34 votes

Rand Paul Proposes Federal "Life at Conception" Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On Thursday, Sen. Paul introduced S.583, a bill that would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment for the right to life of each born and unborn human. This legislation does not amend or interpret the Constitution, but simply relies on the 14th Amendment, which specifically authorizes Congress to enforce its provisions.

From Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:


"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known- that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward,” Sen. Paul said. “The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress.”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options


This is wrong. Amend the

This is wrong. Amend the constitution to protect life if we want federal action on abortion, if not leave it up to the states.

Here's a wacky idea

When creating a post about pending legislation, provide a link to the bill in question. At the very least provide a summary.

Call me crazy, but it might also be helpful if people actually decided to read the bill before commenting on it.



One step closer to criminalizing miscarriage

and putting mothers who miscarry on trial. Didn't take your prenatal vitamins, lady?? Off to jail with you.

You have to look at everything with an eye to how the opportunistic police state will warp the original intent of a law into something more draconian.

The Sanctity of Life Act was

The Sanctity of Life Act was a bill introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2005 in the 109th United States Congress, 110th United States Congress, 111th United States Congress, and the 112th United States Congress.

why is/was there no hate on this? its more or less the same thing. no?

There was no hate because the

There was no hate because the bills are completely different. Why do Rand defenders feel the need to tear down Ron?

The wording of Ron's act was centered on empowering the states to act on abortion and depriving the FEDERAL courts of trumping these powers. Rand's bill, by contrast, would federally ban abortion by trumping the rights of the states via the 14th amendment. If Rand wants the states to decide, he is sure being mighty silent about it which has almost nothing in common with Rand's nationalist alternative.

See here for the plain words of Ron's 2005 bill:


Why do y'all think Rand is

Why do y'all think Rand is going to lose an election because of this? What...because some liberal women won't vote for him? First off, those liberal women won't vote for him either way because those liberal women would vote Hillary over anyone else. Second, there are a lot of motivated pro life women also.

Rand did good with this one.

If you don't think this call

If you don't think this call for federal abortion ban will drive away many from the ranks of the young libertarian women who joined the Ron Paul campaign, or could potentially join a similar Rand campaign, you are in for a rude surprise. They have other choices (staying home or voting LP) and then will do it.

he won't lose liberal women voters

over this. The types of voters he would lose are pro-choice independent voters. Believe it or not, the majority of voters in the US believe that abortion should be legal at least in some circumstances. This type of legislation implies an intention to outlaw all abortions under all circumstances.

Taking a strong stand either way on the abortion issue is going to alienate voters. If Rand goes public trying to legalize abortion, he will lose a lot of pro-life voters. I realize that if he is running as a Republican, he will offend more potential votes from the pro-life crowd, than he would lose taking a hardcore anti-abortion stand.

If Rand cannot get this legislation passed (and he won't) ... then he basically accomplishes nothing for the pro-life supporters, but at the same time he alienates the pro-choice independents who will be offended by the fact that he tried to do this. So there is really no practical benefit for Rand to do this. The pro-lifers all know that Rand is on the same page with him. This is merely going to paint him as an extremist from the other half, who will see him as trying to force an agenda that they disagree with regardless of the fact that it isn't popular enough to pass.

I think

This is a great move. Libertarians always talk about how we can be free and do what ever we want as long as we don't harm one another. Well..... Abortion is harming some one. You are killing an innocent baby. If you people are so worried about abortion, than maybe you should be more responsible when you have sex.

"Killing an innocent baby" you

"Killing an innocent baby" you say. Okay. Then I assume that you support either a long prison sentence or the death penalty for a woman does same, right? While I am asking, do you also want to have the nanny state prevent these women from smoking or skiing while pregnant?

You're comparing risky

You're comparing risky behavior to an actual act of murder. That is typical nanny state talk and is why something as stupid as breaking the speed limit makes people criminals. Just because you break the speed limit or drive drunk, that doesn't mean you will cause an accident. People should not be charged with crimes for such things unless they harm someone while doing so. You should be allowed to drive around drunk all you want, but if you cause an accident, THEN you should be charged with a crime. If you are drunk and sitting at a red light and someone rear ends you, you should not be at fault because you are drunk. The police have the means to reconstruct what happens in accidents and determine fault and other variables like intoxication. As technology progresses it should enable more freedom, but it's actually taking away our freedoms because people can't deal with the fact that shit happens in life.


Fair enough. Would you

Fair enough. Would you charge the woman who has a miscarriage because of a skiing accident or if her baby is born with alcohol fetal syndrome?

No, because the first is an

No, because the first is an accident, and the second isn't even murder. A female who would drink enough during her pregnancy to cause FAS is probably enough of a degenerate to get a back-alley coat-hanger abortion anyway.


Not under the law in this

Not under the law in this country. If I cause someone's death wanton, reckless behavior, I am guilty of a crime. Under an abortion prohibtion regime, that would certainly be true if I paid someone to "murder" my baby or intentionally caused a miscarraige.

