Is A Partial Birth Abortion Interstate Commerce?

[publius]

Representative Ron Paul of Texas has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he will not, for the most part, vote for anything which he believes is outside of the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. He believes that LOTS of things are outside of those boundaries, including partial birth abortion. Still, he voted for a federal ban on partial birth abortion. At the time, he said this:

 

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion.  This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.  The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope.  H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

That was 2003. In 2005, Justice Thomas said this:

 

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anythingand the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Now Dr. Paul is running for President. Although I disagree with his vote on partial birth abortion because I don't think it is one of the "few and defined" powers of the federal government about which Mr. Madison spoke, I would be happy to cast my vote for him for President again. I can't think of anyone else who is running who could correctly identify a partial birth abortion, or a homegrown cannabis plant, or a homegrown machine gun, or a gun which is carried too near to a school, as something which is NOT interstate commerce.

What do you think? Is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce?

[tyme]

What do you think? Is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce?

Is this a trick question?  How the hell would abortion be interstate commerce?

As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.  It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. 

Dr. Paul should tone down his self-righteousness on this issue.  A lot of obstetricians disagree with his assessment of what's necessary, and whether it's gruesome and uncivilized depends on whether the foetus is a human at the point of abortion, which is a highly contentious topic that cannot be resolved except through better scientific understanding of human development.

If congress doesn't have authority to outlaw murder, where the *hell* does he think it gets the power to regulate abortion?

[Werewolf]

It is if the woman getting the abortion crosses state lines to get it...

[cordex]

whether it's gruesome and uncivilized depends on whether the foetus is a human at the point of abortion, which is a highly contentious topic that cannot be resolved except through better scientific understanding of human development.

Tyme,
I would have stopped at "... cannot be resolved."

[publius]

It is if the woman getting the abortion crosses state lines to get it...

I don't think she even has to actually cross state lines. She could cross state lines. An interstate market exists, and Congress has chosen this way to regulate it. At least, that's the argument as it has been made in the past in similar commerce clause cases.

[Car Knocker]

It is if the woman getting the abortion crosses state lines to get it...

I would suspect that the instruments used in the procedure crossed state lines, as did some of the building materials used to build the clinic, the electricity used for the sterilizer and lighting, etc.  As flexible as the definition of Interstate Commerce is becoming, the air she breathes may fall under the definition.

[jnojr]

If, in order to invoke "interstate commerce", all the government has to do is come up with anything, no matter how tenuous and far-reaching, that might or could have crossed a state line at some point, then everything is "interstate commerce".  They can control what you say on the Internet because parts of your computer crossed state lines.  The air you breath crossed state lines.

We want less Federal government powers, not more.  That means, even if you are 100% morally opposed to "partial birth abortion", believe it's a mortal sin, and are sure that God commands you to do everything in your power to prevent it, you have to let this go and fight it at the state level.  Otherwise, you're bringing on Revelations and The Number of The Beast and all that.

[Matthew Carberry]

jnojr,

Exactly.  But more on point.  Abortion is a question of the taking of a genetically human life (being), which legally is a "homicide" ("personhood" is irrelevent in homicide).  The fact that the Supremes had to sidestep the legal definition and create a "right to privacy" demonstrates the issue would be retained by the states on its proper legal foundation.

"Homicide" is a legal issue that is handled quite well in state statutes, with the definitions of "justifiable" and "criminal" varying a bit by state standards and defined by the people of each state.  Abortion should never have become a Federal issue, any more than justifiable self-defense or manslaughter should.

 

[CAnnoneer]

Anybody please explain why any of this should be handled at the federal rather than the state level.

[HForrest]

because he will not, for the most part, vote for anything which he believes is outside of the boundaries set forth in the Constitution.

What a nutjob

[publius]

Anybody please explain why any of this should be handled at the federal rather than the state level.

I can't explain why it should be, but I believe I know why it is. People like to control other people. Start talking about undermining federal authority, and leftists worry that they won't be able to control how other people acquire and use things like guns, while those on the right worry that they won't be able to control how other people acquire and use things like marijuana. The price of that control for each side is allowing the other side the authority they want, and it's a price both sides are more than willing to accept.

[Art Eatman]

Many in politics use twisted logic.  I fail to see how Interstate Commerce applies to any medical procedure.

About like our oh-so-esteemed Attorney General and his BS about Habeas Corpus...

Art

[Eleven Mike]

I thought everything was interstate commerce now.     Barry Goldwater complained about that forty years ago.  It can't be much better now. 

[roo_ster]

PBA is rightly addressed by the police power of the individual states to outlaw & prosecute homicide.

[MechAg94]

Most social issues are better decided closer to the people they affect.  That means at least the state level.

[Matthew Carberry]

PBA is rightly addressed by the police power of the individual states to outlaw & prosecute homicide.

Or to consider it either "justified" or "non-criminal" under certain circumstances, as the state's voters may decide.

