H.R. 1096: Sanctity of Life Act of 2011



Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act and the amendments made by this Act applicable to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.

(Side note:  Not even pro-life candidates from Colorado co-sponsored this bill.  This includes Mike Coffman.  Ask Coffman why he did not co-sponsor this the next time you meet him.)


The one thing I love about Ron Paul is that his bills are simple.  They cannot be changed.  There is no bargaining and no selling out.  All of Ron Paul’s bills are simple and straight to the point.   A good example of selling out and bargaining is Santorum voting yes on Title X.  Sorry, I can’t show the whole bill here.  There was way to much back room dealing going on.   Another good example is the Obamacare bill.  There was a limited number of copies of this bill to read during a very short time prior to the vote.  As it was being read congressman/women were writing in pencil what they wanted to add to the bill.  Nancy Pelosi’s comment that we need to vote yes so we can find out what is in it, a prime example of the back room dealing an selling out that goes on in Washington D.C..  The longer the bill the more likely there is something wrong with the bill. 

Ron Paul does not vote on any bill that contains more than one subject.  Great!!!  Ron Paul does not vote on any bill that has back room wheeling and dealing.  Great!!!   Ron Paul does not vote on any bill that he sees goes against the Constitution.  Great!!!!   Ron Paul will as president veto any bill that is not to the point.  Great!!!!  Ron Paul will not accept compromise on anything.  Great!!!!

Rick Santorum has repeatedly been involved with back room deals.  Rick Santorum has repeatedly sold his vote rather than stick to his convictions.  Rick Santorum uses the excuse, well I had to vote for it because I would not have gotten what I wanted.   Rick Santorum has used the excuse that, that is what my constituents wanted. (Probably, not true because he was not reelected.)


For me I will stand by the candidate that does not compromise.  For me I will stand by the candidate that will not do back room deals.  For me I will stand by the candidate that is willing to take the heat and move forward.  For me I will stand by the candidate that will vote only according to our Constitution.  I feel Congress is not going to be doing much after Ron Paul becomes president.  Ron Paul will sign any bill that contains more than one subject.  Ron Paul will not sign any bill that has language that can be interpreted in more ways than one. 

Rick Santorum sponsored and co-sponsored bills.

Use this link to see what he has done as far as his bills.  Voting is a different record than bills. 



Ron Paul’s link is:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billsearch.xpd?PostFormID=billsearc...=


My favorite pro-life recent bills are

H.R. 777 Taxpayers Freedom of Conscience act 2005

H.R. 3444 Cures can be found Act of 2005

H.R. 766 Sanctity of life

H.R. 5211 Senior’s Citizens improved quality of life.

(Again I would like you to note that these are great pro-life bills and Mike Coffman has avoided these like the plague.  Ask him why?)

Views: 61


You need to be a member of Arapahoe Tea Party to add comments!

Join Arapahoe Tea Party

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on March 2, 2012 at 12:58pm

Reform:  Let us look at what the Constitution Sais about these issues.  In the first amendment people are allowed the freedom from religious actions.  Also the 14th amendment allows for personal privacy.  Ron Paul, if I understand it is against Abortion.  That is his belief and he stands by it.  Yes, that makes him pro-life.  Yet he is very cautious about the force/action/ability of the federal government to regulate these actions.  Congress has no authority to write law demostrating personal actions of women to be illegal.  I have attached the court case and the other cases being discussed at the time below.  As I understand it Dr. Paul believes that this is a 14th amendment personal privacy issue, liberty issue, freedom issue and thus the federal government has no authority to impose a religious moral authority rule of law over individuals.  The Roe v Wade case does allow for State’s regulation to balance terms of pregnancy with the health of women.




Now can we please discuss the issues of the economic stability and spending backgrounds of the candidates?

Comment by reform on February 28, 2012 at 3:11pm

Fredrick Lindner,  You made the statement that Ron Paul was pro-freedom of choice.  I was demonstrating that this was not true.

I think you forgot what you posted earlier.  Ron Paul is pro-life!!!!!

