Paul Vang

I recruited Johnathon Grant

Mr. Storm, How will you as President work to keep companies from outsourcing jobs?

I didn't go to the Iowa state fair.

Being Republican doesn't hinge on being anti-union and anti-union sentiment isn't some overwhelming consensus opinion of the Republican electorate. If you don't like the AFL-CIO endorsing me that much you're free to vote for Rick Sharp. It won't hurt my feelings any.

The Chamber of Commerce is obviously more concerned with upholding a system that allows megabanks to take casino tier gambles on risky investments because they are "too big to fail" and can depend on the Federal Reserve and the general public to bail them out than having a stable banking system that gives the average American better economic peace of mind for the future. They don't take issue with the greedy excess of Wall Street but the American people do. President Trump supports this move, the House supports this move, and hopefully those in the Senate will do what is right by the people and not the money interests telling them to vote nay.

Paul Vang From a rally for Vang for President in Detroit, Michigan "Thank you ladies and gentleman for all coming out tonight. I wanted to talk to you all tonight on a topic that is critical to the future success of both Detroit, Michigan, the American heartland, and the United States as a whole, advanced manufacturing. According to the Brookings Institute's 2018 State of the Heartland factbook, high-value export-oriented advanced manufacturing comprises nearly 10% of the economic output and 5.4% of employment. This is a much larger share than anywhere else in the country. Advanced manufacturing has been growing faster in the Heartland than anywhere else. And yet both regionally and nationally productivity growth has been sluggish throughout the better part of the last decade. Additionally US advanced manufacturing growth has become concentrated in a select group of firms while small and medium size firms are struggling given weak innovation, slow digital uptake, and increased competition from abroad. With this all in mind it is high time we move forward with a meaningful advanced manufacturing policy. Here is what I would do as President. First, we will look to negotiate down our current tariffs on American allies and move to coordinate a unified response to rogue economic actors such as China with their unfair practices. Second, in the next budget we will return research and development as a percentage of GDP back to the historical high of 1.2% as opposed to the current 0.7% part of an overall fall off since 2010.This will be done with a particular emphasis on increasing funding for technology transfer and commercialization. Third, we will continue to expand highly successful public-private programs such as Manufacturing USA that develop both the technology and skills in our workforce needed to make the United States a manufacturing global leader. Fourth, we will greater invest in STEM programs both at the K-12 and post-secondary levels to better prepare the workforce for the digital factories of today and tomorrow. Fifth, we will look to expand apprenticeships especially those such as the non-profit LaunchCode program that leverage a no-cost apprenticeship model for students or that work directly with employers to upskill incumbent workers. Sixth, we will transition out of unsuccessful adjustment programs such as the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and implement a universal displaced worker program to assist workers who were laid off at no fault of their own into getting back on their feet. And seveth, we will ensure that local firms will have a greater access to federal labs through an innovation voucher program. And lastly, we will we will end tax breaks for companies that outsource and incentivize firms to invest in rural and impoverished communities by passing my legislation the End Outsourcing Act. Ensuring that the jobs come here and stay here for good. America has great potential in advanced manufacturing, but instead of having a competitive advantage we have a global trade deficit. With a Vang Presidency we will have the focus that will get us out of our productivity rut and ensure steady job growth. Thank you all for coming out, God bless you all, and God bless America!" View full PR

From a rally for Vang for President in Detroit, Michigan "Thank you ladies and gentleman for all coming out tonight. I wanted to talk to you all tonight on a topic that is critical to the future success of both Detroit, Michigan, the American heartland, and the United States as a whole, advanced manufacturing. According to the Brookings Institute's 2018 State of the Heartland factbook, high-value export-oriented advanced manufacturing comprises nearly 10% of the economic output and 5.4% of employment. This is a much larger share than anywhere else in the country. Advanced manufacturing has been growing faster in the Heartland than anywhere else. And yet both regionally and nationally productivity growth has been sluggish throughout the better part of the last decade. Additionally US advanced manufacturing growth has become concentrated in a select group of firms while small and medium size firms are struggling given weak innovation, slow digital uptake, and increased competition from abroad. With this all in mind it is high time we move forward with a meaningful advanced manufacturing policy. Here is what I would do as President. First, we will look to negotiate down our current tariffs on American allies and move to coordinate a unified response to rogue economic actors such as China with their unfair practices. Second, in the next budget we will return research and development as a percentage of GDP back to the historical high of 1.2% as opposed to the current 0.7% part of an overall fall off since 2010.This will be done with a particular emphasis on increasing funding for technology transfer and commercialization. Third, we will continue to expand highly successful public-private programs such as Manufacturing USA that develop both the technology and skills in our workforce needed to make the United States a manufacturing global leader. Fourth, we will greater invest in STEM programs both at the K-12 and post-secondary levels to better prepare the workforce for the digital factories of today and tomorrow. Fifth, we will look to expand apprenticeships especially those such as the non-profit LaunchCode program that leverage a no-cost apprenticeship model for students or that work directly with employers to upskill incumbent workers. Sixth, we will transition out of unsuccessful adjustment programs such as the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and implement a universal displaced worker program to assist workers who were laid off at no fault of their own into getting back on their feet. And seveth, we will ensure that local firms will have a greater access to federal labs through an innovation voucher program. And lastly, we will we will end tax breaks for companies that outsource and incentivize firms to invest in rural and impoverished communities by passing my legislation the End Outsourcing Act. Ensuring that the jobs come here and stay here for good. America has great potential in advanced manufacturing, but instead of having a competitive advantage we have a global trade deficit. With a Vang Presidency we will have the focus that will get us out of our productivity rut and ensure steady job growth. Thank you all for coming out, God bless you all, and God bless America!"