If you go this way. Well

If you go this way. Well make sure you save enough fight to finish it out. If you are carrying you MUST never be around smoke EVER drink. Must work out everyday and MUST eat 100% flawlessly or you will go to jail. We wouldn't want to pass a law to not harm another just 1/2 ass after all........

So suck it up and put EVERYTHING in there that harms said life every day it.

Also tied to the bill most be ZERO hand out or help at ALL for any care to them. For the bill is about not hurting another and MANY MANY MANY do not wish to be harmed by forced labor at gun point to pay for another.

Bottom line is SOMEONE is always going to be harmed.

NO LAW CAN FIX THAT... just make for bigger gov:)

Now if you wish to teach other what YOUR morals are and win the hearts and minds that just might work.

After all we are about not forcing our ways onto others.

Life is great with Isagenix

I said something to the same effect above

before I even read your comment.

I think you said it better. :)

I do not believe that we can ever gain a "Misesian" Free-Market

via voting and lobbying. Since a Misesian Free-Market is based on "Consumer" Sovereignty -- meaning consumer's rule via POS (point of sale) purchases and stock/bond purchases.

Voting and Lobbying is NOT a "consumer" good.

All that being said -- for those of who who think Rand will do better than his father and are polishing your bitcoins for 2016, these anti-abortion bills of Rand's will un-due all your effort (preemptively).

Abortions could not be stopped in a "free" society -- because all medical information is monopolized by the individual rather than Big Brother -- therefore how would you ever know if an abortion took place; it is confidential?

You would need a powerful court system and policy agency to stop 1M abortions per year. They would need the ability to investigate false-starts, investigate individuals, spy on doctors, and finally the ability to steal assets and kidnap individuals -- in essence you'd need a modern society such as we already have.

I'm not in favor of abortions -- I'm totally against it.

The way to end abortion is to have a very tight-knit family and extended family so that when a woman gets pregnant she feels so supported and encouraged that she chooses to go forward with it.

tasmlab's picture

Murder of infants and toddlers

One could probably tell a grim tale of how people could more easily do away with their infants too, without a state. After doing the deed and disposing of the small body, you would tell your neighbors that the child got sick and perished and you could cry a bit, and probably never be investigated by an authority.

This would be psychopathic evil of course - crazy, like the rain, exist with and without a state. The same tigh-knit loving family would hopefully cut this off.

(Disclosure: I'm the daddy of three young children)


You nailed it Tam

In a free-society you could easily get away with the murder of the elderly or the young -- because in a free-society the remains of an individual are not "owned" by the public (force-agency - gov't); therefore, you could say whatever, bury the body on your own property and no one could trespass.

A free-society is a 100% Defend-Yourself-Society.

However -- in a free-society there is TREMENDOUS value on children, the elderly, and women. Only when these people are property of the state or property of head-of-household do they have less value.

In a free-society Innovation/Ideation and R&D are the only ways to create profit-bursts -- In that type of society, the wealthy are dependent on these idea-guys and most innovation comes from the poor and middle-class community -- and with tech, it comes increasingly from 16-24 yr olds.

The wealthy will want "more" people -- not less; because you just don't know who your Einstein is going to be.

The elderly will be valuable as educators -- retirees (whose mind is still sharp) are the obvious choice to be teachers -- they have life-experience. They will also work for less-pay, may even volunteer. They will also be the wealthiest people because there is no gov't retirement plan in a free-society so they've been saving all their lives -- saving comes first. So their children and relations and local community are going to be EXTRA nice to them.

tasmlab's picture

I don't think it would be people's value that kept them alive

I don't think it would be people's value that kept them alive, regardless if we did or didn't value the specific utility elderly and the children. Even before that discussion of "should I murder grandma because she's not worth much" there would still be the giant-sized rationale of ethics and morality.

The utility/value of children doesn't explain the willingness to abort - but then it is so clouded between our systemic poor and the stupid adoption laws. Everyone I've known to adopt a child has had to spend no less than $40,000 in fees.

I would think the murder rates of family members wouldn't go up because of the lack of law - I couldn't know of course.

At the moment you are about to drown your children in the bathtub because, you know, you were crazy abused as a child, took too many psych pills whilst huffing gasoline that night or whatever, you would stop to think about the consequences because of the law. Once the coo-coo has left the clock, we're outside the law anyways.

Scary stuff! But this is really what serious conversations of "what is the proper role of violence within a society" should be e.g., about protecting children, not paving roads or inspecting vegetables or funding television programing about antiquing.


I don't...

...understand the logic that if someone can get away with a murder, then there should be no law against murder.

Your problem is not one of the heart

Your problem is statistics and population size.

Your side wants to end 100% of all abortions, I do too.

Your side wants to use law, which to patrol each medical interacion of 310M to stop 1M abortions per year.

My side wants a free-society (self-defence, self-help, individualist, 100% Privacy in all categories including medical) in gaining one we increase the value of the unborn, women, children, and seniors (the most abused groups).

And no...

