Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro-life groups, politicians hail House passage of 20-week abortion ban
Life Site News ^ | May 13, 2015 | Dustin Siggins

Posted on 05/13/2015 7:58:34 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT

After months of wrangling, pro-life politicians and outside organizations praised the House for passing HR. 36, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," which aims to ban most abortions after 20 weeks.

The final vote was 242-184, with one Republican voting "present." Four Democrats voted for the bill, and four Republicans against it.

“I think America is at its best when we are standing up for the least among us," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, said in a statement released after the vote. "This debate is long overdue." The senator is expected to introduce similar legislation in the Senate.

The vote took place on the two-year anniversary of the murder conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, and was something pro-life groups had pushed for several months. Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican from Gosnell's state of Pennsylvania, invoked the convict in comments on the House floor just before the vote took place.

"Scientific evidence now shows that unborn babies can feel pain by 20 weeks post-fertilization, and likely even earlier," said Kelly. "A late term abortion is an excruciatingly painful and inhumane act against children waiting to be born and their mothers."

Citing concern for the safety of women - "women terminating pregnancies at 20 weeks are 35 times more likely to die from abortion than they are in the first trimester, and 91 times more likely to die from abortion at 21 weeks or beyond," according to Kelly - the congressman said that "overwhelmingly, most Americans...support legislation to protect these innocent people."

(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 114th; abortion; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: campaignPete R-CT

Both the officers of the national government and the officers of the state governments have the exact same explicit, imperative duty to equally protect the lives of all innocent persons within their jurisdictions. It’s the supreme reason for the very existence of their offices.


61 posted on 05/16/2015 11:51:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT; AuH2ORepublican

So many words in this thread.

The bottom line is, it’s F.ing stupid for anyone who claims to be pro-life, like Paul Broun or anyone posting in this thread, to oppose this bill because of XYZ/whatever stupid argument they pull out of their ass.

The legislation would be a big step in the right direction, that’s it.


62 posted on 05/16/2015 12:35:15 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Impy
The bottom line is, it’s F.ing stupid for anyone who claims to be pro-life, like Paul Broun or anyone posting in this thread, to oppose this bill because of XYZ/whatever stupid argument they pull out of their ass.

The bill violates the most important explicit provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which every single Congressman swore a sacred oath to support and defend.

Those who think that's stupid are part of the problem.

The legislation would be a big step in the right direction, that’s it.

Immoral, unconstitutional, lawless statutes are never a "step in the right direction." The idea that it is a step in the right direction is nothing but a mirage.

63 posted on 05/16/2015 12:56:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; campaignPete R-CT; AuH2ORepublican

Yeah whatever buddy.

In one corner we have, every pro-lifer in the Congress save Paul Broun and the major pro-life groups, in the other corner we have a you and a couple other armchair constitutional scholars.

Real tough choice for me to know which side is right. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


64 posted on 05/16/2015 1:12:18 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Impy

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

— Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.”

— Fulton J. Sheen, 1953


65 posted on 05/16/2015 1:30:33 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Please explain why you think the following is optional:

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
— The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
— The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

“You shall not murder.”
— Exodus 20:13


66 posted on 05/16/2015 1:36:03 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; AuH2ORepublican; campaignPete R-CT

Oh come on dude.

You know abortion is legal now, right? Before 20 weeks and after. Banning it after 20 weeks somehow means we think it’s ok before 20 weeks? Says who? That’s nonsense. Every pro-lifer in Congress and most pro-life activists seem to understand that.

Maybe you should stop viewing every g**damn thing though the prism of your interpretation of Thomas Jefferson quotes and get a whiff of reality, eh?


67 posted on 05/16/2015 2:05:22 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Impy

The notion that abortion is “legal” is why the mass slaughter doesn’t stop.

How can it be legal in a free republic whose charter spells out the natural moral law that government exists before anything else to equal protection for the supreme right, the right to live, of every person?

How can it be legal in a free republic whose Constitution, the supreme law of our land, states as its supreme purpose the securing the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity?

How can it be legal in a country with a Constitution that in multiple articles contains the explicit, imperative requirement that every single individual person be protected in their supreme right?

How can it be legal in a republic whose State Constitutions all contain equal protection requirements for every single individual person?

Because some stupid, lawless judge said so?

Sorry, but the Constitution gives judges no authority to make laws. It gives no judge veto power. It gives no judge, no legislator, no executive, no person, authority to violate the Constitution, nor to throw the laws of nature and nature’s God in the gutter, along with the broken bodies of more than SIXTY MILLION little babies.

Wake up.


68 posted on 05/16/2015 2:31:13 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Impy

In my yard, near my garden, I’ve got a green ash tree. It puts off seed like nobody’s business. Tiny little ash trees spring up everywhere every year. Now, if you pull them when they first come up, it’s really easy. They slide right out of the ground using only your thumb and forefinger. But if you leave them very long they get harder and harder to pull. Leave them long enough and your yard would be an ash thicket, one that could only be cleared with chainsaws and a backhoe.

Why am I telling you all of this? Because there is a parallel to abortion in America.

If, back in 1973, Americans had simply been faithful to the truths of the Declaration of Independence, the stated purposes and requirements of our Constitution, and boldly asserted the obvious natural fact of the personhood of the individual child, and then consistently stood without compromise or wavering for the equal rights of every single one of those innocent children - children whose protection is explicitly required by God and by our Constitution - this vast holocaust would have been stopped long ago.

But that’s not what happened. The “pro-life movement” got sucked into the trap of arguing within the destructive framework and demonic fallacy of Roe, under the thumb of out-of-control judges who ruled, and continue to rule, illegitimately.