Paul Vang From a Vang for President rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina "Thank you ladies and gentleman for all coming out tonight, I've come to talk to you all on an issue of great importance for me. One of the most pressing moral dilemmas of our time, that is abortion. I find abortion to be absolutely repugnant. The most defenseless in our society can have their lives taken away with no repercussions as though their life doesn't matter and doesn't exist. That is why today I have introduced legislation that will defend the most defenseless in the form of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It will end late term abortions after the twenty week mark except in cases of rape ensuring a humane approach that would avoid inflicting pain on a defenseless child. This is actually according to polling conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion something 78% of Americans support despite 51% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice. So even a majority of people who consider themselves pro-choice do not agree with permitting late abortions, something not allowed in most countries in the world either. Medical experience has shown that fetuses at that age recoil from stimuli that would be recognized as painful by an adult human, and that the fetuses show significant increases in stress hormones, also a pain response. Doctors who operate on unborn children in the second trimester are obliged to anesthetize the baby in order to prevent him or her from thrashing about. People who, for the sake of ideology, claim that fetuses in the late second trimester cannot feel pain are closing their eyes to the obvious. With your vote for President we will push for common sense restrictions on abortion like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act be signed into law and I will appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. Pro-life will have a life in a Vang Presidency. Thank you all for coming out, God bless you all, and God bless America!" View full PR

From a Vang for President rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina "Thank you ladies and gentleman for all coming out tonight, I've come to talk to you all on an issue of great importance for me. One of the most pressing moral dilemmas of our time, that is abortion. I find abortion to be absolutely repugnant. The most defenseless in our society can have their lives taken away with no repercussions as though their life doesn't matter and doesn't exist. That is why today I have introduced legislation that will defend the most defenseless in the form of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. It will end late term abortions after the twenty week mark except in cases of rape ensuring a humane approach that would avoid inflicting pain on a defenseless child. This is actually according to polling conducted by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion something 78% of Americans support despite 51% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice. So even a majority of people who consider themselves pro-choice do not agree with permitting late abortions, something not allowed in most countries in the world either. Medical experience has shown that fetuses at that age recoil from stimuli that would be recognized as painful by an adult human, and that the fetuses show significant increases in stress hormones, also a pain response. Doctors who operate on unborn children in the second trimester are obliged to anesthetize the baby in order to prevent him or her from thrashing about. People who, for the sake of ideology, claim that fetuses in the late second trimester cannot feel pain are closing their eyes to the obvious. With your vote for President we will push for common sense restrictions on abortion like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act be signed into law and I will appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. Pro-life will have a life in a Vang Presidency. Thank you all for coming out, God bless you all, and God bless America!"

