like abortion and euthanasia do not disappear in a free society but are handled quite differently. Instead of condoning or paying for such act, the State is responsible for protecting life rather than participating in taking it. This is quite a different role for Government than we currently have. abortion POTENTIAL FOR WAR February 08, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 10:53 We can expect the pro-life and pro-abortion and euthanasia groups to become more vocal and confrontational in time as long as Government is used to commit acts that a large number of people find abhorrent. Partial-birth abortion dramatize the issue at hand and clearly demonstrates how close we are to legalizing infanticide. This problem should be dealt with by the States and without the Federal courts or the U.S. Congress involvement. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 26 April 2001    2001 Ron Paul 29:5 However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision (the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against). By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn (as is the case with this legislation), Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill (which implies knowledge) on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. (With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause.) It is becoming more and more difficult for congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a non-person in others. abortion AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:10 There are hundreds of millions of dollars here for population control around the world. Some would say, well, as long as we write some little sentence in here and say “please do not use any of the money for abortion,” that will alleviate their conscience about sending tax dollars over to do abortions in places like China and other places in the world. Well, that does not work, because all funds are fungible. Funds can be shifted around. If we send the money, it can be used. If we specifically say “do not use them,” they can just shift the funds around, so I see that as not being a very good idea. abortion AMERICA NOT GETTING FAIR SHAKE FROM UNITED NATIONS — May 10, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 31:11 I would like to strike all the funds for population control. If we feel compelled to help other countries and teach them about birth control, it should be done voluntarily and through missionary work or some other way, but not to tax the American people and force them to subsidize events like abortion. abortion H.R. 1646 10 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 32:5 I would like to have struck from the bill all the money for population control. I will support the Mexican City language, but it really does not do that much. All funds are fungible, and if we provide hundreds of millions of dollars for population control and say please do not use it for abortion, it is just shifting some funds around. So there is no real prohibition on the use of American taxpayers’ money for abortion if we do not strike all of these funds. abortion 16 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 35:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hyde amendment. I do not think it is the strongest amendment that we could have, because ultimately, this debate will not end until we stop the Federal funding or taxpayer funding of population control overseas. But nevertheless, a vote for this amendment is a strong statement in opposition to tax-supported abortion. abortion 16 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 35:3 But let me tell my colleagues, this gag rule argument is a red herring if I have ever seen one. This has nothing to do with the first amendment. This would be like arguing that if we had a prohibition in this bill against passing out guns to civilians in some foreign nation, we would say, we cannot have a prohibition on that because of the second amendment, defending the right to own guns. It would be nonsense. So this has nothing to do with the first amendment; but it does have something to do with the rights of U.S. citizens, Mr. Chairman, in forcibly taking funds through taxes from people who believe strongly against abortion their rights are violated. abortion 16 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 35:4 Someone mentioned earlier that this was a violation of the religious beliefs of people overseas. What about the religious beliefs of the people in this country who are at the point of a gun forced to pay for these abortions? That is where the real violation is. It is not an infraction on the first amendment. abortion 16 May 2001    2001 Ron Paul 35:5 As a matter of fact, I think this is a bad choice and bad tactics for those who support abortion, because this is like rubbing our nose into it when the people who feel so strongly against abortion are forced to pay for abortion, to pay for the propaganda and to pay for the lobbying to promote abortion. Ultimately, the solution will only come when we defund overseas population control. abortion Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning July 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 68:11 The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant. abortion Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning July 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 68:12 The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized. abortion Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning July 31, 2001    2001 Ron Paul 68:16 There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish? abortion Resolution Violates Spirit Of Establishment Clause 29 January 2002    2002 Ron Paul 2:6 Allowing Congress to single out certain religions for honors not only insults those citizens whose faith is not recognized by Congress, it also threatens the religious liberty of those honored by Congress. This is because when the federal government begins evaluating religious institutions, some religious institutions may be tempted to modify certain of their teachings in order to curry favor with political leaders. I will concede that religious institutions may not water down their faith in order to secure passage of “Sense of Congress resolutions,” however, the belief that it is proper to judge religious institutions by how effectively they fulfill secular objectives is at the root of the proposals to entangle the federal government with state-approved religions by providing taxpayer dollars to religious organizations in order to perform various social services. Providing taxpayer money to churches creates the very real risk that a church may, for example, feel the need to downplay its teaching against abortion or euthanasia in order to maintain favor with a future pro-abortion administration and thus not lose its federal funding. abortion Statement on the International Criminal Court February 28, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 13:4 Pro-life groups in America have already expressed concern that the Court’s claimed jurisdiction over “enforced pregnancy” could make it criminal for groups to work to restrict access to abortions- or even reduce government funding of abortions. The pro-ICC Woman’s Caucus for Gender Justice has already stated that countries’ domestic laws may need to be changed to conform to ICC Statutes. Former Assistant to the US Solicitor General, Dr. Richard Wilkins, said recently that the ICC could eventually be used to try “the Pope and other religious leaders,” because issues such as abortion and homosexuality would ultimately fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. abortion H.R. 476 17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes. abortion H.R. 476 17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:2 As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states’ rights, this bill usurps states’ rights by creating yet another federal crime. abortion H.R. 476 17 April 2002    2002 Ron Paul 23:4 Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18, Untied States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State line to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not. abortion The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:1 Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious social-political problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. abortion The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:3 The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade. abortion The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:4 Unfortunately, H.R. 4965 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language and reasoning used in this bill do not further the pro-life cause, but rather cement fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. abortion The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:5 For example, 14G in the "Findings" section of this bill states, "...