Posted on 06/18/2013 6:20:23 PM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would restrict all abortions nationwide to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (H.R. 1797), introduced by Arizona Republica Trent Franks, would end abortion after a point that scientists agree unborn children can feel pain.
In a nearly party-line vote, the measure passed 228-196.
Six Democrats voted yes. Six Republicans voted against the bill. Ten Congressmen did not vote. The full roll call, showing how every Congressman voted, is below.
Democrats who voted yes include: Henry Cuellar of Texas, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and Nick Rahall of West Virginia.
Republicans who voted against the bill include Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Richard Hanna of New York, Jon Runyan of New Jersey, and Rob Woodall of Georgia.
"Passage of today's landmark bill marks the first time in history, in either chamber of the U.S. Congress, that affirmative protection has been extended to unborn children,” said Franks. “It is my prayer that today also marks a day when America finally opens her eyes to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them."
Others in the pro-lifemovement expressed their joy at the bill's passage.
“This vote makes a statement in favor of life even though the Dem[ocrat]-controlled Senate likely won't move on it,” said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy advisor for Operation Rescue. “Getting this far was a big deal.”
The act's future is uncertain, as it lacks a companion in the Senate, and President Obama has threatened to veto it if the measure ever reaches his desk.
If the bill becomes law, abortionists who perform late-term abortions may face a fine or up to five years in prison.
The legislation would affect the 300 abortionists who perform abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization and an estimated 140 abortion providers who are willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks or later, according to a 2008 report from the Guttmacher Institute.
Some in the pro-life movement were outraged after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia added amendment allowing abortion in the cases of duly reported rape or incest, a change he made bowing to a media feeding frenzy over Franks' remarks about abortion and rape – remarks he says were misinterpreted.
The bill already allowed abortions to save the mother's life.
Georgia Right to Life rescinded its previous support of the bill, saying it had been “hijacked.”
“Sadly, the politics of compromise has decided that one class of children—those conceived by rape or incest—do not deserve protection from the agony of literally being ripped apart.,” said GRTL President Dan Becker.
Georgia Congressmen Paul Broun and Rob Woodall were two of the six Republicans to vote nay.
Most of the nation's pro-life groups strongly supported the incremental measure as an improvement over existing policy. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, "Any lawmaker who votes to allow unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later is voting to encourage a continuation of the horrors associated with the likes of Kermit Gosnell."
Cantor also scheduled Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, to manage today's vote instead of Franks – something Democrats seized upon during the debate.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, who has strong ties to the Democratic Socialists of America, was among those who drew attention to the fact that there are no Republican women on the House Judiciary Committee, which passed the bill last Wednesday.
“Do you think it's fair or proper for a body of men to solely determine one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make in regard to her own health and body?” she asked.
Democrats appeared eager to change the subject from the bill's purpose – ending the practice of late-term abortions that led to the abuses of Kermit Gosnell and others – to their familiar “War on Women” rhetoric.
President Obama issued a statement yesterday saying he“strongly opposes” the bill, which he said presents a “direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution.”
Democrats shared his talking points in the hours prior to the vote.
“The bill is a direct threat to the privacy rights and health of every woman living in this country, and especially women of color,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA. She said minority members suffered even more “due to the terrible Hyde Amendment,” which forbids taxpayer funding of abortion.
Lee was the only member of Congress who did not vote to authorize force against the Taliban following 9/11.
The full roll call vote is as follows:
---- YEAS 228 ---
|
Aderholt |
Graves (MO) |
Perry |
---- NAYS 196 ---
|
Andrews |
Gallego |
Nolan |
| Bonner Campbell Hunter Larsen (WA) |
Markey McCarthy (NY) Pascrell Rogers (KY) |
Schock Yarmuth |
If that bothers you, try the supremacy clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution) by which mere treaties ("negotiated" by irresponsible inebriated diployakkers and ratified only by 2/3 of the U. S. Senate) may be deemed to supersede constitutional provisions. Personally, I doubt that the Founding Fathers intended such an absurd result but again: the constitution says what it means and means what it says. Why do you suppose that Obozo is about to sign the Small Arms Treaty promulgated by the United Nations to disarm ordinary (non-government) folks throughout the world. Even a treaty, however, requires ratification by 2/3 of the U. S. Senate but there is no role whatsoever for state legislatures which would be required for enacting an actual constitutional amendment. See also Missouri vs. Holland 252 U. S. 416 (1920) for the U. S. Supreme Court's ruling that treaties abrogate asserted state's rights vis-a-vis the federales.