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Vang with thanks to Mr. Franks of Arizona introduced the following bill; A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children, 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 the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”. SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT. Congress finds and declares the following: (1) Pain receptors (nociceptors) are present throughout the unborn child’s entire body and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks after fertilization. (2) By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. After 20 weeks, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human, for example, by recoiling. (3) In the unborn child, application of such painful stimuli is associated with significant increases in stress hormones known as the stress response. (4) Subjection to such painful stimuli is associated with long-term harmful neurodevelopmental effects, such as altered pain sensitivity and, possibly, emotional, behavioral, and learning disabilities later in life. (5) For the purposes of surgery on unborn children, fetal anesthesia is routinely administered and is associated with a decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when painful stimuli are applied without such anesthesia. In the United States, surgery of this type is being performed by 20 weeks after fertilization and earlier in specialized units affiliated with children’s hospitals. (6) The position, asserted by some physicians, that the unborn child is incapable of experiencing pain until a point later in pregnancy than 20 weeks after fertilization predominately rests on the assumption that the ability to experience pain depends on the cerebral cortex and requires nerve connections between the thalamus and the cortex. However, recent medical research and analysis, especially since 2007, provides strong evidence for the conclusion that a functioning cortex is not necessary to experience pain. (7) Substantial evidence indicates that children born missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex, those with hydranencephaly, nevertheless experience pain. (8) In adult humans and in animals, stimulation or ablation of the cerebral cortex does not alter pain perception, while stimulation or ablation of the thalamus does. (9) Substantial evidence indicates that structures used for pain processing in early development differ from those of adults, using different neural elements available at specific times during development, such as the subcortical plate, to fulfill the role of pain processing. (10) The position, asserted by some commentators, that the unborn child remains in a coma-like sleep state that precludes the unborn child experiencing pain is inconsistent with the documented reaction of unborn children to painful stimuli and with the experience of fetal surgeons who have found it necessary to sedate the unborn child with anesthesia to prevent the unborn child from engaging in vigorous movement in reaction to invasive surgery. (11) Consequently, there is substantial medical evidence that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, if not earlier. (12) It is the purpose of the Congress to assert a compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain. (13) The compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain is intended to be separate from and independent of the compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children from the stage of viability, and neither governmental interest is intended to replace the other. (14) Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-capable unborn children under the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause precedents and under the Constitution’s grants of powers to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. SEC. 3. PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION. (a) In General.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following: “SEC. 1532. PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION. “(a) Unlawful Conduct.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall be unlawful for any person to perform an abortion or attempt to do so, unless in conformity with the requirements set forth in subsection (b). “(b) Requirements For Abortions.— “(1) ASSESSMENT OF THE AGE OF THE UNBORN CHILD.—The physician performing or attempting the abortion shall first make a determination of the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child or reasonably rely upon such a determination made by another physician. In making such a determination, the physician shall make such inquiries of the pregnant woman and perform or cause to be performed such medical examinations and tests as a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the medical conditions involved, would consider necessary to make an accurate determination of post-fertilization age. “(2) PROHIBITION ON PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN ABORTIONS.— “(A) GENERALLY FOR UNBORN CHILDREN 20 WEEKS OR OLDER.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the abortion shall not be performed or attempted, if the probable post-fertilization age, as determined under paragraph (1), of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater. “(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Subparagraph (A) does not apply if— “(i) in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions; “(ii) the pregnancy is the result of rape against an adult woman, and at least 48 hours prior to the abortion— “(I) she has obtained counseling for the rape; or “(II) she has obtained medical treatment for the rape or an injury related to the rape; or “(iii) the pregnancy is a result of rape against a minor or incest against a minor, and the rape or incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to either— “(I) a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse; or “(II) a law enforcement agency. “(C) REQUIREMENT AS TO MANNER OF PROCEDURE PERFORMED.—Notwithstanding the definitions of ‘abortion’ and ‘attempt an abortion’ in this section, a physician terminating or attempting to terminate a pregnancy under an exception provided by subparagraph (B) may do so only in the manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive. “(D) REQUIREMENT THAT A PHYSICIAN TRAINED IN NEONATAL RESUSCITATION BE PRESENT.