And sadly, “pro-lifers” have never yet extricated themselves from the trap.

So, maximum resources and effort are now required to remove the thicket of lies which have been planted, even in the hearts and minds of Christians.

Personally though, you can clear out the thicket in an instant by simply returning to the fundamental truths and principles of America’s founding, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, to the stated purposes of our Constitution in the preamble, and to the equal protection for every person which is absolutely required by our federal and state constitutions.

God-given, unalienable, EQUAL rights for persons who have not yet passed through a birth canal.

Focus on that.

Measure every policy and politician by that.

It’s the only way that we will ever turn America back into the fruitful garden that it was intended to be.


69 posted on 05/16/2015 2:35:26 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; campaignPete R-CT

Yeah, I’m not gonna argue the definition of “legal” with you. Pointless debates about semantics are a waste of time.

It’s happening and the government is letting it happen, whether we agree they should have the power to do so or not. Pick a different word if you want. I chose “legal”.

Pete, you poor man, is this kind of nonsense what you deal with every day? No wonder you complain so much. Goodness gracious. I’m going to go bang my head against a wall now.


70 posted on 05/16/2015 2:41:34 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Impy
Banning it after 20 weeks somehow means we think it’s ok before 20 weeks? Says who?

The drafters of the bill.

It grants explicit permission in the statute to kill babies, all of them, as long as they are killed on schedule.

Virtually every bill pushed forward across the country by NRTL nowadays does that. They work as hard as they can to make sure that the legislation conforms completely to the deadly fallacy of Roe and its associated court opinions.

They surrender the only moral, constitutional and legal argument against Roe and the killing of babies, and then they can't figure out why abortion on demand continues unabated.

71 posted on 05/16/2015 2:45:07 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; campaignPete R-CT; AuH2ORepublican
d. The “pro-life movement” got sucked into the trap of arguing within the destructive framework and demonic fallacy of Roe, under the thumb of out-of-control judges who ruled, and continue to rule, illegitimately.

Do you now why they're doing that? Do you, Tom? BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO SUCCEED. They exist in the real world. You exist in a dream world. Frankly I'm offended that you just took a dump on the pro-life movement.

Work within the system or gather up your friends with some machines guns and go 1776, those are really the only 2 choices.

You can quote the bible on the Internet all day long, that won't stop abortion.

72 posted on 05/16/2015 2:48:02 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Impy

If it violates the laws of nature and nature’s God and/or the Constitution, it cannot possibly be legal, no matter how much you try and avoid it.

We have no free republic, no Constitution, no security for our liberty or our Posterity, without that principle. Sorry.

“Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety ... When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”

— Alexander Hamilton

“Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever...This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”

“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.”

“The public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual’s private rights.”

“Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”

— William Blackstone

“[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”

— John Locke, Two Treatises on Government

“’Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,’ in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.”

— Samuel Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

— George Washington, 1789


73 posted on 05/16/2015 2:58:52 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’m bleeding, I banged my head against the wall and I’m bleeding now. Gonna go to the ER. Have a nice evening, sorry I got a little testy there but you know how it is.


74 posted on 05/16/2015 3:05:45 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Impy

No need to turn to more violence. All we need is representatives who will actually keep their oaths, first and foremost to provide equal protection for the supreme individual right.


75 posted on 05/16/2015 3:10:17 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Impy

I’ve move on to D .. but first those Congressman

1. All 5 congress critters in CT have made a oath to NARAL.
2. The opposition candidates receive no institutional support from ANY church denomination in the state. Not the Diocese, not the Traddies, not the Evangelicals, not the Baptists, not the Pentecostals. If anything, they spew venom at those who suggest they have a civic duty to show up to fill out their ballot.

how many stayed home in Aug 2012 when the pro-lifer was defeated in that vital and close primary? 80% or more.

D. regarding Duty of members of Congress .... let’s look at the duty of pro-life citizens. Hanna of NY was unopposed in NOV 2014. Unopposed. If Right to Lifers cannot get a Right to Lifer on the COnservative Line or other line and keep them there ... groups that don’t participate in the process don’t have much influence beyond that.

Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) and that lady from IND deserve General Election opponents, not just primary opponents in 2016. Or our we all bark? All talk, no action.


76 posted on 05/16/2015 3:55:45 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (-Connecticut Republicanism is a mental disorder. - Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; Impy; AuH2ORepublican

Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Charlie Dent (PA-15)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)

Walorski of Indiana
Ellmers of NC

all need general election opponents, not just primaries.
Get ramped up!


77 posted on 05/16/2015 4:13:46 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (-Connecticut Republicanism is a mental disorder. - Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT; AuH2ORepublican

God damnit are you trying to make me bleed too, Peter? I don’t support electing democrats in November or helping them win by supporting minor candidates. If you can’t get a conservative nominated, move on to another race.

Maybe in NY you could run a big C conservative against Hanna have a greater than zero % chance of victory, forget the rest.

Primaries. Primaries. Primaries. Primaries.


78 posted on 05/16/2015 5:54:22 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

I think the state legislatures is the way to go. It’s a state’s rights issue, but the SCOTUS made it a federal issue. The other issue that keeps it federal is there cannot be any private murder. I’d like to see 20 weeks set at the federal level and then let states decide from there, including an outright ban.


79 posted on 05/16/2015 6:21:57 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Impy

Hanna needs extermination. A Democrat would be an improvement.

we don’t need people like him in the party.


80 posted on 05/16/2015 6:37:47 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (-Connecticut Republicanism is a mental disorder. - Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson