Yesterday the House of Representatives attempted to pass H.R. 3541 The Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA) sponsored by Trent Franks (R – AZ).
A BILL
To prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes.
This bill would make it a federal crime for a doctor to perform an abortion based on the race or gender of a child. The vote, called under a suspension of House rules limiting floor debate, failed when it did not meet the 2/3rd majority required. When the count was complete, a clear majority of 246-168 representatives had voted to pass the bill – 30 short of the required number. Seventeen cowards just failed to vote while twenty Democrats supported the bill (see list at the bottom of this post). The seven Republicans (not) led by Ron Paul (TX) to vote to allow the abortion of unborn children based on their race or sex are Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), and Nan Hayworth (N.Y.).
If you are wondering what could have been so controversial in this bill that it warranted “no” votes from these staunch defenders of life, let us look at the bill:
H.R. 3541, Section (1)(A)-(B):
SEX DISCRIMINATION FINDINGS.—
Women are a vital part of American society and culture and possess the same fundamental human rights and civil rights as men.
United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of males and females who are similarly situated and prohibits sex discrimination in various contexts, including the provision of employment, education, housing, health insurance coverage, and athletics.
H.R. 3541, Section (2)(A)-(C):
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION FINDINGS.—
Minorities are a vital part of American society and culture and possess the same fundamental human rights and civil rights as the majority.
United States law prohibits the dissimilar treatment of persons of different races who are similarly situated. United States law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in various contexts, including the provision of employment, education, housing, health insurance coverage, and athletics.
A ‘‘race-selection abortion’’ is an abortion performed for purposes of eliminating an unborn child because the child or a parent of the child is of an undesired race. Race-selection abortion is barbaric, and described by civil rights advocates as an act of race-based violence, predicated on race discrimination. By definition, race-selection abortions do not implicate the health of mother of the unborn, but instead are elective procedures motivated by race bias.
There will be several directions that the Ron Paul camp can take to explain away their candidate’s support of discrimination and infanticide. The first will almost certainly be to claim that the power to restrict abortion is not amongst the enumerated powers of the U.S. Constitution as it is currently amended. This allows him to take political cover and spur his supporters with the “it’s unconstitutional” and “it’s a 10th Amendment/state’s rights issue” rallying cries. But it’s crap. I give you Amendment V in the Bill of Rights:
No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
And the power to make laws enforcing this amendment are enumerated in Article I, Section 8:
… make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,
The only way that Mr. Paul can refute this Constitutional authority is to deny the personhood of an unborn child. I look forward to his explanation of that.
Now that the first excuse has been debunked, let us move on. The second argument most likely to emerge in an effort to explain away Paul’s inexcusable vote allowing racist and sexist abortions is that H.R. 3541 did not go far enough. Supporters will say that nothing short of a total ban on abortion will suffice. Well I call that cowardice. It took this nation 78 years and 600,000 dead to end slavery. That cost was paid even though the Constitution eliminated the importation of slaves just 20 years after its passage. you don’t win a war in one day and you don’t win it with one battle. Victories are cumulative. By voting against this bill, Representative Paul has handed the infanticide lobby a victory.
This is no intellectual exercise. Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills are recommending every day excuses and ways for mothers kill their unborn children. The reason can be as callous as the parents bought the wrong color baby clothes. (sarcasm alert) Recent undercover videos show the practice is happening in the United States today.
The last spin that I will address that we will likely hear from the Paul campaign will be that the measure punishes doctors too severely for what could be called a “thought crime”. Let us return once more to the bill:
H.R. 3541, Section 3:
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNBORN ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR SEX.
Whoever knowingly—
(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child;
(2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion;
(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or
(4) transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
The bill goes further. It allows that:
- Relatives may sue to prevent an abortion based on these criteria.
- Doctors who perform these procedures may be sued by the patient, a child that survives the procedure, or relatives of the child – including the father.
- Groups violating this bill will be deemed as having violated title IV, section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and therefore lose their federal funding.
- Licensed medical professionals would be required to report sex or race selective procedures.
- Mothers can not be prosecuted for having had such a procedure
Hmmm. Does anyone see a “thought crime” here? I didn’t think so.
Congressman Paul has long claimed to champion conservative and pro-life causes. He uses his credentials as a physician to support his “principles”. First, he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. He abandoned that yesterday. Second, he has sworn a Hippocratic Oath to protect health and life. How can his vote in opposition to H.R. 3541 yesterday be seen as anything other than another failed opportunity to defend his purported principles?
Remember, this is the guy who in 2008 was so peeved at not winning the Republican presidential nomination that he told his supporters to go out and vote for anyone else. This suggestion included by name the avowed communist candidate Cynthia McKinney whom he was sharing the stage with that day. If not his brand of conservatism, he prefers communism. If not his version of pro-life, he prefers no life.