—If, in reasonable medical judgment, the pain-capable unborn child has the potential to survive outside the womb, the physician who performs or attempts an abortion under an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall ensure a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation is present and prepared to provide care to the child consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (E). “(E) CHILDREN BORN ALIVE AFTER ATTEMPTED ABORTIONS.—When a physician performs or attempts an abortion in accordance with this section, and the child is born alive, as defined in section 8 of title 1 (commonly known as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002), the following shall apply: “(i) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED.—Any health care practitioner present at the time shall humanely exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to a child born alive at the same gestational age in the course of a natural birth. “(ii) IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Following the care required to be rendered under clause (i), the child born alive shall be immediately transported and admitted to a hospital. “(iii) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph must immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency or both. “(F) DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.— “(i) DOCUMENTATION PERTAINING TO ADULTS.—A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception provided by subparagraph (B)(ii) shall, prior to the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation from a hospital licensed by the State or operated under authority of a Federal agency, a medical clinic licensed by the State or operated under authority of a Federal agency, from a personal physician licensed by the State, a counselor licensed by the State, or a victim’s rights advocate provided by a law enforcement agency that the adult woman seeking the abortion obtained medical treatment or counseling for the rape or an injury related to the rape. “(ii) DOCUMENTATION PERTAINING TO MINORS.—A physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception provided by subparagraph (B)(iii) shall, prior to the abortion, place in the patient medical file documentation from a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse that the rape or incest was reported prior to the abortion; or, as an alternative, documentation from a law enforcement agency that the rape or incest was reported prior to the abortion. “(G) INFORMED CONSENT.— “(i) CONSENT FORM REQUIRED.—The physician who intends to perform or attempt to perform an abortion under the provisions of subparagraph (B) may not perform any part of the abortion procedure without first obtaining a signed Informed Consent Authorization form in accordance with this subparagraph. “(ii) CONTENT OF CONSENT FORM.—The Informed Consent Authorization form shall be presented in person by the physician and shall consist of— “(I) a statement by the physician indicating the probable post-fertilization age of the pain-capable unborn child; “(II) a statement that Federal law allows abortion after 20 weeks fetal age only if the mother’s life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, when the pregnancy was the result of rape, or an act of incest against a minor; “(III) a statement that the abortion must be performed by the method most likely to allow the child to be born alive unless this would cause significant risk to the mother; “(IV) a statement that in any case in which an abortion procedure results in a child born alive, Federal law requires that child to be given every form of medical assistance that is provided to children spontaneously born prematurely, including transportation and admittance to a hospital; “(V) a statement that these requirements are binding upon the physician and all other medical personnel who are subject to criminal and civil penalties and that a woman on whom an abortion has been performed may take civil action if these requirements are not followed; and “(VI) affirmation that each signer has filled out the informed consent form to the best of their knowledge and understands the information contained in the form. “(iii) SIGNATORIES REQUIRED.—The Informed Consent Authorization form shall be signed in person by the woman seeking the abortion, the physician performing or attempting to perform the abortion, and a witness. “(iv) RETENTION OF CONSENT FORM.—The physician performing or attempting to perform an abortion must retain the signed informed consent form in the patient’s medical file. “(H) REQUIREMENT FOR DATA RETENTION.—Paragraph (j)(2) of section 164.530 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, shall apply to documentation required to be placed in a patient’s medical file pursuant to subparagraph (F) of subsection (b)(2) and a consent form required to be retained in a patient’s medical file pursuant to subparagraph (G) of such subsection in the same manner and to the same extent as such paragraph applies to documentation required by paragraph (j)(1) of such section. “(I) ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.— “(i) IN CASES OF RISK OF DEATH OR MAJOR INJURY TO THE MOTHER.—Subparagraphs (C), (D), and (G) shall not apply if, in reasonable medical judgment, compliance with such paragraphs would pose a greater risk of— “(I) the death of the pregnant woman; or “(II) the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman. “(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES.—Notwithstanding the definitions of the terms ‘medical treatment’ and ‘counseling’ in subsection (g), the counseling or medical treatment described in subparagraph (B)(ii) may not be provided by a facility that performs abortions (unless that facility is a hospital). “(iii) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION IN CASES OF REPORTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.—The requirements of subparagraph (B)(ii) do not apply if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to a law enforcement agency or Department of Defense victim assistance personnel. “(iv) COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN STATE LAWS.— “(I) STATE LAWS REGARDING REPORTING OF RAPE AND INCEST.—The physician who performs or attempts to perform an abortion under an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply with such applicable State laws that are in effect as the State’s Attorney General may designate, regarding reporting requirements in cases of rape or incest. “(II) STATE LAWS REGARDING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.—The physician who intends to perform an abortion on a minor under an exception provided by subparagraph (B) shall comply with any applicable State laws requiring parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion. “(c) Criminal Penalty.