Now ponder the proposed "Law of the Sea Treaty," or an International Treaty on the Rights of the Child (usually against the child's parents), or some Treaty Prohibiting and Punishing "Hate Speech" or banning worship or imagine any other treaty you might despise and which would effectively limit or pervert our liberties as U. S. citizens.
I am not arguing that the incrementalist policy is "so great." You and Judie Brown have the moral and legal high ground. I would argue that no abortion is justified unless literally necessary to save the mother's life when the baby can NOT be saved in any event such as a tubal pregnancy.
OTOH, can we accept ANY avoidable abortion? If I served in a legislature and the final vote of the session is about to be cast on an imperfect bill which bans only 20% OF Abortions or 80% or something short of 100% and my vote will decide passage or defeat, will you blame me for preventing the abortions that I can prevent by voting for passage? Assume that I make clear in debate that, if I vote for passage, I do not personally accept even one of the abortions I cannot prevent and I will keep coming back to ban more and more abortions until abortion is as criminal and illegal as it is immoral. I am doing what I can, all that I can, and without ever accepting abortion. Am I not abandoning to an unjust death those whom my vote COULD have saved if I hold out, refuse to enact, and wait for a possible perfect future bill? How do I justify those deaths which would be my responsibility along with that of every legislator voting NO???
All of these Utilitarian “we’re trying to save some” arguments are actually a mirage. If you have the governmental power to regulate baby butchery, you have the power to provide the equal protection that God and the Constitution explicitly and imperatively demand. You’re just fooling yourself if you think compromising the principle of equal protection is going to save anyone. No, you’re simply assuring that every weapon against the practice of human abortion has been completely disarmed.
Life and equality are intrinsically all or nothing. You’re either alive, or you’re dead. Either all are protected equally, or there is no equality.
The "Boys of Pont du Hoc" and all the rest did a great service to civilization that day when they established the foothold necessary to retake Western Europe from Hitler. Of course, FDR failed to keep Stalin's grubby and murderous paws off Eastern Europe. Ask Ukrainians and Poles who were there and Hungarians. It was worth taking the beaches at Normandy and worth taking Western Europe. We (that is to say conservatives) NEVER morally conceded the control of Eastern Europe to Stalin. Eventually Stalin's successors (Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, Gorbachev, et al.) found out to their grave discomfort how many divisions that a later pope (JP II) had at his disposal in alliance with Solidarnosc, the martyred Fr. Jerzy Popieluszko, Lech Walensa, Ronaldus Maximus, and the Iron Lady, each doing his or her or its part when it counted. Despite knowing Vladimir Putin's resume, we are now unable to locate the USSR or the Warsaw Pact Nations (at least those still in the Warsaw Pact).
I also remember Ronaldus Maximus referencing the USSR as "The Evil Empire." Informed elite opinion REALLY relegated him to the amiable dunce category thereafter. Yet, he won and the USSR lost. Was he imprudent in provoking the soviets?
Essentially, your argument can be applied to justify such absolute evil as voting for Mitt Romney who was every bit as bad on abortion (and marriage and guns and most other issues) as Obozo himself. Thanks but no thanks.
I would bet that Judie Brown did NOT vote for the enthusiastic baby-killer Romney any more than she voted for Obozo. When whatever sliver of difference between Obozo and Mittler can be claimed as an excuse for either Evildumb or Evildumber, rationality has fled the scene. If you examine your conscience on this, you must concede that there is no moral excuse, based on the track record of either, to justify, on pro-life grounds (or pro-family, or pro-gun or anything but Muffy's trust fund and Skipper's polo pony) a vote for either major party trash in the 2012 POTUS election. This is NOT about who gets the jobs and the contracts. How does one punish a political party so as to prevent it from repeating an offense???? Not by voting for Mittler, that's for sure.