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide..." The question I wish to pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet of the pro-life community? By stating that we are drawing a "bright line" between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we are simply reinforcing the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are "expendable," and which are not. abortion The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion July 24, 2002    2002 Ron Paul 75:9 I wish to conclude with a quote from Mother Theresa, who gave a beautiful and powerful speech about abortion on February 3, 1994, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC: "...From here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak- the unborn child- must go out to the world. If you (in the United States) become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for..." abortion Stem Cell research 27 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 26:10 The idea that the taxpayer must fund controversial decisions, whether it be stem cell research, or performing abortion overseas, I find repugnant. The original concept of the republic was much more suited to sort out the pros and cons of such a difficult issue. It did so with the issue of capital punishment. It did so, until 1973, with the issue of abortion. As with many other issues it has done the same but now unfortunately, most difficult problems are nationalized. abortion Stem Cell research 27 February 2003    2003 Ron Paul 26:13 There are some medical questions not yet resolved and careless legislation may impede legitimate research and use of fetal tissue. For instance, should a spontaneously aborted fetus, non-viable, not be used for stem cell research or organ transplant? Should a live fetus from an ectopic pregnancy removed and generally discarded not be used in research? How is a spontaneous abortion of an embryo or fetus different from an embryo conceived in a dish? abortion No Federal Funding for Abortion! April 2, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 42:1 Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce three bills relating to abortion. First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent. abortion No Federal Funding for Abortion! April 2, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 42:2 Second, I rise to introduce the Partial-birth Abortion Funding Ban Act of 2003. This bill prohibits federal officials from paying any federal funds to any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. The taxpayer must not be forced to fund this barbaric procedure. abortion No Federal Funding for Abortion! April 2, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 42:3 Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not have the authority to hear these types of cases. abortion Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS 1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 54:3 Bills like the one we are considering today also force Americans to fund programs and organizations that many find morally objectionable, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortion. While some amendments we are voting on today admirably seek to address some of these concerns, the fact remains that this bill even if amended unconstitutionally sends U.S. taxpayer money overseas and inappropriately engages in social engineering abroad. None of the amendments address the immorality of forcing Americans to fund organizations engaged in family planning, performing abortions, and distributing condoms. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas be disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” That is why I have introduced H.R. 1548, a bill to prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. What we are seeing today on the floor just underscores the need to pass H.R. 1548 — to end this tyrannical and sinful practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs they believe to be immoral and evil. abortion Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS 1 May 2003    2003 Ron Paul 54:4 Mr. Chairman, at a time when the government is running record deficits, is engaged in an enormously expensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, and is even cutting veterans benefits, I find it extremely irresponsible that we are discussing sending additional billions overseas in yet another dubious program. Additionally, I am greatly concerned that the billions we are contributing to the “Global Fund” will be going to organizations that support and perform abortions, prostitution, infanticide and other horrors. There is nothing in this bill to prevent this, only faith that the Coordinator will exercise good judgment in these matters. That is simply not sufficient. I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do likewise. abortion The Partial Birth Abortion Ban June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:1 Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem. abortion The Partial Birth Abortion Ban June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:3 The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade. abortion The Partial Birth Abortion Ban June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:4 Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system. abortion The Partial Birth Abortion Ban June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:5 For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not. abortion The Partial Birth Abortion Ban June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 58:6 Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause. abortion Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle. June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:2 I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. abortion Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle. June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:3 Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle. There is nothing wrong per se with fighting winnable battles, but a danger exists when political pragmatism requires the pro-life movement to surrender important moral and political principles. abortion Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle. June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:9 The worst offender of federalism is the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which not only indirectly surrenders the pro-life principle but actually directly undercuts the right to life by granting a specific exemption to abortionists ! This exemption essentially allows some to take life with the sanction of federal law. By supporting this legislation, pro-lifers are expressly condoning a legal exemption for abortionists- showing just how far astray some in the pro-life community have gone. abortion Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle. June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:10 Even the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is an integral part of the current pro-life agenda, presents a dilemma. While I have always supported this Act and plan to do so in the future, I realize that it raises questions of federalism because authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. The only reason a federal law has any legitimacy in this area is that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to federalize abortion via Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, wrestling the abortion issue from the federal courts and putting it back in the hands of the elected legislature comports with the Founder’s view of the separation of powers that protects our rights to life, liberty, and property. abortion Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle. June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:11 Given these dilemmas, what should those of us in the pro-life community do? First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government. abortion Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle. June 4, 2003    2003 Ron Paul 59:12 If the next version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act reads like past versions in the House, I will likely support it despite the dilemmas outlined here. I cannot support, however, a bill like the proposed Senate version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that reaffirms Roe v. Wade. abortion A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:16 Few remember that the first federal laws regulating marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our country had much greater respect