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. “(d) Bar To Prosecution.—A woman upon whom an abortion in violation of subsection (a) is performed or attempted may not be prosecuted under, or for a conspiracy to violate, subsection (a), or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on such a violation. “(e) Civil Remedies.— “(1) CIVIL ACTION BY A WOMAN ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—A woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted in violation of any provision of this section may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate relief. “(2) CIVIL ACTION BY A PARENT OF A MINOR ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—A parent of a minor upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted under an exception provided for in subsection (b)(2)(B), and that was performed in violation of any provision of this section may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff’s criminal conduct. “(3) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes— “(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation; “(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the abortion; and “(C) punitive damages. “(4) ATTORNEYS FEES FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection. “(5) ATTORNEYS FEES FOR DEFENDANT.—If a defendant in a civil action under this subsection prevails and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff. “(6) AWARDS AGAINST WOMAN.—Except under paragraph (5), in a civil action under this subsection, no damages, attorney’s fee or other monetary relief may be assessed against the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted. “(f) Data Collection.— “(1) DATA SUBMISSIONS.—Any physician who performs or attempts an abortion described in subsection (b)(2)(B) shall annually submit a summary of all such abortions to the National Center for Health Statistics (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Center’) not later than 60 days after the end of the calendar year in which the abortion was performed or attempted. “(2) CONTENTS OF SUMMARY.—The summary shall include the number of abortions performed or attempted on an unborn child who had a post-fertilization age of 20 weeks or more and specify the following for each abortion under subsection (b)(2)(B)— “(A) the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child; “(B) the method used to carry out the abortion; “(C) the location where the abortion was conducted; “(D) the exception under subsection (b)(2)(B) under which the abortion was conducted; and “(E) any incident of live birth resulting from the abortion. “(3) EXCLUSIONS FROM DATA SUBMISSIONS.—A summary required under this subsection shall not contain any information identifying the woman whose pregnancy was terminated and shall be submitted consistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d–2 note). “(4) PUBLIC REPORT.—The Center shall annually issue a public report providing statistics by State for the previous year compiled from all of the summaries made to the Center under this subsection. The Center shall take care to ensure that none of the information included in the public reports could reasonably lead to the identification of any pregnant woman upon whom an abortion was performed or attempted. The annual report shall be issued by July 1 of the calendar year following the year in which the abortions were performed or attempted. “(g) Definitions.—In this section the following definitions apply: “(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device— “(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or “(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than— “(i) after viability to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or “(ii) to remove a dead unborn child. “(2) ATTEMPT.—The term ‘attempt’, with respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an abortion. “(3) COUNSELING.—The term ‘counseling’ means counseling provided by a counselor licensed by the State, or a victims rights advocate provided by a law enforcement agency. “(4) FACILITY.—The term ‘facility’ means any medical or counseling group, center or clinic and includes the entire legal entity, including any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such facility. “(5) FERTILIZATION.—The term ‘fertilization’ means the fusion of human spermatozoon with a human ovum. “(6) MEDICAL TREATMENT.—The term ‘medical treatment’ means treatment provided at a hospital licensed by the State or operated under authority of a Federal agency, at a medical clinic licensed by the State or operated under authority of a Federal agency, or from a personal physician licensed by the State. “(7) MINOR.—The term ‘minor’ means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years. “(8) PERFORM.—The term ‘perform’, with respect to an abortion, includes inducing an abortion through a medical or chemical intervention including writing a prescription for a drug or device intended to result in an abortion. “(9) PHYSICIAN.—The term ‘physician’ means a person licensed to practice medicine and surgery or osteopathic medicine and surgery, or otherwise legally authorized to perform an abortion. “(10) POST-FERTILIZATION AGE.—The term ‘post-fertilization age’ means the age of the unborn child as calculated from the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum. “(11) PROBABLE POST-FERTILIZATION AGE OF THE UNBORN CHILD.—The term ‘probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child’ means what, in reasonable medical judgment, will with reasonable probability be the post-fertilization age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned to be performed or induced. “(12) REASONABLE MEDICAL JUDGMENT.—The term ‘reasonable medical judgment’ means a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved. “(13) UNBORN CHILD.—The term ‘unborn child’ means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens, beginning at fertilization, until the point of being born alive as defined in section 8(b) of title 1. “(14) WOMAN.—The term ‘woman’ means a female human being whether or not she has reached the age of majority.”. (b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: “1532. Pain-capable unborn child protection.”. (c) Chapter Heading Amendments.— (1) CHAPTER HEADING IN CHAPTER.—The chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “Partial-Birth Abortions” and inserting “Abortions”. (2) TABLE OF CHAPTERS FOR PART I.—The item relating to chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “Partial-Birth Abortions” and inserting “Abortions”.

