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.
1999 Ron Paul 102:2 As a pro-lifeobstetrician-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.
1999 Ron Paul 102:3 The law’s failure to protect the weakest,
smallest and most innocent of all the whole
human race has undermined our respect for
all life, and therefore for all liberty. As we have
seen, once life is no longer unequivocally protected,
the loss of personal liberty quickly follows.
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.
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.
1999 Ron Paul 102:6 Traditionally, throughout our history, except
for the three constitutional provisions, all
crimes of violence have been — and should remain
— state matters. Yet this legislation only
further undermines the principle of state jurisdiction,
and our system of law enforcement,
which has served us well for most of our history.
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.
1999 Ron Paul 102:8 Making the killing of an unborn infant a federal
crime, as this bill does, further institutionalizes
the process of allowing federal
courts to destroy the constitutional jurisdiction
of the states. But more importantly, the measure
continues the practice of only protecting
some life, by allowing unborn children to be
killed by anyone with an “M.D.” after his
name.
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.
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.
1999 Ron Paul 102:11 State laws have already established clearly
that a fetus is a human being deserving protection;
for example, inheritance laws acknowledge
that the unborn child does enjoy the estate
of his father. Numerous states already
have laws that correctly punishes those committing
acts of murder against a fetus.
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.
1999 Ron Paul 102:13 Mr. Chairman, today Congress will vote to
further instill and codify the ill-advised Roe
versus Wade decision. While it is the independent
duty of each branch of the federal
government to act Constitutionally, Congress
will likely ignore not only its Constitutional limits
but earlier criticisms from Chief Justice William
H. Rehnquist, as well.
1999 Ron Paul 102:14 The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999,
H.R. 2436, would amend title 18, United
States Code, for the laudable goal of protecting
unborn children from assault and murder.
However, by expanding the class of victims
to which unconstitutional (but already-existing)
federal murder and assault statutes
apply, the federal government moves yet another
step closer to a national police state.
1999 Ron Paul 102:15 Of course, it is much easier to ride the current
wave of federalizing every human misdeed
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. Who, after
all, wants to be amongst those members of
Congress who are portrayed as soft on violent
crimes initiated against the unborn?
1999 Ron Paul 102:16 Nevertheless, our federal government is,
constitutionally, a government of limited powers.
Article one, section eight, enumerates the
legislative areas for which the U.S. Congress
is allowed to act or enact legislation. For every
other issue, the federal government lacks any
authority or consent of the governed and only
the state governments, their designees, or the
people in their private market actions enjoy
such rights to governance. The tenth amendment
is brutally clear in stating “The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.” Our nation’s history makes clear that
the U.S. Constitution is a document intended
to limit the power of central government. No
serious reading of historical events surrounding
the creation of the Constitution could
reasonably portray it differently.
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.
1999 Ron Paul 102:18 In this first formal complaint to Congress on
behalf of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist said
“the trend to federalize
crimes that have traditionally been handled
in state courts . . . threatens to change
entirely the nature of our federal system.”
Rehnquist further criticized Congress for yielding
to the political pressure to
“appear responsive
to every highly publicized societal ill or
sensational crime.”
1999 Ron Paul 102:19 Perhaps, equally dangerous is the loss of
another Constitutional protection which comes
with the passage of more and more federal
criminal legislation. Constitutionally, there are
only three federal crimes. These are treason
against the United States, piracy on the high
seas, and counterfeiting (and, because the
constitution was amended to allow it, for a
short period of history, the manufacture, sale,
or transport of alcohol was concurrently a federal
and state crime). “Concurrent” jurisdiction
crimes, such as alcohol prohibition in the past
and federalization of murder today, erode the
right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy.
The fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution
specifies that no “person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of
life or limb . . .” In other words, no person
shall be tried twice for the same offense. However,
in United States v. Lanza, the high court
in 1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by
both the federal government and a state government
for the same offense did not offend
the doctrine of double jeopardy. One danger
of unconstitutionally expanding the federal
criminal justice code is that it seriously increases
the danger that one will be subject to
being tried twice for the same offense. Despite
the various pleas for federal correction of societal
wrongs, a national police force is neither
prudent nor constitutional.
1999 Ron Paul 102:20 Occasionally the argument is put forth that
states may be less effective than a centralized
federal government in dealing with those who
leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately,
the Constitution provides for the procedural
means for preserving the integrity of
state sovereignty over those issues delegated
to it via the tenth amendment. The privilege
and immunities clause as well as full faith and
credit clause allow states to exact judgments
from those who violate their state laws. The
Constitution even allows the federal government
to legislatively preserve the procedural
mechanisms which allow states to enforce
their substantive laws without the federal government
imposing its substantive edicts on the
states. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 makes
provision for the rendition of fugitives from one
state to another. While not self-enacting, in
1783 Congress passed an act which did exactly
this. There is, of course, a cost imposed
upon states in working with one another rather
than relying on a national, unified police force.
At the same time, there is a greater cost to
centralization of a police power.
1999 Ron Paul 102:21 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 — it is called competition
and, yes, governments must, for the
sake of the citizenry, be allowed to compete.
We have obsessed so much over the notion of
“competition” in this country we harangue
someone like Bill Gates when, by offering superior
products to every other similarly-situated
entity, he becomes the dominant provider
of certain computer products. Rather than
allow someone who serves to provide value
as made obvious by their voluntary exchanges
in the free market, we lambaste efficiency and
economies of scale in the private marketplace.
Curiously, at the same time, we further centralize
government, the ultimate monopoly and
one empowered by force rather than voluntary
exchange.
1999 Ron Paul 102:22 When small governments become too oppressive
with their criminal laws, citizens can
vote with their feet to a “competing” jurisdiction.
If, for example, one does not want to be
forced to pay taxes to prevent a cancer patient
from using medicinal marijuana to provide relief
from pain and nausea, that person can
move to Arizona. If one wants to bet on a football
game without the threat of government
intervention, that person can live in Nevada.
As government becomes more and more centralized,
it becomes much more difficult to vote
with one’s feet to escape the relatively more
oppressive governments. Governmental units
must remain small with ample opportunity for
citizen mobility both to efficient governments
and away from those which tend to be oppressive.
Centralization of criminal law makes such
mobility less and less practical.
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.
Note:
1999 Ron Paul 102:11
laws that correctly punishes those committing acts of murder
probably should be
laws that correctly punish those committing acts of murder.
1999 Ron Paul 102:20
the tenth amendment probably should be capitalized:
the Tenth Amendment.
1999 Ron Paul 102:20
The privilege and immunities clause as well as full faith and credit clause probably should be capitalized and plural:
The Privileges and Immunities Clause as well as Full Faith and Credit Clause.
1999 Ron Paul 102:21
similarly-situated probably should be unhyphenated: similarly situated.
1999 Ron Paul 102:23
the bill of rights probably should be capitalized: the Bill of Rights.