for individual choices and state regulations in all health matters. The nanny state is relatively new, but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws. The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion can be available over the counter. However, Ephedra — used by millions for various reasons and found in nature — was made illegal as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions, at an affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well have saved many lives. But the real issue is personal choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs. This reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and responsibility. abortion A Wise Consistency February 11, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 2:35 Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act. abortion Unborn Victims Of Violence Act 26 February 2004    2004 Ron Paul 8:5 However, Congress does more damage than just expanding the class to whom Federal murder and assault statutes apply — it further entrenches and seemingly concurs with the Roe v. Wade decision — the Court’s intrusion into rights of States and their previous attempts to protect by criminal statute the unborn’s right not to be aggressed against. By specifically exempting from prosecution both abortionists and the mothers of the unborn — as is the case with this legislation — Congress appears to say that protection of the unborn child is not only a Federal matter but conditioned upon motive. In fact, the Judiciary Committee in marking up the bill, took an odd legal turn by making the assault on the unborn a strict liability offense insofar as the bill does not even require knowledge on the part of the aggressor that the unborn child exists. Murder statutes and common law murder require intent to kill — which implies knowledge — on the part of the aggressor. Here, however, we have the odd legal philosophy that an abortionist with full knowledge of his terminal act is not subject to prosecution while an aggressor acting without knowledge of the child’s existence is subject to nearly the full penalty of the law. With respect to only the fetus, the bill exempts the murderer from the death sentence — yet another diminution of the unborn’s personhood status and clearly a violation of the equal protection clause. It is becoming more and more difficult for Congress and the courts to pass the smell test as government simultaneously treats the unborn as a person in some instances and as a nonperson in others. abortion We The People Act 4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:4 In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on state and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas. abortion We The People Act 4 March 2004    2004 Ron Paul 13:5 Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. abortion The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom October 8, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 77:6 HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR 10 characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might allow the federal government to label the sponsoring organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these concerns, my colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power by both Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political opponents, or the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on anti-abortion activists. It is entirely possible that a future administration will use the new surveillance powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political views. abortion Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:4 The biggest difference involved their views on moral and family values. It was evident that the views regarding gay marriage and abortion held by Senator Kerry did not sit well with a majority of American voters, who were then motivated to let their views be known through their support for President Bush. This contributed to the “mandate” the President received more than any other issue. But it begs the question: If the mandate given was motivated by views held on moral values, does the President get carte blanche on all the other programs that are much less conservative? It appears the President and his neo-con advisors assume the answer is yes. abortion Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:27 Though the recent election reflected the good instincts of many Americans concerned about moral values, abortion, and marriage, let’s hope and pray this endorsement will not be used to justify more pre-emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore deficits, endorse the current monetary system, expand the domestic police state, and promote the American empire worldwide. abortion Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:39 The moral issue surrounding abortion and the right to life is likely the most important issue of our age. It is imperative that we resolve the dilemma of why it’s proper to financially reward an abortionist who acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest and prosecute a new mother who throws her child into a garbage bin one minute after birth. This moral dilemma, seldom considered, is the source of great friction in today’s society as we witnessed in the recent election. abortion Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:40 This is a reflection of personal moral values and society’s acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling. In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, people’s attitudes changed regarding abortion. This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings — especially Roe vs. Wade. The people’s moral standards changed first, followed by the laws. It was not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion. abortion Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:41 I’ve wondered if our casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on both sides in the Vietnam War, and its association with the drug culture that many used to blot out the tragic human losses, contributed to the cheapening of pre-born human life and the acceptance of abortion as a routine and acceptable practice. Though abortion is now an ingrained part of our society, the moral conflict over the issue continues to rage with no end in sight. abortion Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:42 The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state. abortion Where To From Here? November 20, 2004    2004 Ron Paul 81:43 The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions. The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage. The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values. The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands. The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny. Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone. They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us. It’s just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn. abortion HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform February 9, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 19:7 This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines “terrorism” in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners. abortion Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life. abortion Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:2 Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’ hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state’s authority over abortion. abortion Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:3 One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life. abortion Introducing The Sanity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 10 February 2005    2005 Ron Paul 21:4 In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent. abortion Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:1 Clearly no one wins in the legal and political battles over the death of Terri Schiavo. Although it has been terribly politicized, a valuable debate has emerged. This debate is not about abortion or euthanasia in general, nor about death in the abstract. It’s about an individual’s right to life and the value of life itself. Without concern for the life of each individual, liberty is meaningless and indefensible. abortion Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:6 We’re rapidly moving toward a time when these decisions will be based on the cost of care alone, since government pays all the bills under nationalized health care. As we defer to the state for our needs, and parental power is transferred to government, it is casually expected that government will be making more and more of these decisions. This has