Ron Paul Votes To Allow Sex and Race Selective Abortions
Posted on June 1, 2012
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?
* * *
The Catholic right to life principles do not allow us to vote for any legislation which allows for some babies to be aborted. By specifiying that certain babies cannot be aborted for certain reasons, you are, in effect saying that some babies CAN be aborted for certain reasons. This is not allowed. The principle is Catholic and it is clear. To say that this is cowardice is a reversal of the truth. It is more like cowardice to allow out emotions to run away with our heads. A little logic and calm please.
Read Professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame on the subject of life principles. I am an old pro-lifer and have seen much in my time regarding the cause. Ultimately the only answer is the rosary.
Agree with you, but as non-Catholic, but must make one exception: The ‘only answer’ is God.. His providence, His grace, His authority… not the rosary.
Hi DawnSG54. With a quick observation that it doesn’t appear you are interested in knowing more about the Catholic Church, poo-pooing the Rosary on a Catholic forum, I’ll spend a few bytes in hopes that my observation is wrong.
I’m sure that many on this forum would be happy to discuss the Rosary with you and help you come to know the True Church if you are sincerely seeking. We know with certainty that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother are very pleased when we recite the Rosary, with its praise of God the Father, and the angelic salutation that began our Our Lord’s miraculous Incarnation. Over history we’ve seen the miracles wrought through recitation of the Rosary. While there are other prayers, we know that we are heard and that Heaven desires to hear this prayer, especially in matters of great need.
Words of Our Lady of Fatima on the Holy Rosary
† Pray the Rosary every day, in order to obtain peace for
the world, and the end of the war. …May 13, 1917
† I wish you to come here on the 13th of next month, to
pray the Rosary each day. …June 13, 1917
† I want you to come here on the 13th of next month, and
to continue praying the Rosary every day in honor of
Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the
world and the end of the war, because only She can help
you. …July 13, 1917
† I want you to continue praying the Rosary every day.
…August 19, 1917
† Continue to say the Rosary to obtain the end of the war.
…September 13, 1917
† I am Our Lady of the Rosary. Continue to say the Rosary
every day. …October 13, 1917
† You at least try to console Me and announce in My
name that I promise to assist at the moment of death,
with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those
who, on the First Saturday of five consecutive months
shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five
decades of the Rosary, and keep Me company for fifteen
minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the
Rosary, with the intention of making Reparation to Me.
… December 10, 1925 to Sister Lucy at Pontevedra
THE ROSARY IS NOT OPTIONAL
by Father Patrick Perez
THIS IS AN EDITED TRANSCRIPT OF A SPEECH GIVEN ON THE HOLY ROSARY AT THE FATIMA CENTER’S LAST CHANCE FOR WORLD PEACE CONFERENCE IN TUY, SPAIN, OCTOBER, 2006.
IN true apparitions, Our Lady, or whoever is sent from Heaven, does not waste words and does not use them idly.
At Fatima, in the most relevant and urgent apparition of our times, Our Lady introduced Herself to the three shepherd children and She said “I am the Lady of the Rosary.” It was not for nothing that She chose these words. Why choose this title now? Of Our Lady’s one hundred and seventeen titles that She has had through the history of the Church, why introduce Herself now, in our modern age, as the Lady of the Rosary?
Simply put, each one of us, our families, our cities, states, our countries, our Church and in fact our whole world needs the Rosary now more than at any point in history. The Rosary is not just a devotion that we may take or leave. We have this from the words of the Mother of God Herself. To quote Sister Lucy (who wrote) “people must recite the Rosary every day.”
Our Lady repeated this in all the apparitions. In all the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 She said many things. But above all, She said “every person must recite the Rosary every day.”
Now there are those who would disagree, but I happen to believe that when the Mother of God appears to you and tells you to do something, you really should do it; whether that be to pray the Rosary or consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.
We Must Pray the Rosary Every Day
When the Mother of God gives us a command that comes from the Throne of God in Heaven, we are not at liberty to reject it. It becomes essential at that point. And Our Lady clearly indicated that we must pray the Rosary every day. This is a command. This is not peripheral. This is not something we can take or leave.