*****
Democrats voting in favor of H.R. 3541 are Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross (Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).
The Clockwork Conservative 
Pingback: #yosoyIglesiayyapagoIBI El lobby abortista apoya a Obama y él le recompensa apoyando el aborto de niñas | elentir.info :: Contando Estrelas « A mí, háblame en Cristiano
Instead of speculating on the reasons for Ron Paul’s vote, you should have gone to his House Web site or the Congressional Record for his statement on it. It is at http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1979:statement-on-hr-3541&catid=15:floor-statements I don’t agree with him (I’m not a libertarian and I don’t interpret the Constitution the way he does), but it is consistent with his libertarian principles, and does not mean he is not pro-life.
Actually, Paul’s vote is not grounded in the principle of libertarianism; it is grounded in the principle of federalism. He would probably vote against making theft or murder a federal crime too, since he would view police powers as being assigned to the states. It is wholly unfair to use this vote as evidence of Paul’s support of or indifference to abortion. And I’m not a Paul supporter, at all. But fairness and accuracy should matter.
It is a shame that you are carelessly attacking Dr. Ron Paul. You may be able to corral people around Mitt Romney by using this false explanation, but remember that when and if Romney is president, not a thing will have changed. Abortion will still be legal, the agenda of the gays and lesbians will still be in full force and Americans will still be taxed more than ever.
We are dependent on the government like no other time in history. We want the government to fight our battles. We allowed them to define marriage by submitting to their request that we stand before a court and get permission from the state to get married, and then we wonder why the government wants to extend its reach to legalize same-sex marriage. When the government chose to define marriage, we gave it the right to tell us what we should think as a people. The Church defines marriage and should have the right to marry and divorce people according to its laws, and not the laws of the state.
I know this is about abortion, but we did not get here without lending a hand to evil. We entertained a false idea, and because of that, our future is doomed:
As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching. – Pope Leo XIII
I notice that you did not choose to address the substance of the issues I raised. Instead you chose to raise concerns not related to the issue at hand. If you have anything to relate regarding the inconsistency of Representative Paul’s actions, please feel free to relate them.
Fair point Clockwork, but I don’t see you addressing the substance of the issues raised by Bill or me. You took a cheap shot, and when called on it fail to retract it. Lame.
No cheap shot. Libertarians (I used to be one) have seemingly developed an allergy to ALL federal power… even those powers that are outlined in the Constitution. I laid a out an (IMHO) concise explanation of why voting against this bill is not to preserve states rights (States have no rights. They only retain the powers not kept to the people themselves. Only people have rights.) or individual liberty. Refresh the conversation by reviewing the Declaration of Independence – the document that if it is ignored leaves the Constitution without reason or authority to exist. “To protect life…” The federal government has the authority and I would say duty to protect the lives of its citizens (we’ll discuss non-citizens another time). Just see my citations in the original post. I don’t argue that the states would not be a better place to enforce the protection of the lives of the unborn. However, like slavery, a federal solution is the only one that will address the issue effectively and uniformly where the states openly abrogate the basic right of a human to live without due process to remove that right from them. If Representative Paul is so convinced that the federal government has no power or duty to protect its citizens from arbitrary murder (I disagree if this is the case), then let him put forward an ammendment to the Constitution that gives them the power or requires the states to perform that duty. The political realities of this decade mirror those of the early 1800’s. No such amendment would pass therefore the attempt would be just for show. However, the bill Ron Paul vetoed would have had an immediate if limited effect in advancing protections for the unborn.
OK, this is a long one, please bear with me. I am not avoiding the issue. I just find the first fault to be that you have wrongly presented your argument by not doing proper research on the matter you have written about. It is my job as a reader to question your motives especially when core historical evidence is missing.
If you did your research (and by research,I mean not getting it from FoxNews or Drudge Report), actually calling up the congressman’s office or visiting his website to get a motive for his vote, then you’d find an awful lot.
Take for instance Congressman Justin Amash (R), who is an eastern Rite Catholic (or so I believe). He voted against the measure using this explanation:
When did Republicans start supporting hate-crime legislation? Hate-crime bills, like H R 3541, are apparently okay if they have to do with a baby’s gender but not okay if they have to do with a person’s skin color or sexual orientation. Or maybe they’re okay if it’s an election year and Republicans are trying to make the President look like he doesn’t care about women. I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon.
Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the “wrong” reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the “abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”
The bill also shockingly makes it a crime for a medical or mental health professional NOT to turn in someone who they SUSPECT of having committed this thought crime. They can be thrown into prison for a year if they don’t “report known or suspected violations . . . to appropriate law enforcement authorities.” Free societies do not criminalize inaction.