If the GOP wants my vote, the GOP will have to earn it the old-fashioned way by nominating acceptable candidates. NARAL does not decide my vote. They are whores for the Demonrat Party and its and their contributors just as the National Right to Life Committee are whores for the Republican Party and its and their contributors. These groups are not the relentless Lawrence Laders of yesteryear nor Dr. Jack Willke of yesteryear. Both groups seek, as their highest goal, not to offend the contributors. If they are faithful to the contributors' fastidious and ohhhh soooooo respectable, "prudent" and pristinely non-militant sensibilities, the individual "leaders" will get their gold watches and 25-year pins on retirement from their chronically unsuccessful efforts.
I take it that "Waterbury" means the Muckles, Bill O'Brien, CRTLC and their fellow activists there. Did you try to persuade them on CT-3 or CT-5 or on Martha Dean for AG? I don't claim that I can "deliver" them but I have every expectation that I can talk to them. When they say that they do not know enough about a candidate, they are being honest and they will not endorse candidate A simply because they reject candidate B. They want a sense of confidence that a candidate they may support is WORTH supporting on his/her own merits. I don't blame them.
I would agree with you on NH-2. Kuster deserves to lose. So did Bass, however, like his father before him. In Massachusetts Senate race, I would not have voted for Fauxcahontas, Martha Coakley, Mrs. Tsongas and likely not for Scott Brown either. I know nothing about the Western Mass Congressional candidates other than Olver who had earned a defeat. Likewise the New York candidates other than Hoffman who deserved support as a Conservative (Democrat) candidate against the despicable pro-abort Ms. Scozzafava to teach the sleazy GOP leadership a deserved lesson.
In the Connecticut races: The black guy who ran against De Lauro looked particularly good and worth supporting. Martha Dean for AG over either Blumenturd or his replacement early and often. CT-5: Mark Greenberg even if he was a Zoroastrian and had been "married" to his donkey. I would have stirred from my computer in my old age to help him.
Face it. Sometimes (not always) "society" is well-worth boycotting. Seen many good Hollywood movies lately? How about Network TV series? Much good new pop music? Here in Illinois, my State Rep.. my State Senator and my Congresscritter are all ostensibly "conservatives" especially in their voting records BUT they are each and every one total party hacks for a state party that makes Connecticut's GOP look like the John Birch Society. My Congresscritter is particularly objectionable as a loyal footstool for Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy. I want to encourage each of them----- to retire. I don't vote for them.
In the Tolland race, that was a nice victory. Guns were the issue of the moment and gun groups SHOULD have taken the lead. They did. Good for them.
I agree with you on a total ban with the only exception being to save the mother from death when the baby can’t be saved anyway.
Were I in a legislative body with limited power to save the unborn, I would aim to legally protect all babies possible knowing full well that either the law will end up distasteful or a court may strike it down.
The war to stop the bloodshed must be fought persistently and bravely until my last breath.
But whatever abortion continues in this fallen world I am not responsible for so long as I fight the good fight in a manner pleasing to The Lord.
As a lawyer I have to say that were I on the SCOTUS, I would be considered a radical by anyone’s standards. I’ve often thought about the blood on the hands of people like Justice Kennedy and others.
When a single person initially votes to overrule Roe, then switches in the 11th hour to hand the four pro abortion justices a majority I just can’t describe the sorrow I feel.
Millions of innocent lives in the balance, and a total failure to carry out the most basic function of government results. It is just staggering to contemplate being accountable for that.
I’m grateful to have had the opportunity to support Martha Dean AG candidate and pro-life Catholic convert at the 2010 GOP convention as she squeaked in with 51% and also able to support Linda McMahon in her first ballot victory over Rob Simmons and her later victory in ‘12 over Chris Shays.
I’m also glad I was able to campaign for Scott Brown in ‘10 when he defeated Martha.
It was encouraging that state Sen. Dan Debicella was the lone vote 34-1 against forcing Plan B on the CT Catholic Hospitals.
What was not encouraging was when the purity crowd went negative on McMahon and Scott Brown and advocated blank ballot voting. The purity crowd also engaged in a bad-mouthing campaign against Debicella in his Congressional race in Fairfield County CT-4.
