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

Skip to comments.

Sex-selection abortion ban wins strong House majority, but fails to clear 2/3 hurdle
Life Site News ^ | May 31, 2012 | The Editors

Posted on 05/31/2012 2:50:02 PM PDT by NYer

WASHINGTON, May 31, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill to outlaw abortions based on a child’s gender received a strong majority of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday but failed to gain the two-thirds margin of support needed for passage.

The House voted 246-168 in favor of H.R. 3541, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA). 226 Republicans and 20 Democrats (Altmire, Barrow, Boren, Cooper, Costello, Critz, Cuellar, Donnelly, Garamendi, Holden, Kissell, Lipinksi, Lynch, Matheson, McIntyre, Peterson, Rahall, Reyes, Ross of AR, and Shuler) voted yea; while 161 Democrats and seven Republicans (Amash, Bass of NH, Bono Mack, Dold, Hanna, Hayworth, and Paul) voted no. Eight Republicans and nine Democrats were absent.

The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly perform a sex-selection abortion or coerce a woman into such a procedure, or to transport a woman across state lines or into the United States to obtain a sex-selection abortion. The woman herself is not liable for prosecution.

President Obama had announced his opposition to the measure a day earlier, claiming that the bill would result in “subject[ing] doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine” a sex-selection motivation. The National Right to Life Committee criticized the excuse by pointing out that the bill explicitly bars requiring abortionists “to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion” if it were unknown to them.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

Another prominent opponent of the bill was Planned Parenthood. The abortion chain, which was caught on video published this week encouraging sex-selection abortions in Texas and New York, said it opposed “gender bias” but confirmed it does perform sex-selection abortions upon request.

Sex-selection abortions, often fueled by son-preferring Asian cultures indigenous to China and India, normally result in the extermination of unborn girls. At least one poll has found 77% of Americans opposing the practice.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) had warned Wednesday that the bill presented a difficult ultimatum for pro-abortion politicians, because voting against it would be seen as condoning gendercide.

“I think this has come up because someone has decided politically that it was a difficult place to put people in,” said Hoyer. The lawmaker said he is against abortion based on the baby’s gender but that “a woman and her doctor gotta have the choice of what alternatives she wants to choose.”

Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for Family Research Council Action, said he was “deeply saddened” by PRENDA’s demise.

“That anyone on either side of the political aisle would vote against a bill preventing gendercide in the United States is profoundly troubling,” said McClusky.

“We are heartened that a strong majority of House members voted to ban performing or coercing abortions for the purpose of eliminating unborn babies of an undesired sex – usually, girls,” said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “Shamefully, President Obama, and a minority of 168 House members, complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions.”

NRLC pointed out in a release Thursday that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) had warned legislators that it would score the PRENDA vote as a vote against “women’s health.”

“So, for PPFA, abortion for sex selection is just another menu option, except where it is illegal – and PPFA vehemently opposes making it illegal,” said the pro-life group.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 112th; abortion; gender; proaborts; sexselection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 05/31/2012 2:50:11 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah; narses

Ping!


2 posted on 05/31/2012 2:51:31 PM PDT by NYer (Open to scriptural suggestions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Why mention that it didn’t get two thirds...unless you’re anticipating Osama’s veto?


3 posted on 05/31/2012 2:54:33 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: another casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

WHY are they focusing on this stuff?

They are so stooopid.

Actually, in a philisophical sense and with Biblical history in mind, senseless killing of innocents is the LAST thing we should toy with, we who need God’s help with the state of our country. It just doesn’t invite grace.


4 posted on 05/31/2012 3:00:52 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

One thing to always remember. There is no such thing as a pro-life democrat. You can’t be both. To say otherwise is a lie. Not just a lie, a damn lie.


5 posted on 05/31/2012 3:01:17 PM PDT by papageo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

I do know how to spell philosophical.


6 posted on 05/31/2012 3:02:40 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Why mention that it didn’t get two thirds...unless you’re anticipating Osama’s veto?

The bill didn't go through the usual Committee route. It was brought to the House floor under a special procedure that requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

7 posted on 05/31/2012 3:04:44 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I understand the intent of the bill, but unless you outlaw abortion, how would you enforce this?


8 posted on 05/31/2012 3:09:28 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Someone please show me where I'm wrong but, until then, I have to think this bill is stupid politics. It's pure BS. What difference will it make if we DO outlaw abortion for the purpose of gender selection? When did we start requiring a pregnant woman to state ANY reason (let alone the true reason) for her desire to murder her unborn child?
9 posted on 05/31/2012 3:09:57 PM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Someone want to try and splain why the IJIT, Weeeper of the House brought this up under the "Special Rules" which required 2/3 majority?

I almost think that Bone-Er did this intentionally so as not to incur the wrath of Dear Leader, the Demo-Rats and their sycophant Lame Stream Media in accusing them of waging a "War on Women."

10 posted on 05/31/2012 3:10:16 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Can somebody edumicate me...why isn’t a simple majority sufficient?


11 posted on 05/31/2012 3:10:46 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is ridiculous.

The left keeps saying the unborn are not people. Gender of a blob of tissue is a moot discussion according to them. You aren’t getting rid of any “girls” if you’re a lefty. It makes no sense to talk in terms reserved for people, and the left has to be called on this. Either they are people and you’re admitting you’re murdering them before they’re born, or they aren’t people and stop trying to make an issue out of gender because they aren’t people.

They cannot have it both ways without being the biggest hypocrites in the world, as well as destroying their own arguments in the process.


12 posted on 05/31/2012 3:11:00 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

“I understand the intent of the bill”

I’d say the intent of the bill is to flush out an opinion from Obama on sex selective abortions....and Carney complied!


13 posted on 05/31/2012 3:12:31 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
why isn’t a simple majority sufficient?

Because Obama will veto it.

So time it for after Obama's removal. At least Romney claims he's against abortion.

14 posted on 05/31/2012 3:16:25 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Zero’s position on this is so outrageous as to defy credulity. Maybe he wants to lose the election. It just disgusts me. These days I often wonder where I live. Used to be evil was condemned; now it’s celebrated by the abortionists and those in their camp.
Maybe God will have mercy on their souls. I despise them, but I’m preaching to the choir. It’s all just so sad what has happened to our country.
Talk about a war on women! This BS takes the cake.
What’s a good country, stressing good, to move to?


15 posted on 05/31/2012 3:23:04 PM PDT by BIV (typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
They cannot have it both ways without being the biggest hypocrites in the world, as well as destroying their own arguments in the process.

Hence the shift in public opinion on abortion. Pro-life advocates now exceed those who are pro-choice, and the number continues to grow.

16 posted on 05/31/2012 3:27:43 PM PDT by NYer (Open to scriptural suggestions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; BlackElk; Clemenza
>> 161 Democrats and seven Republicans (Amash, Bass of NH, Bono Mack, Dold, Hanna, Hayworth, and Paul) voted no. <<

There's goes "tea party" Amash again, as well as his pal Ron Paul (no doubt Paulbots will tell us Paul has a really good "constitutional" reason for voting that way and we "hate the Constitution" if we don't agree with it). I see Mrs. Connie Mack IV (Mary Bono Mack) was a NAY. She's always been a squish compared to Sonny but she's really become a full fledged RINO in recent years (the cap n' trade vote she cast was even worse). I dread the thought of her "conservative" hubby getting a promotion to the U.S. Senate. Bob Dold in Illinois replaced Kirk and has official morphed into Mark Kirk Jr. Sad. We should have known better, but the guy had potential to actually be the "independent" he claimed to be, but probably the same combine forces that control Kirk are controlling him. I remember some freeper was all excited when Dold won and said he read in National Review that Dold was a "staunch conservative". I told him the Review writer must be smoking something illegal because even Dold wouldn't use the word "conservative" and himself in the same sentence. The problem is that IL-10 politicians use the phrase "middle of the road" as codeword for "I will do Planned Parenthood's bidding 100% of the time". Don't know enough about Hanna and Hayworth. Any chance they're in districts where we could dump them in favor of real Republicans?

17 posted on 05/31/2012 3:30:53 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
Can somebody edumicate me...why isn’t a simple majority sufficient?

The bill didn't go through the normal process of being voted on by a committee, etc.; it was brought to the House floor under a special fast-track rule that requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

18 posted on 05/31/2012 3:50:58 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

The intent of the bill is to limit the murders to male children; as India has already discovered, it cannot be enforced. When doctors don’t tell parents the gender (they often do anyway), some parents simply discard the newborn female by the side of the road.

God will not be mocked.


19 posted on 05/31/2012 3:56:43 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

What is going unmentioned is that this bill outlawed abortion for gender selection (which the MSM is reporting) AND also for racial selection.

Mark Levin made this case on his show and it won’t be touched by the MSM.... anywhere!

Francis


20 posted on 05/31/2012 4:40:16 PM PDT by Frank Sheed (This tagline space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 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