occurred in education, general medical care, and psychological testing. The government now can protect the so-called right of a teenager to have an abortion, sometimes paid for by the government, without notifying the parents. abortion Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:10 More importantly, where are those who rightfully condemn congressional meddling in the Schiavo case-- because of federalism and separation of powers-- on the issue of abortion? These same folks strongly defend Roe vs. Wade and the so-called constitutional right to abort healthy human fetuses at any stage. There’s no hesitation to demand support of this phony right from both Congress and the federal courts. Not only do they demand federal legal protection for abortion, they insist that abortion foes be forced to fund this act that many of them equate with murder. abortion Hypocrisy and the Ordeal of Terri Schiavo April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 34:20 A society and a government that lose respect for life help create dilemmas of this sort. Today there is little respect for life-- witness the number of abortions performed each year. There is little respect for liberty-- witness the rules and laws that regulate our every move. There is little respect for peace-- witness our eagerness to initiate war to impose our will on others. Tragically, government financing of the elderly, out of economic necessity, will usher in an age of euthanasia. abortion Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:2 The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become one of the most eloquent spokesmen for the consistent ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. abortion Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:3 Unfortunately, few in American politics today adhere to the consistent ethic of life, thus we see some who cheered the Pope’s stand against the war and the death penalty while downplaying or even openly defying his teachings against abortion and euthanasia. abortion Honoring Pope John Paul II- A Consistent Pro-life Figure April 6, 2005    2005 Ron Paul 36:4 Others who cheered the Pope’s opposition to abortion and euthanasia were puzzled or hostile to his opposition to war. Many of these “pro-life supporters of war” tried to avoid facing the inherent contradictions in their position by distorting the Just War doctrine, which the Pope properly interpreted as denying sanction to the Iraq war. One prominent conservative commentator even suggested that the pope was the “enemy” of the United States. abortion Federalizing Abortion Law 27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, in the name of a truly laudable cause, preventing abortion and protecting parental rights, today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a constitutional oath, which prescribes a procedural structure by which the Nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across State lines for ignoble purposes. abortion Federalizing Abortion Law 27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:2 As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps States’ rights by creating yet another Federal crime. abortion Federalizing Abortion Law 27 April 2005    2005 Ron Paul 42:4 Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass H.R. 748. H.R. 748 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not. abortion Introducing We The People 17 November 2005    2005 Ron Paul 122:4 In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 40 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas. abortion Introducing We The People 17 November 2005    2005 Ron Paul 122:5 Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. abortion Introduction Of The We The People Act 29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 51:4 In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas. abortion Introduction Of The We The People Act 29 June 2006    2006 Ron Paul 51:5 Mr. Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. abortion Overstepping Constitutional Authority 26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:1 Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause (preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst those Members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state lines for ignoble purposes. abortion Overstepping Constitutional Authority 26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:2 As an obstetrician of almost 40 years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this “medical” procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the States. In the name of protecting parental rights, this bill usurps States’ rights by creating yet another Federal crime. abortion Overstepping Constitutional Authority 26 September 2006    2006 Ron Paul 86:4 Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress today will likely pass S. 403. S. 403 amends title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents’ rights to not have their children taken across State lines for contemptible purposes? Absolutely. Can a State pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there exists constitutional authority for the Federal criminalizing of just such an action the answer is absolutely not. abortion Introducing We The People 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 9:4 In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas. abortion Introducing We The People 5 January 2007    2007 Ron Paul 9:5 Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. abortion Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 31:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning” through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life. abortion Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 31:2 Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’ hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state’s authority over abortion. abortion Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 31:3 One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life. abortion Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act And The Taxpayer Freedom Of Conscience Act 15 February 2007    2007 Ron Paul 31:4 In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is “sinful and tyrannical” to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent. abortion Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 58:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sanctity of Life Act. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the Federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. The legislation also clarifies that State and local courts do not have to treat Federal cases overturning State abortion laws as binding precedent. abortion Introducing The Sanctity Of Life Act 6 June 2007    2007 Ron Paul 58:2 Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’s hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the State’s authority over abortion. Congress can, and should, take a major step toward restoring respect for all life by using the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue Federal judges from interfering with a State’s ability to protect unborn life. abortion Violent Radicalization And Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act 5 December 2007    2007 Ron Paul 106:5 This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing. abortion INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE January 14, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 9:4 In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down State and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on Federal power. Furthermore, when Federal judges impose their preferred polices on State and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees each State a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over State and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can’t place manger scenes at Christmas. abortion INTRODUCING WE THE PEOPLE January 14, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 9:5 Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all 50 States, is flawed. The Supreme Court’s establishment clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt polices that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the Federal judiciary that, under our constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer. abortion THE TAXPAYER’S FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ACT February 26, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 19:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act, which forbids federal funds from being used for population control or “family planning.” The recent executive order allowing those who perform and/or promote abortion overseas to receive