Sanctity of Life Act


Ron Paul voting record is clear attempt to legislate morality that is very clearly based of Christian Faith:

Quote:

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion.

* Congressional Summary:Prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for any abortion.Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and health plans must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
* Disallows any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion.
* Provides exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest; or life-endangering maternal condition.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Fortenberry, R-NE]: Americans deserve to know how the government spends their money, and they are right to refuse the use of their tax dollars for highly controversial activities--in this case, abortion. Abortion harms women. It takes the lives of children, and it allows a man to escape his responsibility. The abortion industry many times profits from all of this pain. We can and must do better as a society, and at a minimum, taxpayer dollars should not be involved. This issue has manifested itself most intently during the health care debate. Unless a prohibition is enacted, taxpayers will fund abortion under the framework of the new health care law. Abortion is not health care.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY]: H.R. 3 is actually dangerous for women's health. By refusing to provide any exceptions to women who are facing serious health conditions--cancer, heart or whatever that may be--you are forcing women to choose to risk their health or to risk bankruptcy, and I think that is morally unacceptable. Under H.R. 3, a woman facing cancer who needs to terminate a pregnancy in order to live might have to go into debt over the $10,000 that the legal and necessary procedure could cost. Despite having both health insurance and tax-preferred savings accounts, this bill would prevent her from having that.
Reference: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; Bill H.3 ; vote number 11-HV292 on May 4, 2011

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use. I suggest we are not the arbiters of research. Instead, we should foster all of these methods, and we should adequately fund and have ethical oversight over all ethical stem cell research.

Opponents support voting NO because:

A good deal has changed in the world of science. Amniotic fluid stem cells are now available to open a broad new area of research. I think the American people would welcome us having a hearing to understand more about this promising new area of science. As it stands today, we will simply have to debate the bill on the merits of information that is well over 2 years old, and I think that is unfortunate.

The recent findings of the pluripotent epithelial cells demonstrates how quickly the world has changed. Wouldn't it be nice to have the researcher before our committee and be able to ask those questions so we may make the best possible judgment for the American people?
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:

* Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
* Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
* Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005


Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans.
Paul signed H.R.5939

* A bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes: No funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.
* None of the funds authorized or appropriated by federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
* No credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion.
* No health care service furnished or operated by the Federal government may include abortion.
* Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting purchasing separate abortion coverage or health benefits coverage that includes abortion so long as such coverage is paid for entirely using non-federal funds.
* Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting the ability of any nonfederal health benefits coverage provider from offering abortion coverage, so long as only non-federal funds are used and such coverage shall not be purchased using matching funds required for a federally subsidized program.
* The limitations shall not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape, or incest with a minor; or in the case the woman is in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
Source: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act 10-HR5939 on Jul 29, 2010


Prohibit federal funding for abortion.
Paul signed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act
* TITLE I: Prohibiting Federally-Funded Abortions and Providing for Conscience ProtectionsProhibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)
* Excludes from such prohibitions an abortion if: the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or the woman would be place in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

* TITLE II: Elimination of Certain Tax Benefits Relating to AbortionDisqualifies, for purposes of the tax deduction for medical expenses, any amounts paid for an abortion.
* Excludes from the definition of "qualified health plan" after 2013, for purposes of the refundable tax credit for premium assistance for such plans, any plan that includes coverage for abortion.

Source: H.R.3 &S.906 11-HR0003 on May 5, 2011

Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood.
Paul co-sponsored Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
Congressional Summary: Prohibits providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion. Excludes an abortion where: (1) the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or an act of incest against a minor; or (2) a physician certifies that the woman suffered from a physical disorder, injury, or illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

Sponsor Remarks by Rep. Mike Pence: It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to promote abortion. Last year, Planned Parenthood received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants; and performed an unprecedented 324,008 abortions. The largest abortion provider in America should not also be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title X. The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act will prevent any family planning funds under Title X from going to Planned Parenthood or other organizations that perform abortions. It will ensure that abortion providers are not being subsidized with federal tax dollars.

[Linked Image]