Paul Vang 1 fundraiser upgrade name recognition by 4 = $8,000,000 2 rallies in Iowa (1 moderate, 1 conservative) 2 rallies in New Hampshire (1 moderate, 1 conservative) 1 rally in Nevada (1 moderate)

Mr. Sharp, What would you want to do to promote energy growth in the country?

Mr. Rossi, I have three questions if you don't mind answering them. Do you support a ban of AR-15 assault rifles? They seem to be the gun all the mass shooters are using and we've done it before haven't we? Would you support the passage of the CLEAN Act? and do you support a universal basic income? I'd really like to know the answers to those questions Mr. Rossi if you could.

Paul Vang From a Vang for President rally at a gun range in Manchester, New Hampshire "Thank you all for coming out tonight. I've come here tonight to speak to you all on something that is near and dear to my heart, the second amendment. Now every Democrat around will claim that they fully support the second amendment but then they will only pursue legislation that puts restrictions on guns rather than enhances the rights of the public. They run around talking about the boogeyman of an out of control epidemic of gun violence. Since 1993 we've seen gun homicides drop by 49% despite the number of firearms increasing by 10 million a year. In 2011, the number of non-fatal firearm crimes was one-sixth the number committed in 1993. It is in this time period though, in a strange disconnect to reality, we've only seen the calls for gun control increase. Additionally people should be aware that most gun related deaths are suicides, not murders. There are twice as many suicides with guns as there are murders with guns. So when one reads that 30,000 people have been killed by guns it's important to note most of that was people taking their own lives. Put simply the gun control radicals are imagining a crisis not happening with the intent to deprive you of your rights. They'll talk about the need for mass gun registration even though the most detailed comparative study of the effects of various firearms laws conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck who published his findings in the book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" found no crime-reductive benefits from gun registration laws whatsoever. And why would there be when around 80 percent of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms, from which a subsequent pattern of ownership is unknown. The only thing mass gun registration has been good for is to facilitate gun confiscations which throughout history has been the case many times. Then they'll talk to you about the idea of wait periods as a gun control measure which advocates for the policy contend creates a "cooling off" period to prevent impulsive violent firearm crime. To begin with, there is no solid statistical correlation between wait periods for firearm purchases and a reduction in violent gun crime. A study conducted by University of Cincinnati professor Matthew Makarios and Arizona State University professor Travis Pratt over the effectiveness of policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence found though that there is no correlation between waiting periods and a reduction in violent gun crime. Another argument for waiting periods contends that they allow time for through background checks. Due to technological advancement though allowing comprehensive background checks to be completed in a matter of hours this argument also falls flat. Waiting periods can have fatal repercussions on those that have urgent needs to protect themselves. Such was the case of Carol Bowne of New Jersey back in 2015. She applied for a firearm permit after she started receiving violent threats from her former boyfriend. Unfortunately due to New Jersey gun waiting periods, which can take up to two months to acquire a simple handgun, she ran out of time and was stabbed to death by her former boyfriend. She had even called in a few days prior to her death on the status of her application but she was told she had to wait longer. Waiting periods for firearms purchases don't protect anyone from violent crime, but they can create more victims such as Carol. Then they'll try to talk about the need for universal background checks. As stated before the potential effectiveness is already limited. The aforementioned statistic of around 80 percent of gun crimes being committed by illegally obtained firearms which do not fall under the purview of any background checks as they currently stand is important to keep in mind. When 80 percent of a problem is not addressed by a legislative measure to begin with you already have something that is obstinately useless. Criminals with felonies who would get flagged by a background check will always have a black or grey markets to fallback on, can steal firearms, or have someone else make the purchase for them. Additionally a study by anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute on the success of universal background check legislation passed in 2013 in Washington, Colorado, and Delaware found that in at least the cases of Washington and Colorado more background checks didn't even take place due to the legislation with Delaware seeing a slight increase. Delaware, the most compliant state in terms of universal background checks saw a dramatic spike in their homicide rate from 4.4 in 2013 to a 30 year high of 6.6 in 2015 showing that universal background checks have no effect on reducing the homicide rate whatsoever. Enforceability of universal background checks is near impossible and law enforcement officials know this. That is why for an example, in New Mexico every sheriff's office in the state expressed opposition to gun control legislation that included universal background checks. To quote their own statement "These measures would make it harder for law abiding