U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | Roe v. Wade |
Roe v. Wade
Child Custody Protection Act
15 July 1998 1998 Ron Paul 77:13
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a “adequate” federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
Roe v. Wade
Child Custody Protection Act
30 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 69:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:5
Achieving the goal of dehumanizing all human life, by permitting the casting aside all pre-born life, any time prior to birth, including partially born human beings, Roe v. Wade represents a huge change in attitudes toward all life and liberty. Now pro-life Members are engaged in a similar process of writing more national laws in hopes of balancing the court’s error. This current legislative effort is just as flawed.
Roe v. Wade
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:7
Getting rid of Roe v. Wade through a new court ruling or by limiting federal jurisdiction would return this complex issue to the states.
Roe v. Wade
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
30 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 102:23
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the states’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous states have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the federal government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 2436 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to state governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the bill of rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater. For these reasons, I must oppose H.R. 2436, The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999.
Roe v. Wade
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:129
The Supreme Court no longer just rules on Constitutionality, but frequently rewrites the laws with attempts at comprehensive social engineering. The most blatant example was the Roe v. Wade ruling. The Federal court should be hearing a lot fewer cases, deferring as often as possible to the states courts.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:30
Second, Roe v. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation, a constitutional option. If we as a Nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A Nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a “right” cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2000
April 5, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 26:3
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 indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stems from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 April 2001 2001 Ron Paul 29:11
Protection of life (born or unborn) against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 503 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
Roe v. Wade
H.R. 476
17 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 23:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an “adequate” federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
Roe v. Wade
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:2
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 indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:6
The belief that we as a society can decide which persons are "expendable," leads us directly down a slippery slope of violence and apathy toward humanity. Though many decry such ethicists as Peter Singer of Princeton, who advocates the "right" of parents to choose infanticide, as well as euthanasia, his reasoning is simply a logical extension of the ethic underlying Roe v. Wade, which is that if certain people are not "useful" or "convenient," they should be done away with.
Roe v. Wade
The Tragedy of Partial-Birth Abortion
July 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 75:7
H.R. 4965 also depends heavily upon a "distinction" made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which established that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this false and illogical "distinction," I fear that H.R. 4965, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.
Roe v. Wade
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 58:2
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 indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
June 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 58:7
H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
Unborn Victims Of Violence Act
26 February 2004 2004 Ron Paul 8:11
Protection of life — born or unborn — against initiations of violence is of vital importance. So vitally important, in fact, it must be left to the States’ criminal justice systems. We have seen what a legal, constitutional, and philosophical mess results from attempts to federalize such an issue. Numerous States have adequately protected the unborn against assault and murder and done so prior to the Federal Government’s unconstitutional sanctioning of violence in the Roe v. Wade decision. Unfortunately, H.R. 1997 ignores the danger of further federalizing that which is properly reserved to State governments and, in so doing, throws legal philosophy, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the insights of Chief Justice Rehnquist out with the baby and the bathwater.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
Federalizing Abortion Law
27 April 2005 2005 Ron Paul 42:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
Overstepping Constitutional Authority
26 September 2006 2006 Ron Paul 86:8
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an “adequate” Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts States’ rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
The Imperial Judiciary
04 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 04 October 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has intensified in the decades since Roe v. Wade. This practice is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
Roe v. Wade
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.
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.