A.
#53 doesn’t mention you.
see #5
see #16
B. A sound argument would be that it would be better to promote a bill with real teeth, even if it fails in committee, even if you cannot force a vote in committee.
-A Discharge Petition could be started.
-a stronger advocate than Rep. Trent Franks should be sought to captain legislation.
There are pros and cons to that argument. I’m on the pro side for stronger advocates.
C. One could argue that these bills belong in state legislatures, away from the corrupting national interests ... that 50 states allow for a variety of proposals and better opportunities for both failed attempts and successful ones.
I haven’t gotten to D or E
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.
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.
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.