New Mexicans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, wastes scarce law enforcement resources, and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...this scheme would be unenforceable without creating a gun registry. We know this because a 2013 U.S. Department of Justice internal memo on gun violence prevention strategies stated that the success of expanded background checks depends on requiring firearm registration...as sheriffs we know that criminals, by definition, ignore the law. This proposed gun control law would not stop them from getting their guns from other criminal associates and theft, as they already do.". We don't have to go into why gun registration doesn't work again but the sheriffs of New Mexico make the case quite well why universal background checks don't work. Universal background checks will only waste precious time and resources trying to find illegal gun transfers instead of the individuals who are actually committing the violent crimes. Let's get into the topic now of banning "assault rifle" type semi-automatic firearms. Throughout the country we have seen the criminalization of the mere possession of popular semi-automatic long guns such as the AR-15 that are widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although such weapons are used less often according to the FBI in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even fists and feet gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to the public safety. The origin of this renewed focus on "assault weapons" came after the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller than made clear that handguns, by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime, were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other types of guns to demonize and since then have been strenuously promoting the myth that semi-automatic firearms with features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, or adjustable stocks are "weapons of war" with no legitimate civilian use. They say this despite AR-15's having never been used by any military in the world for combat. The US Supreme Court has yet to review any bans of AR-15's but as noted in dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia "Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semi-automatic rifles...the overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes including self-defense and target shooting...Under these precedents that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.". We have across this country millions of Americans whose Second Amendment rights are being violated by state and local governments in regards to these types of firearms and we have a complicit Congress in Washington that does nothing to restore their rights. Self-defense is a human right and American citizens wherever they live should be allowed access to the best, most modern, and innovative firearms for their lawful needs. If elected President I will pursue either legislatively or judicially action to strike down unconstitutional bans on AR-15s and uphold the second amendment rights of those that have been trampled upon. I want to now get talk for a moment about something I and I believe many here today as well strongly believe in, concealed carry. According to noted criminologist John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law abiding people in the United States. They commit crimes at a rate between one-sixth and one-tenth that of police officers, who themselves commit crimes at a fraction of the rate the general population does. Between 2007 and 2015 the murder rate dropped 16 percent and violent crimes rate dropped 18 percent, while during that period of time the percentage of concealed carry holders increased by 190 percent. Regression estimates show that each percentage increase of concealed carry holders is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. Lott has also found in his work that had the states that did not adopt right-to-carry concealed guns adopted such provisions in 1992 approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults could have been avoided yearly. The Center for Disease Control has found that annually there are 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive uses of firearms. Keeping in mind all this according to the Department of Homeland Security the average duration of an active shooter incident at a school is 12.5 minutes in contrast to average law enforcement response time of 18 minutes the best possible solution to stopping active shooter situations on school campuses is having individuals conceal carry on school campuses. Right to concealed carry is a much stronger solution to violent crime than any of the aforementioned gun control measures advocated by anti-gun advocates who continue to ignore the millions of people who are saved by civilians armed with guns. I have introduced legislation in the form of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act that would ensure your constitutional right to concealed carry does not end at the state line ensuring nationwide recognition of a concealed carry license similar to how drivers licenses are recognized in all states. If elected President I will see to it that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is passed. Ladies and gentleman tonight I've dispelled the notion that there is anything common sense about the idea of common sense gun control. The facts don't support the gun control advocate cause. Don't be fooled by the hollow championing of the second amendment by many politicians. To be the real deal you need to talk the talk and walk the walk. I do both and with me you have a real champion for the Second Amendment and with your vote I will champion your rights in the White House. Thank you all again for coming out, God bless you all, and God bless America!" View full PR