We do not have just a casual need either. It’s not that, well we can make it, but if we say the Rosary we’ll get a little more grace and this will help with something. No. We don’t just have a casual need of Our Lady’s Rosary, but an urgent, desperate need. She appeared to tell us just that. And to give us, Her children, hope in these last times.
This title reminds us as well that the Fifteen Promises She made for those who pray the Rosary are still in effect. And for those of you who don’t know, I can tell you what they are. (One of Father Gruner’s pamphlets reprints the Fifteen Promises that Our Lady made for those who will pray the Rosary. Call toll-free: 1-800-845-3047) And when you read these you realize you are in need of every one of these graces and could not do without them.
Roseariel, could you provide some citation for calling your analysis Catholic? I do not personally see voting for the forbiddance of any type of abortion could be a bad thing, and voting against it good. I mean both morally and strategically. Only logically is one “saying” that some forms of abortion must be okay, if I can say this one instance is not okay. I don’t feel that, I don’t know others who feel that. Vote against abortion every time seems to cover all waters. Why not? And again, can you cite something that backs up your position?
When was there ever, since abortion became legal, an opportunity in this country to “limit” abortion that did not allow for it at the same time? Read the opinions of Dr. Charles E. Rice, of Notre Dame Law School and others here;
americanrtl.org/abortion-regulations
Professor Rice in an acknowledged heavyweight in the right to life movement and he uses Catholic theology and Catholic principles to come to his conclusions. It only makes sense. You cannot write laws restricting the way a thing is done without at the same time allowing that it may be done. Most in the right-to-life community have cut their own legs off with this attitude that anything they throw to us is acceptable…for now. We need to stop accepting compromise. We are Catholics and we should know better. Dr. Paul is not Catholic.
Here is what Mr. Amash had to say about his vote…
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.
I think Farmer Roy hit the nail on the head. This bill won’t stop any abortion.
Recall the partial-birth-abortion battle? Establishment pro-life went all out to pass a bill that wouldn’t save one child. It was a waste of time and money.
I agree with Jan B. and Rosariel. On one hand, it’s self defeating to play the incremental game, trying to reverse what Satan gained via the same method. It devolves to a Hegelian framework and always moves leftward. On the other hand, if you were given a chance to vote on a bill that bans abortion in all the 48 contiguous states, with wording that simply omits Alaska and Hawaii, what would you do? I’d vote yes, of course.
Cyprian, in this instance it would be difficult not to vote yes, but virtually all of these laws are written so that it is spelled out what abortions are allowed and not restricted by the “law”. For example, take the Supreme Court decision on Gonzales v. Carhart, where Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts several times throughout their decision give detailed information on how to LEGALLY perform the partial birth abortions. Read this open letter in the link provided, to Dr. James Dobson, who hailed along with many, many Catholic leaders, this decision as a great triumph. It is even a travesty that we must refer to these crimes on paper as laws. They are not laws. Murder cannot be legalized. You see what we have come to accept?
www.coloradorighttolife.org/openletter
Ron Paul is pro-life.
However, his method of getting there is much stronger, and safer than simply passing a law banning abortions.
Ron Paul plans to stop abortion by repealing Roe v. Wade by constitutional legislation that would remove the moral issue of abortion from the courts. This Act is known as the “We the People Act” and was proposed by Ron Paul.
Also, Ron Paul does support a federal person-hood amendment. As a nation, we would be able to move towards this once we strip the courts of deciding moral issues such as marriage and abortion.
As a person who believes in limited government, Ron Paul would vote to stop funding Planned Parenthood and other various organizations through the government. His voting record is impeccable.
Getting mad at Ron Paul because he votes no on a circus bill that continues the problem of big government and will do nothing in practicality is wrong and misguided.
If you read the bill to ban sex-selective abortions, all you see is a maze of mirrors on who can be blamed. In practicality, it solves nothing and serves as a fake record of who is really pro-life.
Ron Paul is a great person for a Catholic to support because of his views on subsidiarity, Look up “Tom Woods Ron Paul” and you’ll find a great video that argues the Catholic case for Ron Paul.