...murder laws of any kind? Or I guess, more accurately, no laws of any kind. Just survival of the fittest: 'the weak are meat; the strong do eat'? Basically, family blood feuds as justice?

Something I don't quite understand:

- reset society to having no laws, total liberty
- are these people now at liberty to voluntarily regroup and form new laws?
- if not, then how are they truly free?
- if not, who enforces that no groups form laws?
- is not that enforcement a type of law itself?

Hey -- I'm just a username running a community font

so don't take my word for it :-)

The best way to protect the un-born is to stop protecting adults in all other categories, genres, groups, and collectives.

The Agrarian Age (low amount of adult protection schemas equaled high value on the un-born -- large family size to run the farm).

Do the research (it's simple):

If there were 535 Ron Pauls in Congress and Senate and there was 1 RP in White House -- how much spending would take place?

If the answer is "zero" and if the States are horribly dependent on Federal Cash infusions then the result would be "less" protectionism, right? Isn't that our (freedom movements) goal, to get every seat occupied by an RP type congressman with no sell-outs?

I know this wont happen and I know what I was saying above will not become a reality -- but it IS the position RP runs on and it's the metaphorical philosophy of the "freedom" movement.

As soon as "lesser than" becomes the goal you will get in-fighting, because "less than 100% liberty" (consumer-rule) and you still have have's vs have-nots and that is the basis of perpetual war (voting and lobbying) and perpetual foreign wars (off-gassing our misery on others -- which prevents national civil war here).

If you are IN FAVOR of RP and you argue it with your friends and your goal is 535 RP's in the House and 1 in the Oval Office then you have to know what it is that you're saying.

Now RP does favor of states-rights type of thinking, but states are huge now (compared to 1790) -- so a state-sized bureaucracy in modern times is far far far worse than the entirety of federal and all states combined back in 1790 -- I'm thinking California, Texas, New York (any modern state with a population size of 3M or more is larger than the US in 1790 and with far more virulent red tape).

I mean Christians were feeding little black babies to crocodiles back then......post-birth abortion (pop control).

We are being Rick Roll'd with issue-centered politics; it gives the illusion you can have protection from harm if we can just get it on paper.

The Pro-Gun crowd does not believe gov't/police will get there in time, the very philosophy of it is what I'm talking about -- protect-thyself.

If everyone is lethal then no-one is attacked -- Further, if everyone who is "weak" under corporatism is "strong" (high value) under Free-Market Society (and I can easily argue the latter).

Don't get...

...me wrong. I'm all for minimizing laws and maximizing Liberty. I'm perfectly fine with and push for getting government completely out of marriage, the drug war, the welfare and warfare state, etc. I'm all for self-reliance and self-defense, etc., etc. It sounds more like you favor NO laws, whereas I favor few laws--such as those against murder, theft, rape, etc. I think even if you could get rid of all such laws, it wouldn't be long before folks started to regroup and form alliances and new laws to help protect everyone in their circle against such things through the threat of prosecution against those who would attempt it. I don't like the idea of vigilantes all roaming the countryside as judge, jury and executioner, to seek vengeance against those who wronged them. Isn't there a place in society for the rule of law in a civilized manner, rather than tooth and claw law of the jungle?

I wish that a utopia without any laws was possible. Because people do not perfectly live out Love for their neighbors and enemies (self-regulation), there will always be the need for some external regulation (law) to help keep evils in check.

I can understand a debate about the degree and scope of laws and whether they should be local or state or federal; but the idea of no laws just doesn't make sense to me, as to how that would work or last. Certainly Dr. Paul does not advocate there being no murder laws at all?

There's never been a modern "low law" society

Modern Societies are always "max law" "full penetration" "full intervention" -- going back to the Roman Empire (less tech obviously).

Laws - Rules benefit the "protector" class and monopolize implementation-enforcement........more important "self-defense"

Self-Rule = Self-Defense

Monopoly-Rule = Monopolized-Defense

Rand POTUS potential is no more because of women?

The abortion issue is definetly a wedge issue and I wish Rand could have just left it alone and just say he is pro-life, but states should decide.

Oh well. Can others join me in hating women and their private parts? - at least for today?

Lots of motivated pro life

Lots of motivated pro life women out there. This was the right move.

I am actually pro-life, but I think this is a terrible move.

He's trying to get the interest of the young and liberty minded for a general election win -- he talks specifically about places like California. Well, he just lost California.

In my state, we have the two worst senators Feinstein and Boxer who win year after year simply by saying that the other side is going to get rid of abortion.

We have 1000 important issues -- abortion is one of them. But we are nowhere near to getting something like this passed, and now it dumblefucks up the other 999 important things that we have a chance at.

If you want to lay out a path to winning with our views, you don't start with the biggest wedge issue and giving people 3 years to use it against you.

Since CA is majority hispanics

and many hispanics are catholic, and the GOP wants to welcome hispanics (sigh).. I'd say this is great news for pro-life and bad news for the cult of death (denile of death and death is a solution).