Posted on 07/22/2014 3:05:13 PM PDT by NYer
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a radical pro-abortion bill (S.1696) sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) and promoted by major pro-abortion advocacy groups.
If enacted, the law would nullify virtually all limits on abortion nationwide, including protective measures that enjoy broad public support, including informed consent laws, waiting periods and laws that protect pain-capable unborn children from excruciating abortions late in pregnancy.
The bill, which has been characterized as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” Act, currently has 35 co-sponsors, all Democrats.
With nearly two thirds of Senate Democrats on board with Blumenthal’s plan to expand abortion, the question must be asked: Where do the Democratic candidates running for Senate this fall stand on this legislation?
In the competitive race for Senate in Alaska, incumbent Sen. Mark Begich’s position is clear. He supports tearing down virtually all limits on abortion nationwide as indicated by his signing on as a cosponsor.
Congressman Bruce Braley, who is running for the open Senate seat in Iowa, is a cosponsor of the House version of the bill.
In Kentucky, Democratic nominee Alison Lundergan Grimes told the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman in 2013 that she was “pro-choice down the line on abortion.”
EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion PAC that backs only female Democratic candidates who embrace abortion-on-demand, is one of Grimes’ biggest financiers, according to the Washington Post.
EMILY’s List is also investing heavily in Michelle Nunn’s candidacy in Georgia. Nunn ran sponsored Facebook posts touting the endorsement from the pro-abortion PAC.
However, as noted in the Wall Street Journal, Democrats running in traditionally red states, like Georgia, have deliberately downplayed their positions on abortion.
Nunn’s campaign has only offered the tired platitude that she would like to see abortion “safe, legal and rare.” Voters in Georgia deserve to know where she stands on this bill.
Like Nunn, Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina is abiding by a similar playbook on abortion. She has not commented on Blumenthal’s bill and has generally dodged the abortion issue.
However, it’s not difficult to draw conclusions based on her record. Hagan, another EMILY’s List beneficiary, has a 0% rating from the National Right to Life Committee, indicating solidly pro-abortion voting record. Most recently, Hagan joined Planned Parenthood in advocating for a bill taking aim at pro-life conscience protections.
Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, another Southern Democrat facing a tough reelection in 2014, has come under fire for saying one thing on abortion and doing another. Pryor’s opponent, pro-life Republican Tom Cotton, has put the issue front and center in the campaign.
Cotton spokesman David Ray said, “Senator Pryor says one thing in Arkansas, and votes the opposite way in Washington. He says he’s pro-choice, then he says he’s pro-life. He says he’s against late-term abortion, but he won’t do anything about it. He says he’s against taxpayer funding of abortion, but he’s voted for it repeatedly. Senator Pryor simply can’t be trusted on this issue.”
Thus far, Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana has avoided discussion of Blumenthal’s “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” bill. But she has been in the hot seat after indicating she would not support legislation to protect unborn children who are capable of experiencing pain.
Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy, who is running to challenge Landrieu, said she is “clearly pro-abortion rights.” It’s time for Landrieu to inform voters how she would vote on Blumenthal’s bill if brought to a full Senate vote.
In Colorado, Sen. Mark Udall, who is engaged in a tough race against pro-life challenger Rep. Cory Gardner, has not signed on as cosponsor of Blumenthal’s legislation. Udall has repeatedly hit his opponent on abortion in the campaign, attempting to characterize him as extreme on the issue. Voters should demand to know where Udall stands on his colleague’s extreme bill to invalidate longstanding protective measures for unborn children and their mothers.
Sen. Blumenthal told Roll Call in a November interview, “As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues.”
In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the bill, National Right to Life President Carol Tobias urged the Senate’s Democratic leadership to agree to a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that the Senate hold two votes, one on Blumenthal’s S.1696 and one on Graham’s S.1670, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
“We challenge you, and the leadership of the majority party, to allow the American people to see where every senator stands on both of these major abortion-related bills. Let the American people see which bill reflects the values of each member of the United States Senate—life or death for unborn children?,” said Tobias.
As Americans in key states prepare to elect lawmakers to be their voice in Washington, it’s vital that candidates engage in an honest discussion of where they stand on important issues. No candidate running for Senate should be given a free pass to dodge answering where they stand on Blumenthal’s “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth” bill and Graham’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.
FYI, ping!
The abomination that causes desolation.
Time for some Freepers to run for office.
My jackass senator is retiring. Thank God.
Once they get that passed, they can go on to extend it for postpartum abortions up to 12 years old.
I think safe to say my Cali lawmakers Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Fiestein all support this
The dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks Kay Hagan certainly supports this. I doubt Richard Burr does; although you’ll never hear him say anything “controversial,” he’s a predictable “rightish” vote.
I live in Maryland. Dem Senator Barbara Mikulski is for abortion now and forever, and so is her dem fellow senator Ben Cardin is too.
Boxer even goes further. She has stated a belief that a baby is not “viable” until taken home by the parents.
Haven’t you heard? Abortion is the newest form of birth control according to Democrats and Dem. supporters. Watch any Dem. speech about the SC decision on hobby Lobby.
It’s all bad, but what’s the difference?
When we were in 6ht grade, we asked each other about this, as it was coming into law. We decided that one of the girls was probably correct, that they use a vacuum with bladed screen to suck the baby out and kill him or her, with the mothers full participation, of course.
Sixth graders can discuss this better than just about anyone, because they are honest and truthful. That’s why the Marxists, excuse me, progressives target them with their Common Core, than you Bill and Melinda ‘Catholic’ ahem, right, Gates.
No one is allowed to talk about this part of abortion, nor show it. I don’t know how this country pretends to have a moral high ground when they won’t show this.
BUt really, it makes little difference.
No one can prove that life doesn’t start at conception therefore, one can reasonably assume the soul is present at the fertilized egg. Many birth control pills make the environment impossible for attachment, and that soul is lost.
It’s killing a person, whether it’s painful and bloody or quiet and secret.
Abortion is the fruit of birth control. That’s where it starts, and that’s where a lot of trouble starts, not just killing babies, but the family, marriage, proper child rearing and attachment, promiscuity, misogyny, objectification, just to start, all statistically and logically provable.
When the hero of Benghazi was a state senator, I believe he supported letting babies die of negligence if the abortion attempt failed. Iirc
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So all that Constitution-ignoring, pro-abortion senators are doing is trying to win votes from low-information voters imo.
DemonRat lieberals dance with glee over innocent baby blood sacrifices. Let all of history and eternity record the names and deeds of the modern day ghouls driven by a lust for political power. Sucks to be them and what they will reap.
I want my CongressCritters to enact “Post-Birth abortion” for enviro’s and Liberals, trough feeders and the Academented.
Addendum to my post #16:
“I want my CongressCritters to enact “Post-Birth abortion” legislation for second, third, and fourth quarters of life outside the womb. Citizens shall be authorized to perform such operations on enviro’s and Liberals, trough feeders and the Academented”.
It won’t even be taken up by the House. But it will give a good accounting of just how sick the Democrat Senators really are. What next, post birth abortion?
yes, both of them, both democrats, one catholic.
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.