The purity crowd urged a blank ballot in MCFL-endorsed Sullivan’s primary vs. this Gabrielle Gomez pro-gay Massachusetts GOPer.
When the next Scalia is nominated and 60 votes are sought, we will rue the day that Brown and McMahon were purged. When the attempt is made to repeal Obamacare we will be baffled as to why Debicella, Hayworth, J. Horn, Tedisco, Fleitman, etc. were purged.
Electing somebody in New England takes work, running a boycott campaign against ‘RINOs’ is easy. The vote in New England on this bill was 21-0. And the repeal Obamacare vote is likely to be 21-0. I am not sure what the goal is in the boycott movement in New England. I guess the defeat of Brown demonstates their influence and raises their status above marginalization.
But now there is nobody left to purge.
While the A.L.L. crowd was busy with the above, pro-lifers lost the Manchester state Senate seat by 0.1% and the Meriden state Senate seat by 0.5%. And a half dozen rep seat primaries by 20 votes. That speaks for itself.
Last I checked, Prudence was one of the virtues and not an optional one. I’ll stick with Father Pavone’s theology.
CRTLC is not the problem per se.
Muckle broke with the group and worked hard for Greenberg. He was also a loyal soldier for Suzio.
The problem, in my opinion, is that the “movement” has a life of its own. People in the parishes get Judie’s mailings ... they obsess over “if I vote for the wrong person it is a sin” and therefore become non-voters in many races and non-participants. Thus, the blank ballots.
Successful movements believe their opponents are the sinners. Ours is a movement of non-participation as a means of avoiding sin. A political movement that teaches its adherents to be non-participants ... peculiar.
Greeberg is running again. We are doing small donors, trying to run up a huge number of donors by the June 30 reporting date. The Litchfield County GOP crowd might let him have the nomination this time.
In the Meriden-Hartford area pro-life victories ‘10 and ‘12:
Markley
Suzio for 2 years
Welch state senate Bristol
Aldinolfi Cheshire rep defeat Esty
Zupkus Cheshire rep defeat Nardello
Sampson Wolcott rep
Carpino Cromwell rep
McGee hartford north end DEM primary
GOP picked up the North Haven seat in a surprise
We lost Derby ... 49% but will get it in ‘14
3 more seats in Middletown area got 49% and then those 3 seats were broken up into 9 pieces during the redistricting, so none of the 3 now has a district to run in.
The voters are willing ...
Georgia is no surprise. In fact, Georgia Right to Life is probably one of the strongest of the state RTL groups. And those that are applying the “tar and feathers” to Reps. Broun and Woodall, and making such accusations as “baby killers,” are way off base. From GRTL:
http://grtl.org/?q=open-letter-prolife-movement-georgia
“Those who voted with us were GA Rep. Paul Broun and Rep. Rob Woodall.
Rep. Paul Broun actually went to the well and asked that his name be removed from a bill he co-sponsored. This was a courageous move on his part and worthy of praise. He consistently stands for the sanctity of life and he did NOT cave to significant political pressure from within his own leadership. He was faced with the specter of scoring poorly with a NO vote on many of the leading pro-family organizations scorecards. This to me is a statesman that will defend our lives, our liberties and our constitution. In a poll released Tuesday he is just 2 percentage points from the lead. He is worthy of your financial and volunteer support. Let’s elect him our new US Senator!
Rep. Rob Woodall voted with us and is, and always will be, a staunch supporter of states’ rights and the right to life. He has been one of the most responsive Representatives for life issues among our entire delegation. I appreciate his example and willingness to stand on principle . . . even when it cuts against the grain. This is the mark of a trusted statesman.”
So, please don’t slander these staunch, principled pro-life legislators, while praising those who sacrifice principles for exceptions; and all for a bill that is DOA in the Senate, but if for some reason should get through, has a promised Obama veto waiting. Was it worth it to surrender the high, moral ground? For what gain?
I don’t know about the other four, but the two Reps. from GA are no baby killers. To accuse them of such displays gross ignorance of who they are, and is pure slander. This from GA Right to Life (one of the strongest state Right to Life organizations in the country):
“Those who voted with us were GA Rep. Paul Broun and Rep. Rob Woodall.
Rep. Paul Broun actually went to the well and asked that his name be removed from a bill he co-sponsored. This was a courageous move on his part and worthy of praise. He consistently stands for the sanctity of life and he did NOT cave to significant political pressure from within his own leadership. He was faced with the specter of scoring poorly with a NO vote on many of the leading pro-family organizations scorecards. This to me is a statesman that will defend our lives, our liberties and our constitution. In a poll released Tuesday he is just 2 percentage points from the lead. He is worthy of your financial and volunteer support. Let’s elect him our new US Senator!
Rep. Rob Woodall voted with us and is, and always will be, a staunch supporter of states’ rights and the right to life. He has been one of the most responsive Representatives for life issues among our entire delegation. I appreciate his example and willingness to stand on principle . . . even when it cuts against the grain. This is the mark of a trusted statesman.”
http://grtl.org/?q=open-letter-prolife-movement-georgia
I have consistently opposed all abortions on the grounds that A) abortion is murder; and B) pro-woman = pro-life. For B) here's the requisite proof: The mother-child bond is among the strongest in nature. To advocate the unnatural severance of that bond and its sanction in law is to advocate the permanent emotional scarring of these would-be mothers despite individual circumstances.
I merely expressed an opinion, and am one of the most consistent pro-lifers on FR.
What progress? Over 55 million innocent babies aborted since Roe v. Wade! Can you show me where this alleged “progress” towards ending abortion can be found? And this bill DOESN’T ban abortion after 20 weeks. Those who have the misfortune of being conceived by an act of rape or incest are still able to be murdered with impunity after 20 weeks! Or, do they not count? Is one to be accused of being “too pure” for wanting to defend their right to life?
SCOTUS “inched” towards the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade by upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban???? SCOTUS did no such thing! The majority decision was more like a “how to” manual on approved methods for late term abortions. The decision will cause no babies to be saved. Go back and read the decision, and maybe you will see why there are many pro-life organizations and individuals who do not see that SCOTUS decision as cause for rejoicing.
The abortion law that you and I want to see in effect (protecting life from the moment of fertilization, and banning abortion at any time, with an exception solely for the unintentional death of the baby in a procedure to save the mother’s life) would not get anywhere close to majorities in both houses of Congress, and even if it somehow became law it would be struck down by SCOTUS so long as the “fifth conservative” is Anthony Kennedy. William Wilberforce wanted to end slavery but knew such bill could not pass Parliament, so he supported and achieved passage of a law that banned the slave trade (with certain exceptions, by the way, which subsequently were eliminated), and that prohibition eventually led to Parliament banning slavery altogether. Had Wilberforce refused to support a law that was flawed and would not give him 100% of what he wanted, the slave trade would have continued in the UK, and who knows when slavery would have ended there (or here, since the UK’s actions were an inspiration for abolitionist efforts around the world).
If the Franks bill becomes law, it will stop hundreds of thousands of abortions. It would also create greater consciousness that abortion—all abortion—stops a beating heart and ends a human life that is separate from that of the mother, with a separate DNA. This is the most that we can prohibit right now that would have a chance if being upheld by SCOTUS, and the elimination of the “health” exception, if upheld, would be a game-changer. Yes, I would rather that they hadn’t added exceptions for rape or incest—if anyone deserves the death penalty, it’s the rapist, not the innocent child—but that particular issue has been demonized so much afte Todd Akin’s stupid comments that it would have sunk the whole bill had it not been added.
As for the PBA case, while Congress passed and SCOTUS upheld merely a ban on a particular procedure, not other forms of abortion, it was the first time that SCOTUS had upheld any abortion ban without a “health” exception. You’ve got to start somewhere.
And you should read the words of Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, which campaignPete R-CT kindly posted, on how Catholics should deal with candidates who are not 100% pro-life but more pro-life than the alternative. It is also applicable to bills. Basically, it isn’t correct that supporting an imperfect candidate who is better than the alternative or an imperfect bill that is better than current law (or any potential law that could be passed and upheld) is not “choosing the lesser of two evlls (as cynics would have you believe), but choosing to reduce evil. Father Frank Pavone says that choosing to reduce evil is inherently a good act, and I agree.
We can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Now send in the evil Senate Ass-clowns.
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.