HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 4, 2003
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2003 Ron Paul 58:8
Despite its severe
flaws, this
bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and
I will
vote in favor of it. I fear,
though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the
opposing side
to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.