taxpayer money brings new urgency to the need to protect pro-life Americans from being forced to subsidize abortion. abortion THE TAXPAYER’S FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ACT February 26, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 19:2 It is not enough to say that “family planning” groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations’ abortion activities. Thus, the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act is the only way to protect taxpayers from having to support what they “disbelieve and abhor.” abortion THE TAXPAYER’S FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE ACT February 26, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 19:4 I hope all my colleagues will join me in helping end the “sinful and tyrannical” policy of forcing pro-life Americans to subsidize, either directly or indirectly, abortion by cosponsoring the Taxpayer’s Freedom of Conscience Act. abortion INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT May 20, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 57:1 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the Sanctity of Life Act. This legislation provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Since the Supreme Court invented a “right” to abortion in Roe v. Wade, federal judges have repeatedly thwarted efforts by democratically elected officials at the state and local level to protect the unborn. abortion INTRODUCING THE SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT May 20, 2009    2009 Ron Paul 57:2 However, the federal courts have no legitimate authority to tell states and local communities what restrictions can and cannot be placed on abortion. Even some intellectually honest supporters of legalized abortion acknowledge that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life. Texas Straight Talk abortion - Constitution must always be considered 01 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 7 ... Cached The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act also includes funding of so-called family planning and international population control activities, both of which are, in reality, back-door methods of using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions worldwide. More than $385 million of US taxpayers' money is being spent on these programs. abortion - Constitution must always be considered 01 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 01 September 1997 verse 8 ... Cached It is in response to this portion of the "Foreign Ops" Act that I am introducing an amendment to be voted on this week to zero-out all taxpayer funding for international family planning activities, population control activities, and, of course, abortion services. abortion - Congress to tackle Education budget this week 08 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached My amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act finally came to the House floor for debate and a vote last week. My amendment would have ended the federal government's use of our tax dollars to subsidize overseas abortions and "population control" programs, including related family planning services. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to take your money and spend it in such a manner, whether here or abroad. abortion - Congress to tackle Education budget this week 08 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 7 ... Cached Unfortunately, the House then overwhelmingly voted to pass the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. I voted against the measure not only because it includes the funding for population control, family planning and abortions, but also because this act called for spending more money on the so-called "peace-keeping" missions around the world. I cannot in good conscience vote to put the lives of our troops in very real danger for purposes that have nothing to do with our national defense. It's time to end our involvement in these activities and protect and support our troops, not open them up to more and more hostility and danger for no good reason. abortion - Congress to tackle Education budget this week 08 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 10 ... Cached Additionally, the Labor and Education Appropriations Act is easy to vote against because of it's inclusion of continued spending for what is commonly called "Title X." This section of the bill includes the funding for the availability of birth control devices , sex education and "services" to minors in our public schools. A large portion of the money appropriated in this act actually goes to the pro-abortion advocacy organization Planned Parenthood. abortion - Congress to tackle Education budget this week 08 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 08 September 1997 verse 11 ... Cached Regardless of what one thinks about abortion, sex education or even the distribution of birth control devices to children, the real issue is that the Constitution simply does not allow Congress to spend tax dollars in this way. If we are serious about wanting to balance the budget, cut taxes and restore personal liberty, Congress does not need to pass new laws, new taxes or new spending. abortion - If someone accepts federal cash, then they must follow rules taxpayers set and deserve 15 September 1997    Texas Straight Talk 15 September 1997 verse 5 ... Cached During debate last week an amendment was offered to prohibit the use of federal funds to perform abortions or offer various contraceptive devices to minors, if parents are not notified. The real debate on this point is not one of the rights of children versus the rights of parents, or even the question of whether federal money being spent this way -which constitutionality it obviously should not. The real debate is to what extent strings may be attached to federal funds. If the government is going to fund an unconstitutional program which should not exist anyway, then at the very least Congress should add sensible requirements for the sake of accountability. Doctors and nurses cannot even give out even an aspirin to a child without parental consent, mainly for fear of liability. And the government should do no less. If parents want their children to have ready access to birth control devices, then the parents should pay for it. But if the government is going to force us, the taxpayers, to subsidize these programs, then at the very least we should have a reasonable expectation that we - as taxpayers - are not going to be held accountable for any problems which may result from a child being given unlimited, uncontrolled access to various items paid for by the government. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect parents to assume liability for complications resulting from actions over which they are no allowed no control. abortion - Communist China shouldn't be financed by US 10 November 1997    Texas Straight Talk 10 November 1997 verse 9 ... Cached There is no constitutional authority for the United States to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith. abortion Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 2 ... Cached Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises abortion Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 3 ... Cached On January 22, the United States observed the 25th Anniversary of the most controversial decision of the Supreme Court this century, the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. But the issue is more complex than simply abortion; it has become a part of almost every policy decision in our federal government. And most especially in realm of foreign relations. abortion Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 5 ... Cached The Mexico City Policy was drafted in the Reagan years as an attempt to put some limitations on US foreign aide being used for abortions overseas. While I believe that those who put this policy forward were well-motivated, I believe that time has shown this policy to have little real effect. I have continued to vote for this policy when it came up as a stand alone issue in this Congress because it is a bare minimum requirement, although, as I say, I consider it ineffective in stopping tax money from funding abortions. abortion Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 7 ... Cached In fact, the deficiencies of the Mexico City Policy are such that the pro-family conservative group Concerned Women for America has withdrawn its support for the Mexico City Policy all together. This, in part, due to the fact that while the policy prohibits funding of some abortions, it does not prohibit funding of all abortions, and creates large loopholes. abortion Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 10 ... Cached We were able to put the breaks