The propaganda needs to stop stating that he is not pro-life.  He has never voted for funding of Planned Parenthood.  He has never voted for funding of birth control, contraception or abortion. He has never aborted a child.Ron Paul is the only current candidate that can say this.

And like his interview with Piers Morgan when Ron Paul was interrupted in the case of a women at the hospital after a rape. (Morgan rudely interrupted Paul when he was trying to explain this.)  Ron Paul was trying to explain about the chemical and hormonal balance of a woman.  If a woman has not ovulated and is not pregnant the woman should have the right to prevent conception through hormones.  These hormones would prevent ovulation and thus prevent conception. This can and should be used in the case of rape, if the woman has been tested to see if she  has not ovulated or is not pregnant.  I personally, don't see anything wrong in the case of rape or incest prevention ovulation through injection or hormonal pills.  None of the others running for office have this knowledge and don't seem to be able to speak of it. 

I am not sure what you mean when you talk of debating at a federal level.  Is not the presidency a federal level office?  Roe vs Wade and the funding of Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, etc... are a federal issue!! Which I know Ron Paul won't take for the team and will vote according to his principles.  This is very much a federal issue.

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on February 28, 2012 at 2:58pm

Second, the use of federal money to fund birth control, contraception, and abortion is also against the freedoms set aside in the first amendment.  That has no bearing on weather the acts should be made illegal.  Your confusing the debate.

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on February 28, 2012 at 2:56pm

I agree with Ron Paul, social issues shouldn't be a federal issue.   They are against the first amendment. So why are we debating this at a federal level?

Comment by reform on February 28, 2012 at 2:20pm

Fredrick Lindner - How can you say Ron Paul is pro-freedom of choice on this issue?

Have you actually read any of his pro-life bills including the one listed above.  These are the most pro-life bills ever written in D.C..

Ron Paul states that it should not be a federal issue.  And I agree, it should not be a federal issue.

They only way to remove Planned Parenthood and abortion from the pages of time is to bring it back to the states.

When lobbyists are in control of the nation there is only one battle ground, Washington D.C..

If there are 50+ battle grounds and people like Santorum don't "take one for the team" and continue voting to fund Planned Parenthood at a national level, we in each of our individual states can overcome the lobbying and media money and do what is right. 

We cannot win the war if every democrat and republican in D.C. is willing to take one for the team. (team? he was stating that all republicans at the time were for funding of Planned Parenthood!!!)

Ron Paul wants to bring it back to the individual states, which is Constitutional.  Smaller battles can be won at the state level. 

Here is a great example of the pro-life movement in Ron Paul's Texas:

Texas is going ahead with its secession plan--from Planned Parenthood. Late last year, the state quit its partnership with the abortion tycoons, dropping Planned Parenthood from its lucrative contract under Texas's Women's Health Program. Attorney General Greg Abbott and state legislators were adamant that health providers who offered abortions had no business participating in the program. With $16 million up for grabs, leaders passed an outright ban on Planned Parenthood, ending its eligibility for the state's Medicaid funding.That didn't sit well with the Obama administration, which swooped into Texas and demanded the state reconsider. When it wouldn't, officials with Health and Human Services (HHS) threatened to cut off federal Medicaid funding completely.

But Texas didn't blink. Last Thursday, state Commissioner Tom Suehs signed the rule into law--calling HHS's bluff and putting Planned Parenthood clinics on the road to extinction in the Lone Star State. "Under federal law, states administer Medicaid and have the right to set the criteria for providers in the program. That is what Texas is doing," said spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman. "We have a state law that [Attorney General Abbott] says is constitutional, and it clearly bans abortion providers from taking part in the Women's Health Program. We can't violate a perfectly valid state law just to appease Washington."

Already, the policy is having a domino effect on the state's network of Planned Parenthood offices. So far, 12 clinics have closed and others--like this Odessa branch--waited for

Comment by Fredrick Lindner on February 28, 2012 at 11:51am

Just an FYI.  Ron Paul is pro-freedom of choice on this issue.  Sorry.

© 2023   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service