Rand Paul Wants to Ban Abortions and End Birthright Citizenship

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/28/rand-paul-wants-to-ban-abortions-and-end-birthright-citizenship.html

Sometimes new members of Congress take some time to get settled in before proposing legislation. Not Rand Paul, the new Republican senator from Kentucky. Paul inherited many traits from his father, Rep. Ron Paul: like his dad, Rand is a doctor who entered politics to advance a fiercely held commitment to the family’s quirky ideology. (The enthusiastic young volunteers for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign called it “Goldwater conservatism” in reference to Barry Goldwater, the patron saint of small-government conservatives, not in reference to Paul’s desire to return to the gold standard.) And this week it became apparent that—like his father, who has introduced many quixotic bills such as the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act—Rand Paul intends to regularly introduce legislation that has no realistic chance of passing.

But while Paul might be expected to take after his father in this regard, the causes he has espoused have been surprising. Whereas Ron Paul has focused his career on fiscal conservatism and foreign-policy isolationism, Rand Paul is promoting socially conservative positions.

On Monday he announced he is joining Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) in cosponsoring the Life at Conception Act. The law would declare that a person’s life begins at conception. Paul and Wicker reason that by declaring fetuses to be legal persons protected under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the laws, it would override the constitutional right to an abortion that the Supreme Court found in Roe v. Wade. Of course, granting a fetus all the rights of a person might lead to interpretations that—ironically, given that Paul campaigned on a strong commitment to privacy and liberty—would vastly expand government power. For example, if a pregnant woman smokes or drinks alcohol, or simply eats unhealthily, could she face prosecution for reckless endangerment of a child? In any case, Paul confidently predicted that “passage of the Life at Conception Act would reverse Roe v. Wade without the need for a constitutional amendment.”

[Le Taz Hot]

1. When Rand Paul

gets a mother fuckin' womb, he can have a mother fuckin' opinion about abortion.

(Sorry for being crude here, I'm just sick and tired of MEN telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.)

[Rage for Order]

4. And when women start serving in combat they can have an opinion on war

As it stands women have no right to protest war because there is no chance that they will have to join an infantry unit.

[TBF]

5. Fine, if men all kill each other it will be quieter anyway. What an inane argument. nt

[Ohio Joe]

6. Incorrect comparison

Because women are not assigned to infantry units does not mean they do not serve and die in war. Men do not reproduce in their own bodies, they should have no say in how a woman handles her own body. Any other opinion is simply wanting to control women.

[madrchsod]

7. there were nurses killed in combat zones....

[spanone]

2. america has tolerated ignorant radicals for centuries

[safeinOhio]

3. Does that mean I get to

collect my Social Security 9 months early?