to the funding of the false UN debt and the IMF at the end of the last session of Congress by linking these items with the Mexico City Policy. For political reasons President Clinton has steadfastly refused to sign any legislation which contains any anti-abortion language at all. abortion Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 13 ... Cached Worse still, it now appears that conservative congressmen are willing to water the Mexico City policy down still further in order to get President Clinton to sign legislation which shouldn't exist in the first place. Thus we have Congressional leadership again backing down from President Clinton, giving in to his demand for unrestricted public funding of abortion even while compromising America's sovereignty by providing further taxpayer funds to organizations such as IMF and the United Nations. abortion Abortion and National Sovereignty: No Compromises 26 January 1998    Texas Straight Talk 26 January 1998 verse 15 ... Cached To date we who support the cause of life have compromised too much; it is time to stand firm. It is unconstitutional and immoral to use taxpayer dollars to fund even one abortion, whether it is foreign or domestic. And it is unconscionable that elected officials of the United States would consider using unborn children in foreign lands as pawns in a game that further undermines the best interests of the United States. abortion Methods employed by Congress as bad as the legislation 30 March 1998    Texas Straight Talk 30 March 1998 verse 7 ... Cached Further, it was argued by some conservative "right-to-life" advocates that the legislation was worth passing - despite so many flaws and shortcomings - because it contained anti-abortion language purported to be "stronger than ever" and would finally be codified. Unfortunately, the reality is that the meager "abortion" language was weaker than ever before with a convenient, gaping loophole to allow the president to continue taxpayer-funding of countries and groups that actually perform and promote abortion: this is language which is now to be codified. That's no pro-life victory; in fact, one could barely describe it as a compromise. abortion Washington 'solutions' to voter frustration are dangerous 03 August 1998    Texas Straight Talk 03 August 1998 verse 11 ... Cached And so those in Washington answer the frustration by creating new levels of frustration by further restricting the abilities of the pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, the unions and the right-to-workers, the fascists and the libertarians, the socialists and the capitalists, from being heard. Lawmakers say they abhor a monopoly in the marketplace, yet they entertain laws to ensure their duopoly power grows. abortion Going from bad to worse 17 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 10 ... Cached Second, as experience has shown, federal "solutions" tend to dumb down a process, rather than encourage excellence. One need look only at that state of our schools to see the most practical example of that premise. In the arena of law, one can examine the results of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which took abortion law out of the purview of the states and gave it to the federal courts. abortion Going from bad to worse 17 May 1999    Texas Straight Talk 17 May 1999 verse 13 ... Cached But do not think this is a limited instance. Rather, some are clamoring for the federal government to intervene in all civil suits such as those against gun manufacturers. Soon, as with the issues of abortion and education, the minor intrusion of the federal government in contract and tort law will soon amount to a complete take-over of matters constitutionally left to the states. abortion Punishing accidents, ignoring murder 20 September 1999    Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 3 ... Cached Violence to Unborn Children Act gives abortionists' a license to kill abortion Punishing accidents, ignoring murder 20 September 1999    Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 6 ... Cached Setting aside those constitutional questions -- which Congress should never do, but regularly does -- it would seem to finally offer some recognition, at the federal level, that the child in the womb is indeed a human being worthy of protection. Backers of the bill say that it will offer legal protection to the fetus from those who attack it; that is, unless the attacker happens to be an abortionist or the mother. That's the part of the bill being kept quiet. abortion Punishing accidents, ignoring murder 20 September 1999    Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 7 ... Cached This legislation, which is expected to come to House floor for a vote in a matter of weeks, specifically excludes from its jurisdiction violence done to an unborn child by an abortionist. The legislation states that nothing it should be "construed to permit the prosecution of any person for conduct relating to an abortion." abortion Punishing accidents, ignoring murder 20 September 1999    Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 11 ... Cached This legislation ignores the millions of children murdered every year at the hand of an abortionist, while exposing to extreme legal jeopardy the relatively small number of individuals who accidentally cause a death. abortion Punishing accidents, ignoring murder 20 September 1999    Texas Straight Talk 20 September 1999 verse 15 ... Cached If passed, politicians will rest easy knowing they have passed a feel-good measure to placate a key constituency, while those concerned with the issue believe a battle has been won. Meanwhile 5,000 babies a day will continue to die at the hands of abortionists, safe in the knowledge federal law now explicitly excuses them from their actions. abortion Confused priorities 04 October 1999    Texas Straight Talk 04 October 1999 verse 14 ... Cached Debates over spending and taxes reveal much about who we are as individuals and as a nation. Sadly, spending by the government remains out of control and taxes are too high. And that our priorities are sorely out of line is demonstrated by the fact that our president and his allies would subsidize abortions in distant lands with taxes generated by the sweat of farmers, rather than allow Americans to provide for themselves and their families. abortion Floor Votes Reviewed 06 December 1999    Texas Straight Talk 06 December 1999 verse 7 ... Cached In a fashion similar to that which I took in the 105th Congress, I introduced an amendment to stop all funding for so-called overseas family planning. This money is not only another form of foreign aid, it is also used to advocate the anti-life agenda of the most radical pro-abortion groups. Unfortunately, we lost ground on this issue in this Congress. This year we received 145 votes in favor of my amendment, whereas last Congress we had the support of 147 members. abortion Activist Courts Threaten Our Liberty 04 December 2000    Texas Straight Talk 04 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached Today, however, judges at every level increasingly engage in shaping the law to meet their particular political and social agendas. Liberal/collectivist interests especially have found a sympathetic audience among our federal judges, who have been willing accomplices in crafting liberal legislation and overriding properly enacted state law. Perhaps the most egregious example of judicial legislation is the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, which created a federal constitutional "right" to abortion out of thin air. While the collectivist agenda is advanced, activist courts have refused to uphold economic due process rights and property rights. The result is a legal landscape where all manner of fabricated social rights are upheld (e.g. entitlements), while true constitutional rights (e.g. gun ownership, religious freedom) are trampled. abortion The Ashcroft Controversy Exposes Disdain for Conservative Principles 22 January 2001    Texas Straight Talk 22 January 2001 verse 5 ... Cached The code word used by the left to attack Ashcroft's personal politics is extreme, which is repeated like a drumbeat until it is embedded in the minds of the public. We are told his views on abortion are extreme because he "opposes a women's right to choose," despite the utter lack of any such right in the Constitution, and despite the agreement of millions of Americans with Mr. Ashcroft. We are told he is extreme because he opposes some gun control laws, despite the obvious unconstitutionally of all gun control laws. We are told his support for the death penalty is extreme, although millions of Americans and the Supreme Court disagree. Worst of all, the left has gotten away with using "extreme" as a code word for "racist." The exceedingly thin "evidence" given for the racism allegation is that Ashcroft once voted against the nomination of a federal judge who happened to be black. Never mind that more than 50 other Senators voted with Ashcroft; the left is all to eager to assure us that the only conceivable rationale is that Ashcroft is a racist. This type of smearing, aided and abetted by a complicit media, is at the heart of the left's efforts to demonize conservatives who dare oppose their unconstitutional agenda. abortion Faith-Based Initiative Plan Poses Risks to Religious Organizations 05 February 2001    Texas Straight Talk 05 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached Second, religious organizations risk the sanctity of their faith when they involve themselves with government. The government will have to decide what religious organizations qualify for federal funds, which puts it in the untenable position of deciding which faiths are legitimate. Would the pro-abortion Health and Human Services department ever surrender funds to a strongly pro-life Catholic charity? Would American taxpayers support funding for an organization viewed by many as a cult, if it ran an efficient soup kitchen? These uncomfortable questions suggest that some faiths would be tempted to change their message to win favor with the government. The liberal collectivists have the argument against the President's proposal all wrong: the danger is not that government will be influenced by religion, but rather that religion will be influenced by government. abortion IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty 26 February 2001    Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2001 verse 6 ... Cached The state-loving media scarcely mentioned the IBT story, with brief articles predictably portraying the church as a fringe organization that avoided its taxes. This follows an established pattern of characterizing religious conservatives who protest the federal government as dangerous extremists, implicitly associated with militias and racists. Imagine the national media coverage, and resulting public outrage, if a minority church was seized over a refusal to pay taxes. Protestors supporting left-wing causes like abortion, affirmative action, environmentalism, feminism, AIDS, and animal rights consistently are shown as courageous martyrs fighting for principle against an unfeeling society and government. Conservative protestors, however, are shown as sinister bigots who selfishly refuse to follow benign laws and politically correct social rules. abortion Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law 30 April 2001    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 3 ... Cached As a pro-life obstetrician-gynecologist, I am steadfastly opposed to abortion. I strongly believe that a fetus is a human life, and that a fetus deserves the same legal protections afforded to all Americans. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision will prove to be the most flawed Supreme Court ruling of the 20th century. There is no real or imagined "right to abortion" in the Constitution under any serious interpretation of that document. The Supreme Court simply created a nonexistent constitutional right out of thin air to serve the political agenda of the justices. abortion Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law 30 April 2001    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 5 ... Cached Worse yet, the Act serves to legitimize and further entrench the Roe v. Wade decision. Like Roe, the Act federalizes law which the Constitution properly leaves to the states. Constitutionally, virtually all crimes are state matters. The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. Yet Congress finds it much easier to federalize every human evil rather than uphold the Constitution and respect states' rights. Impassioned pro-life Americans might want a federal criminal law protecting fetuses, but in truth the federal government is more likely to pass laws favoring abortion rather than outlawing it. Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. All abortion foes must understand that the real battle should be fought at the state level, where grassroots respect for life can influence state legislatures. abortion Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law 30 April 2001    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 6 ... Cached The tragic irony is that the proposed legislation specifically protects abortionists from prosecution for harming a pregnant mother and her unborn child. An attacker with no knowledge of a woman's pregnancy receives a greater penalty for his deed, while the abortionist with full knowledge of his actions is not charged. So much for increasing respect for life. abortion Respect for Life begins with Respect for the Constitutional Rule of Law 30 April 2001    Texas Straight Talk 30 April 2001 verse 7 ... Cached Political expediency is never an excuse for ignoring the Constitution. The Supreme Court did so in Roe v. Wade, with tragic consequences. The states are now unable to enact laws to protect the weakest, smallest, and most innocent human lives. A society that does not respect life cannot be expected to respect liberty. Our goal must be to restore respect for the Constitution and states' rights. Only then can states properly restore respect for unborn life by criminalizing the act of abortion. abortion The Deepening United Nations Quagmire 14 May 2001    Texas Straight Talk 14 May 2001 verse 5 ... Cached I proposed two substantive amendments to the State Department bill, both of which were rejected without debate and without a vote. One would have eliminated US funding for UN "peacekeeping" missions; the other would have eliminated US funding for worldwide abortion and family planning. These proposals were ignored because Congress does not want to address the real issue of whether we should continue to participate in an organization that serves no national interest and threatens our national sovereignty. abortion Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas 06 August 2001    Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 5 ... Cached Morally complex issues require flexible approaches. The states have successfully dealt with the capital punishment issue for decades without an overriding federal law. The states also crafted their own abortion laws until 1973. Cloning and stem cell research issues likewise should be determined at the state level. Congress forgets that the Constitution grants only certain limited powers to federal lawmakers, reserving all other matters for the states under the 10th Amendment. Therefore, the constitutional approach would be to allow a mixture of moral standards, medical ethics, and local laws to determine the permissibility of cloning or stem cell research in each particular state. Unfortunately, however, neither political party has paid much attention to the Constitution during this debate, preferring instead to focus only on federal mandates and federal funding. No mention is made of states rights, even though state governments would do a much better job of reflecting local sentiment on these ethical issues. abortion Government Cannot Mandate Solutions to Ethical Dilemmas 06 August 2001    Texas Straight Talk 06 August 2001 verse 7 ... Cached It is especially immoral to force Americans who oppose cloning and stem cell research to fund those activities with their tax dollars. Apparently Congress has not learned from the abortion debate that forcing taxpayers to fund very controversial programs creates tremendous resentment and dissension. In a free society, citizens are not forced to support practices that they abhor. Congress should remain neutral by following a strict policy of not subsidizing research, which encourages private funding while respecting the rights of those who do not want to pay for practices that offend their moral or religious sensibilities. abortion Dump UNESCO! 