From a Vang for President rally at a gun range in Manchester, New Hampshire "Thank you all for coming out tonight. I've come here tonight to speak to you all on something that is near and dear to my heart, the second amendment. Now every Democrat around will claim that they fully support the second amendment but then they will only pursue legislation that puts restrictions on guns rather than enhances the rights of the public. They run around talking about the boogeyman of an out of control epidemic of gun violence. Since 1993 we've seen gun homicides drop by 49% despite the number of firearms increasing by 10 million a year. In 2011, the number of non-fatal firearm crimes was one-sixth the number committed in 1993. It is in this time period though, in a strange disconnect to reality, we've only seen the calls for gun control increase. Additionally people should be aware that most gun related deaths are suicides, not murders. There are twice as many suicides with guns as there are murders with guns. So when one reads that 30,000 people have been killed by guns it's important to note most of that was people taking their own lives. Put simply the gun control radicals are imagining a crisis not happening with the intent to deprive you of your rights. They'll talk about the need for mass gun registration even though the most detailed comparative study of the effects of various firearms laws conducted by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck who published his findings in the book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" found no crime-reductive benefits from gun registration laws whatsoever. And why would there be when around 80 percent of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms, from which a subsequent pattern of ownership is unknown. The only thing mass gun registration has been good for is to facilitate gun confiscations which throughout history has been the case many times. Then they'll talk to you about the idea of wait periods as a gun control measure which advocates for the policy contend creates a "cooling off" period to prevent impulsive violent firearm crime. To begin with, there is no solid statistical correlation between wait periods for firearm purchases and a reduction in violent gun crime. A study conducted by University of Cincinnati professor Matthew Makarios and Arizona State University professor Travis Pratt over the effectiveness of policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence found though that there is no correlation between waiting periods and a reduction in violent gun crime. Another argument for waiting periods contends that they allow time for through background checks. Due to technological advancement though allowing comprehensive background checks to be completed in a matter of hours this argument also falls flat. Waiting periods can have fatal repercussions on those that have urgent needs to protect themselves. Such was the case of Carol Bowne of New Jersey back in 2015. She applied for a firearm permit after she started receiving violent threats from her former boyfriend. Unfortunately due to New Jersey gun waiting periods, which can take up to two months to acquire a simple handgun, she ran out of time and was stabbed to death by her former boyfriend. She had even called in a few days prior to her death on the status of her application but she was told she had to wait longer. Waiting periods for firearms purchases don't protect anyone from violent crime, but they can create more victims such as Carol. Then they'll try to talk about the need for universal background checks. As stated before the potential effectiveness is already limited. The aforementioned statistic of around 80 percent of gun crimes being committed by illegally obtained firearms which do not fall under the purview of any background checks as they currently stand is important to keep in mind. When 80 percent of a problem is not addressed by a legislative measure to begin with you already have something that is obstinately useless. Criminals with felonies who would get flagged by a background check will always have a black or grey markets to fallback on, can steal firearms, or have someone else make the purchase for them. Additionally a study by anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute on the success of universal background check legislation passed in 2013 in Washington, Colorado, and Delaware found that in at least the cases of Washington and Colorado more background checks didn't even take place due to the legislation with Delaware seeing a slight increase. Delaware, the most compliant state in terms of universal background checks saw a dramatic spike in their homicide rate from 4.4 in 2013 to a 30 year high of 6.6 in 2015 showing that universal background checks have no effect on reducing the homicide rate whatsoever. Enforceability of universal background checks is near impossible and law enforcement officials know this. That is why for an example, in New Mexico every sheriff's office in the state expressed opposition to gun control legislation that included universal background checks. To quote their own statement "These measures would make it harder for law abiding New Mexicans to exercise their Second Amendment rights, wastes scarce law enforcement resources, and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...this scheme would be unenforceable without creating a gun registry. We know this because a 2013 U.S. Department of Justice internal memo on gun violence prevention strategies stated that the success of expanded background checks depends on requiring firearm registration...as sheriffs we know that criminals, by definition, ignore the law. This proposed gun control law would not stop them from getting their guns from other criminal associates and theft, as they already do.". We don't have to go into why gun registration doesn't work again but the sheriffs of New Mexico make the case quite well why universal background checks don't work. Universal background checks will only waste precious time and resources trying to find illegal gun transfers instead of the individuals who are actually committing the violent crimes. Let's get into the topic now of banning "assault rifle" type semi-automatic firearms. Throughout the country we have seen the criminalization of the mere possession of popular semi-automatic long guns such as the AR-15 that are widely available throughout the rest of the country. Although such weapons are used less often according to the FBI in murders than knives, blunt objects such as clubs or hammers, or even fists and feet gun control advocates have sought to portray the banned guns as somehow uniquely dangerous to the public safety. The origin of this renewed focus on "assault weapons" came after the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs Heller than made clear that handguns, by far the type of firearm most commonly used in crime, were subject to Second Amendment protection and could not be banned. This led gun control advocates to seek out other types of guns to demonize and since then have been strenuously promoting the myth that semi-automatic firearms with features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, or adjustable stocks are "weapons of war" with no legitimate civilian use. They say this despite AR-15's having never been used by any military in the world for combat. The US Supreme Court has yet to review any bans of AR-15's but as noted in dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia "Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semi-automatic rifles...the overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes including self-defense and target shooting...Under these precedents that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.". We have across this country millions of Americans whose Second Amendment rights are being violated by state and local governments in regards to these types of firearms and we have a complicit Congress in Washington that does nothing to restore their rights. Self-defense is a human right and American citizens wherever they live should be allowed access to the best, most modern, and innovative firearms for their lawful needs. If elected President I will pursue either legislatively or judicially action to strike down unconstitutional bans on AR-15s and uphold the second amendment rights of those that have been trampled upon. I want to now get talk for a moment about something I and I believe many here today as well strongly believe in, concealed carry. According to noted criminologist John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center concealed carry permit holders are some of the most law abiding people in the United States. They commit crimes at a rate between one-sixth and one-tenth that of police officers, who themselves commit crimes at a fraction of the rate the general population does. Between 2007 and 2015 the murder rate dropped 16 percent and violent crimes rate dropped 18 percent, while during that period of time the percentage of concealed carry holders increased by 190 percent. Regression estimates show that each percentage increase of concealed carry holders is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. Lott has also found in his work that had the states that did not adopt right-to-carry concealed guns adopted such provisions in 1992 approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and over 60,000 aggravated assaults could have been avoided yearly. The Center for Disease Control has found that annually there are 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive uses of firearms. Keeping in mind all this according to the Department of Homeland Security the average duration of an active shooter incident at a school is 12.5 minutes in contrast to average law enforcement response time of 18 minutes the best possible solution to stopping active shooter situations on school campuses is having individuals conceal carry on school campuses. Right to concealed carry is a much stronger solution to violent crime than any of the aforementioned gun control measures advocated by anti-gun advocates who continue to ignore the millions of people who are saved by civilians armed with guns. I have introduced legislation in the form of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act that would ensure your constitutional right to concealed carry does not end at the state line ensuring nationwide recognition of a concealed carry license similar to how drivers licenses are recognized in all states. If elected President I will see to it that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is passed. Ladies and gentleman tonight I've dispelled the notion that there is anything common sense about the idea of common sense gun control. The facts don't support the gun control advocate cause. Don't be fooled by the hollow championing of the second amendment by many politicians. To be the real deal you need to talk the talk and walk the walk. I do both and with me you have a real champion for the Second Amendment and with your vote I will champion your rights in the White House. Thank you all again for coming out, God bless you all, and God bless America!"