With Texas electing Ron Paul’s replacement (He is retiring) this November, it would seem that the Sanctity of Life Act he introduces annually will be dead.
Thankfully, the great man who originally wrote it in 1995, Steve Stockman, will be headed back to Congress and is actually going to represent part of Ron Paul’s old district. He has been endorsed by Paul as well. I expect him to continue to carry the torch keep this bill going in Congress.
For some reason, no more than 5 people, all Republicans, decide to co-sponsor this bill every year.
Yes, it would be controversial, but it is constitutional. Basically, the supreme court has no authority, and the states are free to outlaw abortion. Many states would outlaw it immediately, and others within a few years. That doesn’t mean we have to stop working for a constitutional amendment either.
Bill TEXT is here: Bill Text - 110th Congress (2007-2008) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Great article on it: Personhood and Ron Paul - The Personhood Initiative
Also similar is Ron Paul’s “We the People Act”. Except it not only removes federal jurisdiction from abortion, but also marriage, sexuality, and establishment of religion, unless challenging a llaw. I’ll let the bill explain for itself below; it gives the Constitutional justification for such a measure. Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as `We the People Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Article III, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States vests the judicial power of the United States in `one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish'.
(2) Article I, section 8 and article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States give Congress the power to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts.
** (3) Article III, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to make `such exceptions, and under such regulations' as Congress finds necessary to Supreme Court jurisdiction.
** (4) Congress has the authority to make exceptions to Supreme Court jurisdiction in the form of general rules and based upon policy and constitutional reasons other than the outcomes of a particular line of cases. (See Federalist No. 81; United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1872)).
** (5) Congress has constitutional authority to set broad limits on the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts in order to correct abuses of judicial power and continuing violations of the Constitution of the United States by Federal courts.**
(6) Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States guarantees each State a republican form of government.
(7) Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(8) The Supreme Court and lower Federal courts threaten the republican government of the individual States by replacing elected government with rule by unelected judges.
(9) Even supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's decisions overturning the abortion laws of all 50 States are constitutionally flawed (e.g. Ely, `The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade' 82 Yale L.J. 920 (1973)).
(10) Several members of the Supreme Court have admitted that the Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction is indefensible (e.g. Zelamn v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 688 (2002) (Souter, J., dissenting); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 861 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 399, (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring); and Committee for Public Ed. And Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 671 (1980) (Stevens, J., dissenting)).
(11) Congress has the responsibility to protect the republican governments of the States and has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
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.
SEC. 5. JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES.
Any party or intervener in any matter before any Federal court, including the Supreme Court, may challenge the jurisdiction of the court under section 3 or 4 during any proceeding or appeal relating to that matter.
SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.
A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.
SEC. 7. CASES DECIDED UNDER ISSUES REMOVED FROM FEDERAL JURISDICTION NO LONGER BINDING PRECEDENT.
Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under section 3, is not binding precedent on any State court.
This is article 3, section 2 of the Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
This is our solution to abortion, not hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade one day: it won’t. Waiting for a Constitutional amendment is not viable either, but as I said keep working for it.
State nullification of Roe v. Wade is another possibility and legal, however no state has had such courage to nullify while remain in the union since President John Adams passed the Alien and Seditions Acts, and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote and established the legal precedent for state nullification of unconstitutional, tyrannical federal laws. Actually, I am wrong, South Carolina and John Calhoun did nullify federal tariffs, however they ended up with a compromise. Jefferson and Madison won.
The Republican House and Mitt Romney can show that they are pro-life by passing either the Sanctity of Life Act or the We The People Act, or they can show they care more about being uncontroversial than doing something morally imperative.If
Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade can become a staunch pro-life advocate after originally tring to make abortion legal, and endorse both of Paul’s bills to end abortion, Mitt Romney should be able to do it as well.