Posted on 05/31/2012 5:33:17 PM PDT by Jean S
Edited on 05/31/2012 6:00:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Bloomberg. Link only.
U.S. House Rejects Bill to Ban Gender-Based Abortions
The wording of this reveals the author’s bias. “House rejects Ban,” when in fact the House voted overwhelmingly for it.
But because of special rules on the way it was presented, they had to have a 66% majoriy in order to be able to ovr-ride a veto. The got 61% when they needed 66%.
The vote was 246-168 in favor of the Bill.
But that’s ok, the GOP controlled House did its job. They won by a large margin, even had some dems votre for it.
The GOP wanted to get people on record. They knew even if they had gotten the vote in under normal tracking and won (which they would have) that it would not survive the Senate (which would never bring it up for a vote under Reid) or Obama’s veto in any case.
But this way, by fast tracking it, they got the Dem Nays on record for everyone to see and you can bet the GOP and PACs will use this in November in every race where any Democrat voting Nay on it is up for election.
It’s actually a shrewd and smart move, IMHO, because the vote will come back to haunt the Dems badly.
AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS OF HISTORY
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Thanks Jean S, additional:
House rejects bill penalizing doctors for sex-selective abortions
(Ron Paul Sides With Dems)
The Hill
Posted on 06/01/2012 11:22:13 AM PDT by mnehring
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2890403/posts
But for all the wrong reasons.
That's definitely the "upside," dear Jeff!
But there was something about this bill that worried me: It seemed to imply that abortion actually is a "right" — but a right that needs to be "regulated" by Congress.
To me, abortion is no "right" at all. The willful destruction of an innocent human life — for any reason — can never be anybody's "right."
Thank you so very much for your insights!
Thank you so very much for your insight, kearnyirish2!
FWIW, I had the same reaction to this bill.
Good ridden, Washington has no business saying one thing or the other on the matter of abortion. Abortion like all other forms of domestic killing/murder is a State issue.
Washington D.C. is too big, too slow, and too distant to make Representative domestic policy. It’s constitution does not permit such distant domestic government for a good reason.
Good ridden, Washington has no business saying one thing or the other on the matter of abortion. Abortion like all other forms of domestic killing/murder is a State issue.
Washington D.C. is too big, too slow, and too distant to make Representative domestic policy. It’s constitution does not permit such distant domestic government for a good reason.
Good this bill would have done nothing to prevent any abortion. We don’t need a Federal abortion agency that would have been the beginning of Federal Thought Police. How would they enforce such a law? We have read your mind and have concluded you hate women that is why you had the abortion...off to prison and reeducation.
Wake up O’sleepers only a bill that protects the right to life of the unborn has any real effect, this was a political do nothing bill.
Salve
Thank you for information. Any wording of killing innocent child, no matter of what gender is still murder.
Merci.
It may actually have been a bad bill. But a bill that contains some of what you want, even though it's not all you want, does not necessarily make it a bad bill, IMO.
“But a bill that contains some of what you want, even though it’s not all you want, does not necessarily make it a bad bill, IMO.”
If you find it preferable to have male children murdered while limiting the right to murder females, then I don’t know “what you want”. If having that somehow is a good thing, I’m on the wrong planet.
The fact is that as our standard of living falls to that of Asian peasants, people see less purpose in reproducing; when they see no purpose in reproducing they see no need for females.
“FWIW, I had the same reaction to this bill.”
I see; it is a very disturbing bill. When they include both gender and racial angles to abortion restrictions, you know who is in the crosshairs. Are people supposed to feel better about this, as though we’ve somehow made abortion less horrible?
I live in a town where white teenagers get pregnant, and they have to go to neighboring black neighborhoods to kill the babies. It is so obvious that blacks were targeted, but restricting those murders alone isn’t going to fix this cancer on our culture.
I find it amazing and surreal to be sitting here on a rainy Sunday evening in June, reading about our “representatives” and our country’s “leaders” voting on a bill that makes it okay to not only kill a baby, but kill “it” because you don’t like what or who “it” will become...hmmm- if “it “ has a sex, is it still just a “lump of tissue” or is it a person yet?....
I guess that is the ultimate in PRO-CHOICE now isn’t it?
What a hideous thing our government has become.
Paul the apostle said, "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Corinthians 9:22.
I see nothing wrong with trying to save as many as possible unless or until such a time as all can be saved.
My point is that until there’s enough good guys in power to reverse Roe v. Wade and ban abortion, if I were a legislator, I would jump at the chance to try to save as many as possible.
If Oskar Schindler had made a point of only rescuing Jews with the name “Saul”, he would rightly be regarded as a lunatic.
If you’re going to quote Paul, note his reference to “men”; this bill leaves them in the crosshairs.
In cold practical terms, they are hampering the abortions of those most likely to want abortion to remain legal while destroying those more likely to press to outlaw it (I’m sure that’s no accident).
It literally is extending the affirmative action as it relates to school admissions and hiring/promotion to the right to life itself.
If the Schindler was only able to fool the Nazis by listing those named "Saul" then I'm sure he would have done that. If the only way I can get the other side to pass a bill to save some from infanticide is by distinguishing the sex of the child, I would vote for it.
BTW, if the bill had passed, the other side would have been on record acknowledging that abortion is the killing of a human being whose sex can be ID'd.
This is not a good omen for the counrty at all. Makes me want to throw in the towel and head for the hills for the duration.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.