30 September 2002    Texas Straight Talk 30 September 2002 verse 3 ... Cached "UNESCO" stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty. In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; UN control of federal land in America; cultural relativism; and global taxation, just to name a few. President Reagan bravely withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO in 1984, citing the organization’s financial mismanagement, blatant anti-Americanism, and general hostility to freedom. Today, however, we find ourselves once again becoming further entangled with the UN- all because we lack the courage to assert our sovereignty and tell the world that our Constitution, not the UN, governs our nation. abortion So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress 05 May 2003    Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 3 ... Cached Yet nothing could be further from the truth, as an embarrassing vote last week clearly demonstrated. The supposedly conservative Congress overwhelmingly passed a foreign aid bill that could have come straight from the desk of the most liberal Democrat. The legislation sends $15 billion of your tax dollars to Africa, ostensibly to fight AIDS by distributing condoms, providing sex education, and funding abortion providers. Needless to say the bill gives money to some very questionable organizations and programs, and will undoubtedly pad the bank accounts of some of the worst governments in the world. abortion So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress 05 May 2003    Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 5 ... Cached Opposition to the bill was minimal, although 40 Republicans did cast principled votes against it. Other conservatives who were slightly uncomfortable with the vote satisfied themselves by passing an amendment that requires some of the $15 billion to be spent on abstinence programs. Yet does anyone honestly think we can control how our dollars are spent once they reach Africa? Obviously money is fungible anyway, so “earmarking” funds for pet conservative programs does nothing. Furthermore, Republican leaders completely ignored efforts in committee to forbid funding for abortion in the bill. abortion So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress 05 May 2003    Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 8 ... Cached As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Last week’s vote underscores the need to end the sinful and tyrannical practice of forcing Americans to pay for programs or organizations they believe to be immoral, such as those that distribute condoms and perform abortions. abortion The Federal Government Bully in State and Local Elections 26 May 2003    Texas Straight Talk 26 May 2003 verse 7 ... Cached Those who favor strict drug laws should understand that federal preemption is a double-edged sword. For example, if a socially conservative state like Utah wanted to enact harsh drug policies to reflect its community standards, federal law could actually prevent the enactment of such policies. When the American people give up state and local authority over any issue, whether its marijuana, abortion, or gun control, they give up most of their power to affect policy. It’s far easier to influence, and hold accountable, state and local officials. Once the federal government takes the opposite side of an issue, however, good luck changing things. abortion Federal Courts and the Imaginary Constitution 11 August 2003    Texas Straight Talk 11 August 2003 verse 7 ... Cached The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. This is why federal legal precedents in so many areas do not reflect the consensus of either federal or state legislators. Whether it’s gun rights, abortion, taxes, racial quotas, environmental regulations, gay marriage, or religion, federal jurists are way out of touch with the American people. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, while Congress and the President should remember that the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts- not over the other branches of government. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. abortion Gay Marriage Quicksand 01 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 01 March 2004 verse 8 ... Cached It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades. abortion Congressional Indecency 15 March 2004    Texas Straight Talk 15 March 2004 verse 7 ... Cached Conservatives must understand that the powers they grant the FCC today may one day be used against them. It is not hard to imagine a future where criticism of abortion is deemed hate speech against women, or criticism of affirmative action considered an unlawful attack on minorities. It is not hard to imagine President Hillary Clinton ordering the FCC to shut down Rush Limbaugh for using the term “feminazi.” Already a petition has been filed with the Justice department to investigate The Passion of the Christ for possible hate crimes against those who dislike the film’s theology! Big-government conservatives will learn that heavy-handed federal control of speech is far more likely to result in a rigidly secular, politically-correct society than a moral society imbued with Christian virtue. abortion Whose Justice? 12 April 2004    Texas Straight Talk 12 April 2004 verse 2 ... Cached Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has been a problem in America since well before the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Many federal judges have become de facto legislators in recent decades, substituting their self-presumed wisdom for the will of Congress. In the process, the American people have lost more and more power to influence the laws under which they must live. abortion A Texas Platform for the GOP 30 August 2004    Texas Straight Talk 30 August 2004 verse 7 ... Cached Education? The Texas GOP platform calls for the abolition of the Department of Education. Taxes? Texas Republicans urge the repeal of the 16th amendment and the abolition of the IRS, an agency the platform says is “Unacceptable to taxpayers.” On dozens of other issues, from abortion to activist judges to religious freedom, the Texas Republican party promotes true conservative values and strict adherence to the Constitution. Real conservatives should demand the same from the national Republican Party this week in New York. abortion Pro-Life Politics? 28 March 2005    Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 4 ... Cached My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society. The abortion issue forged my belief that law and morality must intersect to protect the most vulnerable among us. The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective. abortion Pro-Life Politics? 28 March 2005    Texas Straight Talk 28 March 2005 verse 7 ... Cached This federalization of social issues, often championed by conservatives, has not created a pro-life culture, however. It simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government. abortion Theology, Not Politics 11 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 6 ... Cached Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for refusing to accept that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create. abortion Theology, Not Politics 11 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 10 ... Cached The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments. abortion Why Do We Fund UNESCO? 18 April 2005    Texas Straight Talk 18 April 2005 verse 5 ... Cached UNESCO stands for United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, which sounds lofty. In truth, the agency is nothing but a mouthpiece for the usual UN causes, including international abortion and population control; politically correct UN curriculum for American schools; and UN control of federal land in America through so-called World Heritage sites. abortion Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad 07 November 2005    Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 11 ... Cached * $34 million for the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund, which lectures poor people about having too many children; abortion Federalizing Social Policy 30 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 3 ... Cached As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not. abortion Federalizing Social Policy 30 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 4 ... Cached Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court. abortion Federalizing Social Policy 30 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 5 ... Cached Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid. abortion Federalizing Social Policy 30 January 2006    Texas Straight Talk 30 January 2006 verse 7 ... Cached Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. abortion Your Taxes Subsidize China 14 August 2006    Texas Straight Talk 14 August 2006 verse 7 ... Cached There is no constitutional authority for Congress to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith. abortion Can Foreign Aid Save Africa? 09 March 2008    Texas Straight Talk 09 March 2008 verse 4 ... Cached The obvious question remains: Why are politicians in the United States deciding what is best for people in Africa ? And why are taxpayers in the United States being forced to fund –for example - family planning facilities that perform abortions? Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance. Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see. Home Page    Contents    Concordance   E-mail list.