I’m pro-life, and I think all abortion should be illegal. But Congress should not criminalize thought. And this bill won’t stop a single abortion if it becomes law. Every person seeking an abortion simply will sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby. Those of us who are pro-life should demand more from Congress. While we waste time on stuff like this, genuine legislation to protect life is ignored. – Justin Amash
Secondly, I am not a Libertarian. I cannot give myself totally to something that encourages different points of views on important issues. It is the same reason why I cannot be Republican or even a Democrat. I am actually a Monarchist and I believe in Absolute rule of a monarch. Obviously, Blessed Karl is dead, and I think there are many things wrong with the government, but being a sensible Catholic, I know my job is to respect laws that are respectable and civilly disobey laws that are contrary to Catholic teaching.
You say Ron Paul had a chance to pass this or that, but do we keep forgetting that Ron Paul introduced a pro-life bill in congress in plain language (which is something that other pro-lifers do not do in congress) that did not get any support? Ron Paul’s bills are known for being short and straight to the point, not like the other purported pro-life bills that make it to the floor.
In 2007, Ron Paul came out with this:
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007. H.R. 2597, 2007-06-06, originally H.R. 776, 2005-02-10. For the purposes of statutory construction over the jurisdictional limitation imposed, declares that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception”. Removes federal court jurisdiction over abortion cases arising from state laws and effectively negates Roe v. Wade as binding legal precedent.[63] Such a law returns to each state the power to decide whether or not abortion should be allowed, banned, or regulated.
I don’t care that you do not support Ron Paul, but I care that you are falling into a trap that you will regret. We have turned politics into a back and forth game; into a Republican and Democrat game, while these insolent fools are laughing their way into our pockets while shredding the constitution (which I do not necessarily hold as the end all, but recognize that it preserves basic intrinsic natural law).
Sure there is abortion to deal with, but there is also Marxism which always removes God and personal God-given rights from the equation and now, its stepbrother, corporate fascism; there is overreaching military and police rights, including NDAA, Patriot Act; there is the food weapon that is being used against us with companies like Monsanto and Federal agencies like FDA and USDA and all these things will continue under Mitt Romney and any other Democrat President. While we fight over abortion we lose in the end because we won’t even have the basic right to oppose the evils that we have spent our lives fighting. The last straw will be making pro-life activities illegal..and you’ll be able to thank Mitt Romney and Obama for it.
Clockwork,
First and most importantly, you have an idiosyncratic understanding of the Constitution (more on that in a moment) which Paul simply does not share. You can disagree with him on that, and you do, but this disagreement cannot be fairly characterized as inconsistency on his part either with respect to his stated opposition to abortion or his view of federal powers. Paul’s positions are quite consistent. He believes that abortion is wrong and should be illegal, but that the police powers necessary and appropriate to accomplish that rest with the states rather than the federal government.
Second, the sponsors of HR 3541 were not relying on the 5th Amendment as their warrant for Congressional action, but the commerce clause. The 5th Amendment is not a grant of federal power at all, but a limitation on it. Thus, unlike the commerce clause which is an explict grant of Congressional power, it does not implicate the necessary and proper clause. Paul, like many conservatives, objects to the Congressional use of the commerce clause power as a pretext for the federal exercise of general police powers. Liberals generally disagree and favor an expansive understanding of the commerce clause. Somewhat ironically, conservatives probably have the better argument based on the Framer’s intent whereas the liberals have the better argument based on the clause’s rather sweeping language.
The superior conservative argument in support of federal regulation or criminalization of abortion, and one actually proposed by serious constitutional scholars, rests not with the 5th Amendment’s due process clause, but with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection. While this argument is a serious one, it is by no means an easy or obvious one. At the very least it requires a modern understanding of constitutional “person” that is impossible to square with any notion of the word’s original constitutional meaning. Paul’s apparent unwillingness to accept this revisionist understanding does not render him either a hypocrite or a pro-abort. Indeed, if any hypocrisy exists in this debate, it more easily rests with conservative pro-lifers who are trying to fit a square legislative peg into a round constututional hole. Under our system of goverment, the two most principled avenues available to protect the unborn are: (i) reverse Roe so that states may once again properly exercise their police powers to criminalize abortion and (ii) amend the constitution. If Paul rejects either of these then you may have a fair complaint, but I don’t think he does.
And no, I’m not a Paul supporter and never have been. I disagree with (i) his cramped understanding of federal powers and (ii) his practical understanding of international dynamics and dangers. I also think he’s ill-suited to be president. But the charge that he is not really pro-life is unfair, at least to the extent it is based on his opposition to HR 3541.
Romney and Obama will take your money and send your kids to kill other kids. Now what kind of distraction is this abortion law you are talking about?
This is the kind of intelligent debate / commentary I would expect on Twitter. Thanks for sharing.