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 ...
He’s a *hithead but no democrat that’s gonna run against him is gonna be an “improvement”. It will probably be some faggot, at least Hanna is pro-2A.
This is a fully-formed little human. No one can kid themselves that this little one is not a pre-born BABY.
THANK YOU so much for starting this thread!
If I find myself at the voting booth with a choice between a Dem pro-abort, and a GOP pro-abort, that are equally bad, I will do a write-in rather than vote for either of the two evils.
Anybody who won’t even protect a 20-month after conception CHILD is just plain doing the devil’s work.
E.
“horsetrade to exchange the lives of a small number”
“codify abortion “rights” “
“codifying permission to kill babies”
“grants explicit permission in the statute to kill babies”
Abortion was not a federal crime before R v Wade ... does that mean abortion was codified? Nothing has codified abortion in federal law. Criminal laws do not mention actions that are legal or that remain legal. States have the authority to ban abortions, nothing in this bill prevents that interferes with their authority.
Abortion rights have been codified over the past 40 years by the state legislatures ...
at the state level, modifying those laws is not codifying abortion rights.
-those quotes at the beginning of this post are false statements.
Example: Federal Kidnapping Act
does not apply to all kidnappings ... does that mean it codifies kidnapping rights? What law school teaches this gibberish? Is there a name for this philosophy?
F. the people that follow this philosophy, can they point to an accomplishment on a small scale ... on a local level? Is there one bill passed or even one bill defeated? was that defeat followed up with a defeat of an opponent during the next election?
Do they have a general election opponent for Ellmers or Hanna or any of the above? Is there anything on the “to do list” that has been worked on?
Wrong. The "Lacey Peterson" law of 2005, passed by a "pro-life" "Republican" Congress, and signed by "pro-life" "Republican" George W. Bush, grants explicit permission for abortionists to kill babies, all of them.
And the Federal Kidnapping Act grants explicit permission for kidnappers to kidnap, as long as they make it clear they are not crossing state lines.
(I can make false statements, too.)
No, it didn’t, it merely said that that particular law didn’t apply to women getting abortions in clinics. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of the law knows, the fact that Law A does not apply to a particular act does not mean that such act cannot be proscribed by Law B or Law C or Law D. Exclusion of certain acts from coverage by a particular law does not create a “safe harbor” for the commission of such acts. Just about every federal law has limitations, exceptions and exclusions, and it is idiotic to read them as “legalizing” the acts that such law does not cover.
Had William Wilberforce been as stubborn and stupid as you, slavery would have lasted untilthe 20th century.
Wrong. Virtually every bill now passed by NRTL and it’s “pro-life” legislators completely conforms itself to Roe and grants explicit license to kill, encoding that permission in the statutes. All you need to understand this is basic reading comprehension skills.
What a bunch of legalistic gobledygook. No wonder the "pro-life movement" has gotten nowhere in forty years.
What part of the following do you fail to understand?
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.""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."
If legislation does not conform to that absolute requirement, it is immoral and unconstitutional.
The politics of emotional diversion like SB 1070 was in Arizona over immigration five years ago.
The bill got passed by the GOP legislature and signed by then Governor Jan Brewer, who looked good on immigration for her re-election year of 2010.
While Brewer ran with the tough image on immigration, the law got gutted in the court system.
In her lame duck year of 2014 when religious freedom legislation passed her legislature, Brewer vetoed the legal protection for conservative religious people who oppose gay marriage under the same business-political elite pressure that destroyed similar legislation this year in Arkansas and Indiana.
Most of the “20 week abortion ban” in Texas that had a big legal loophole in it anyway was gutted in the federal court system while the politicians of the GOP used it to promote their re-election in 2014.
all of what you say is true.
But it is no reason to oppose the 20-week abortion ban.
and you mention federal courts ...
and where was the big uproar opposing Elena Kagan?
-where is the big push for Senate?
-where is the small push for the Senate?
-where are the evangelical and Catholic voters in those Senate primaries?
-where are the churches?
I heard some polite young fellow mention the “marriage issue” to an evangelical pastor here ... and the pastor became visibly enraged and admonished him ... later incident: another pastor when “assisted suicide” came up, pastor visibly upset that the Gospel was being perverted into something political. Said he believes in pastoring people to bring them close to God. Was annoyed that the young fellow brought a partisan matter into his church.
a. “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
b. “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
Ten Commandments in the public square? ‘NO’, says the church.
“I don’t get involved in that sort of thing ...” said the clergyman. “That’s obvious” say I.
The relationship of God and Politics is ever changing, but my Constitution says in its First Amendment that there is freedom of speech and religion.
I’m not committed to a specific denomination or faction of religion right now, but I accept that there is good in God and I want that good in my life. Hating religion or religious people is not right.
The proponents of gay marriage have that hatred deep inside and they are hell bent on crushing religious people and institutions in the end, regardless of whether those institutions choose to engage in public policy or not.
Religious people who don’t support gay marriage, religious institutions that do not accept homosexuality or gay marriage are as under attack as Jews were in Germany in 1933 (things got really bad later on, God forbid it here).
“If legislation does not conform to that absolute requirement, it is immoral and unconstitutional.”
____________
And thus you prefer to vote down laws banning abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and preserving the statis-quo ante, which is abortion-on-demand at any point prior to birth. Brilliant!
Wrong. One congress cannot bind another, and no exclusion in a law would protect such excluded act from proscription by a later statute. If abortions that are not included in the 20-week ban are “legal,” it is not because of that law, but because prior laws that proscribed them have been declared unconstitutional pursuant to Roe v. Wade. As everybody but you (and perhaps Paul Broun) understands, a vote in favor of the 20-week abortion ban is an anti-abortion vote, which is why *every pro-abortion group opposes the ban*.
“Religious people who don’t support gay marriage, religious institutions that do not accept homosexuality or gay marriage are as under attack as Jews were in Germany in 1933 “
And, yet, the church folks on the east coast are indifferent. Perhaps I didn’t mention the young guy in my story is obviously pro-Traditional Marriage and opposed the assisted suicide ... he’s under attack from the Evangelical and Pentecostal pastors!
And I should have saved the vile voice mails I’ve gotten from Catholic pastors and Diocesan employees.
I “prefer to vote them down” because they are immoral and unconstitutional, and voting for them violates the first and most crucial sworn obligation of the oath of office.
The multitude of such bills from the “pro-life movement” have done nothing to stop abortion on demand. In fact, they have assured its continuation, since they surrender the only moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion on demand.
Denial of the truth of what I’m saying is the only reason your “status quo ante” exists.
If we would simply demand that every officer of government keep their oath, and back that demand up with action, abortion on demand would stop in this country practically overnight.
That's a straw man of your own creation. The fact is that the bills in question are intrinsically immoral and unconstitutional, in and of themselves. What some future legislative body may or may not do is completely irrelevant.
Your reliance on Roe as a crutch to justify such immorality and unconstitutionality is predictable. But in fact, Roe itself is irrelevant to whether or not current legislators, judges and executives keep their own oath to provide equal protection for the supreme individual right.
Any law or judicial opinion that violates the laws of nature and nature's God and/or the Constitution is null and void. In other words, it doesn't exist.
That is the premise of the American republic, as posited by Samuel Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, and the rest of the founders, who pointed to others who understaood this before them, like Locke, and Blackstone, and Aquinas, and Cicero.
“back that demand up with action”
And what action have you successfully completed at the local level? ONE success is an example for others to follow.
And David Young must be unacceptable ... where was the success on behalf of Monte Shaw? who refused to participate on his behalf?
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.