Current polling shows that abortion would be treated fairly uniformly by the states (as would most things if the Feds would stay the heck out of the way).  It certainly wouldn't be some horrific patchwork, any more than any other criminal law issue.

Real medical reasons would be almost uniformly considered justified.  Rape and incest would probably end up with non-criminalizing exceptions.  Girls still dependents of their parents would require parental notification or approval (unless they got judicial authorization, due to documentable strangeness).  Discretionary late-term abortion would probably go away most places (Americans still have a pretty strong "you made your bed" instinct).

[LAK]

If the service is advertized to people outside the state, and people from outside states cross state lines to do so I would say so.

More important than interstate commerce, "partial birth abortion" is the most barbaric and sick level of state sanctioned murder history has ever seen. It surpasses any and all of the crimes commited under Stalin or the thugs of any of the other notorious regimes in history.

------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[CAnnoneer]

It surpasses any and all of the crimes commited under Stalin or the thugs of any of the other notorious regimes in history.

Sorry, but this is an utterly ridiculous statement. You might want to read up on the details of Soviet GULags, Japanese POW camps, and Nazi concentration camps.

[publius]

If the service is advertized to people outside the state, and people from outside states cross state lines to do so I would say so.

I don't believe that was the purpose of the commerce clause. I already provided a link to Federalist #45, in which the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison, explains his view of the division of powers. A relevant quotation:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

That does not sound to me like he envisioned a federal regulatory state. Furthermore, he wrote this:

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15 James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell


For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

Extending the commerce clause to provide authority for a federal ban on partial birth abortions, homegrown cannabis plants, homegrown machine guns, guns carried too near to schools, or even toads found only in California seems to me to create a federal government with powers that are far from "few and defined." Now, it is true that Chief Justice Roberts did find that a toad found only in California has no significant relationship to interstate commerce, but the rest of those examples are the real law of the land today, and the fact that we even had a court case to decide whether indigenous California toads affect interstate commerce seems pretty ridiculous to me.

[publius]

Re: Is A Partial Birth Abortion Interstate Commerce?

I'm not interested in anyone's opinion of the procedure or the relative merits of various human horrors in history. I'm just interested in whether partial birth abortion is a federal matter under the authority of the interstate commerce clause.

[richyoung]

It surpasses any and all of the crimes commited under Stalin or the thugs of any of the other notorious regimes in history.

Sorry, but this is an utterly ridiculous statement. You might want to read up on the details of Soviet GULags, Japanese POW camps, and Nazi concentration camps.

I have.  With the one exception of the Japanese surgeon who vivisectioned, without anesthetic, the Chinese girl who was carrying his unborn child at the time, I agree with LAK.

[Eleven Mike]

I'm just interested in whether partial birth abortion is a federal matter under the authority of the interstate commerce clause.

It clearly is not, but the way that clause has been used, anything and everything is considered to be interstate commerce.   
The following quotation is unfortunately very close to the truth.

As flexible as the definition of Interstate Commerce is becoming, the air she breathes may fall under the definition.

Dr. Paul should tone down his self-righteousness on this issue.

That's so cute, how any moral position is dismissed as self-righteousness.  Get real. 

[richyoung]

What do you think? Is a partial birth abortion interstate commerce?

Is this a trick question?  How the hell would abortion be interstate commerce?

As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.  It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization.
...
Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. 

Dr. Paul should tone down his self-righteousness on this issue.  A lot of obstetricians disagree with his assessment of what's necessary, and whether it's gruesome and uncivilized depends on whether the foetus is a human at the point ...

We are discussing PARTIAL BIRTH abortions.  Not any doubt as to the humanity of the child destroyed.  Darn little doubt as to the complete lack of necessity for such a vile proceedure.

of abortion, which is a highly contentious topic that cannot be resolved except through better scientific understanding of human development.

Not an issue with partial birth abortions, which involve the destruction of a viable child while still partially in the birth canal.

[publius]

We are discussing PARTIAL BIRTH abortions.

We are? I was trying to discuss the roots of overreaching federal power in the commerce clause. I could have made an "interstate commerce clause thread" about homegrown cannabis plants or homegrown machine guns or homegrown wheat or guns carried too near to a school or rape or indigenous California toads or any number of other things. I chose partial birth abortion because of the pending candidacy of Dr. Paul and his prior statements and his vote on the subject, NOT because I wanted to hear about how horrible the procedure is.

Do you have an opinion on the federal authority to ban the procedure under the commerce clause? If you don't, perhaps a click on that "new topic" button would be a good idea, and you can discuss the merits of the procedure, not the authority behind the federal ban, in a different thread. Thanks.

[CAnnoneer]

I have.  With the one exception of the Japanese surgeon who vivisectioned, without anesthetic, the Chinese girl who was carrying his unborn child at the time, I agree with LAK.

Look up Josef Mengele (Auschwitz) and Shiro Ishii (Unit 731).