Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Human Rights

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02 May 2012, 12:01 PM   #360735 / #1
phands
Long term atheist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Manhattan New York
Posts: 10,967
Default Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann Co-Sponsor Another Anti-Abortion Bill

http://www.care2.com/causes/ron-paul...tion-bill.html

Vermin.....

Quote:
Last week Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and former presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) have joined forces behind yet another anti-abortion bill.

Paul, who hasn’t managed to show up for a majority of congressional votes this year due to his campaign schedule has made supporting the Stop Abortion Funding in Multi-state Exchange Plans (SAFE) Act a priority. The bill would block any multi-state health plan from offering coverage for elective abortions.

According to Paul and other Republican supporters, making sure federal funding does not go to providing comprehensive women’s health coverage is a necessity despite the fact that federal law already prohibits the use of taxpayer funding for abortion.

Under the bill the government would have to ensure that “no multi-State qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage of abortion.” Like other federal funding bans the bill allows a narrow exception in the case of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at risk.

Given Paul’s support it’s probably safe to assume the rape exception is only in those cases of an “honest rape.”

In a final twist of hypocrisy from Paul and the other “states rights” sponsors, the bill prohibits states from pre-empting the law and guaranteeing coverage on their own. That means that the states are beholden to the federal government here, because Paul and his supporters believe that freedom from unnecessary government intrusion is apparently a right only held by men.
__________________
ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
phands is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 12:57 AM   #362498 / #2
crazyfingers
Meow
 
crazyfingers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,394
Default

You'll love this one by Ron Paul. It effectively frees the states to ignore the establishment clause and free exercise clause and frees the states to ignore supreme court rulings related to sex and freedom.

Ron Paul isn't about libertarianism. He's about allowing state governments to violate the rights of citizens.

Quote:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:
crazyfingers is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 01:35 AM   #362508 / #3
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,727
Default

Good luck with that.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 04:30 AM   #362547 / #4
trendkill
Senior Member
Mini KickUps Champion, KickUps Champion
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyfingers View Post
You'll love this one by Ron Paul. It effectively frees the states to ignore the establishment clause and free exercise clause and frees the states to ignore supreme court rulings related to sex and freedom.

Ron Paul isn't about libertarianism. He's about allowing state governments to violate the rights of citizens.

Quote:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:
I've pointed this out to socially-liberal Paul supporters. It didn't pierce the eye-glaze.
trendkill is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 08:52 AM   #362574 / #5
DMB
Old git
Beloved deceased
 
DMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mostly Switzerland
Posts: 41,484
Default

Is this likely to pass?
DMB is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 12:55 PM   #362624 / #6
crazyfingers
Meow
 
crazyfingers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trendkill View Post

I've pointed this out to socially-liberal Paul supporters. It didn't pierce the eye-glaze.
Ya I've noticed too.
crazyfingers is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 02:55 PM   #362645 / #7
Worldtraveller
Will work for fun.
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: S. OR.
Posts: 3,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyfingers View Post
You'll love this one by Ron Paul. It effectively frees the states to ignore the establishment clause and free exercise clause and frees the states to ignore supreme court rulings related to sex and freedom.

Ron Paul isn't about libertarianism. He's about allowing state governments to violate the rights of citizens.

Quote:
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

SEC. 4. REGULATION OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and all other Federal courts--

(1) are not prevented from determining the constitutionality of any Federal statute or administrative rule or procedure in considering any case arising under the Constitution of the United States; and

(2) shall not issue any order, final judgment, or other ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the several States and their subdivisions.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:
Bullshit like this is one reason I would like to see mandatory court review of any legislation. It's also one reason I would like to see the legislative process changed so that totally unrelated things like this court review can't get snuck into legislation that otherwise might be good (not in this case).
Worldtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 03:02 PM   #362651 / #8
DMB
Old git
Beloved deceased
 
DMB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Mostly Switzerland
Posts: 41,484
Default

I'm not am expert on the US constitution, but wouldn't parts of this bill be unconstitutional?
DMB is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 03:10 PM   #362653 / #9
laughing dog
Senior Member
 
laughing dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: By the Mississippi River
Posts: 3,249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMB View Post
I'm not am expert on the US constitution, but wouldn't parts of this bill be unconstitutional?
That won't stop the whackos in the GOP-controlled House from passing the bill.
__________________
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members - Groucho Marx
laughing dog is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 07 May 2012, 03:41 PM   #362664 / #10
MattShizzle
Zombie for Satan
 
MattShizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Bernville, PA
Posts: 18,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMB View Post
I'm not am expert on the US constitution, but wouldn't parts of this bill be unconstitutional?
No, the entire thing would be.
MattShizzle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Human Rights

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Texas Passes Anti-Abortion Bill Sinfidel Politics & World Events 58 20 Jul 2013 03:35 PM
Anti-Abortion Politician - Abortion on Command lpetrich Politics & World Events 0 13 Oct 2012 12:59 PM
Michele Bachmann can run for office in Switzerland phands Politics & World Events 10 11 May 2012 06:51 PM
Michele Bachmann withdraws DMB Politics & World Events 32 06 Jan 2012 06:43 PM
The kind of people who elect Michele Bachmann phands Religion 1 27 Jul 2011 01:18 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus