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 |
Prayers up for you and yours. May you find the perfect place of refuge and safety in your trials.
God bless the American Life League! They stand for ALL the unborn. Isn’t this as Christ would do? The Good Shepherd? He would leave the 99 sheep in search of the one, lost sheep. This bill that the House has passed sacrifices the one, conceived in rape or incest. How does one’s conscience rationalize allowing these innocents to die a horribly painful, brutal death, because of the sins of his or her father?
And to call those who stand for all, innocent unborn babies morons? How is there a place for that kind of disdain for those we should see on the same side of defending life?
End child torture ow.
Absolutely! It’s just like the so-called “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” that so many pro-lifers celebrated when it was “upheld” by the U.S. Supreme Court. They celebrated the decision, but only because they didn’t READ the decision. It was basically a “how to” manual for the “acceptable” ways to kill babies late term.
So it is with this decision. It basically says that those conceived by rape or incest are less worthy of protection, and it’s ok for them to suffer horribly as they are dismembered after 20 weeks. It’s a pro-abortion bill with exceptions; not a pro-life bill. How can one be taken serious to say Baby A, conceived in a consensual sexual act, feels pain at 20 weeks, and so deserves to be protected in law from the brutality of abortion. But, Baby B, conceived in rape or incest; completely innocent of his or her father’s violent act, should be denied the same protection, and therefore suffer an agonizing death? It’s an incoherent argument. It’s insane!
But, furthermore, the whole argument is a false premise anyway. It focuses on a fuzzy line in the sand as to when an unborn child feels pain. Is it 20 weeks? Can a baby feel pain at 19 weeks? Earlier? The focus is on the wrong aspect entirely. The focus should be is it wrong to kill the unborn. Period. If it’s wrong, as hopefully most of us believe, then to support a piece of legislation that ends with, “and then you can kill the baby,” makes no rational sense.
I guess we are not on the same side. I am anti-moron.
NARAL opposed this bill. So did American Life League.
I supported the bill. So did 200+ congressmen. I hope A.L.L. fails in their efforts to defeat any of them.
I hope NARAL fails, too.
Whoa whoa whoa... Hunter didn’t vote? Wtf?
Still... if we can save 95% or 0%... which is better?
“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray.”
Did Jesus weigh which was better, having safe the 99 and abandoning the one? Some might have argued that by leaving the 99 to search out the lost one, the shepherd left the 99 at risk of being ravaged by wild animals, or some other such downfall. But, the Good Shepherd sought out the lost one, nonetheless. Should we do less?
A few thoughts:
The bill isn’t perfect, of course, but I fail to see the logic behind a pro-lifer voting against a bill banning most (unfortunately, not all) abortions after 20 weeks of conception when the alternative, the status quo ante, is legalized abortion until right before birth.
Among the Republicans who voted against it, Hanna is no surprise: he is by far the two most reflexively pro-abortion Republican in the House (with the defeat if Biggert and Bass last year, Hanna really has no competition). Dent and Frelinghuysen are also pro-abortion, but they sometimes vote the right way—not this time. As for Runyon, Broun and Woodall, they are pro-life, but voted like idiots here. Broun is running for the Senate from GA; hopefully a pro-life conservative with more intelligence, such as Karen Handel or Congressmen Phil Gingrey or Jack Kingston, wins the nomination (Broun is also the one Republican candidate who could lose that election, thanks to his public comments favoring Creationism and his sometimes Alliance with Paultards).
Among the Democrats, Lipinski, McIntyre, Peterson and Rahall are consistent pro-life votes, the only four truly pro-life Dems left in Congress. Henry Cuellar usually votes pro-life, and he did here; hopefully his occasional pro-abortion votes last year were an aberration. As for Matheson, he’s no pro-lifer, but generally has voted pro life since the new district maps were released in Utah in late 2011; his pandering won’t be enough to save him from defeat by Mia Love in 2014.
Disappointing votes from Democrats whom I was hoping might support this bill (but knew probably would vote against it given their votes over the past two years: Langevin of RI, Sanford Bishop of GA, Lynch of MA and Kaptur of OH. And no one better mention Barriw of GA and “pro-life” in the same sentence again.
Oh, and the three freshmen Dems whom I thought might be pro-life: Filemon Vela and Pete Gallego of TX and Bill Enyart of IL, proved themselves not to be any such thing.
You are anti-moron (subjectively). I am pro-life. No exceptions. You can be sure that NARAL’s opposition was for far different reasons than A.L.L.’s. But let me ask you then, are you ok with the exception that will allow innocent babies to be brutally ripped apart after 20 weeks, because of the circumstances of their conception?
it is 40 years after Roe. You will not be banning any abortions any time soon because the silly people who think like you do not get involved in politics.
You have no authority over the matter. Better get busy on electing somebody to replace Harkin, the man the A.L.L. folks failed to defeat all those years.
A fool has only to walk along the road and, having no sense, he makes plain to all what a fool he is (Ecclesiasties 10:3
The logic is simple: the legislation correctly identifies the child in the womb as a human person and then fails to provide equal protection for every person, as the Constitution explicitly and imperatively requires.
In fact, it expressly grants permission for the abortionist to kill any child, as long as they do it on schedule.
Immoral, unconstitutional.
“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.”
Even Blackmun, in Roe, admitted that if the child is a person that they are “of course” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then he and his majority colleagues dehumanized the child.
Legislation like this doesn’t even bother with dehumanizing the child before it allows certain disfavored classes of persons to be murdered. They dispense even with a fig leaf.
In a real sense, morally, these kinds of bills are worse than Roe.
Broun is a creationist but couldn’t vote for this bill restricting abortion? WTF? Useless Paulites. Thank goodness GA has primary runoffs.
Runyon one of them too? I just assumed he was pro-choice when I saw him on the list. What is their reasoning on this? I don’t get it.
No, the worst kind is doing nothing, and actively seeking to defeat any attempt to make abortion illegal.
If the right to life is based on whether you can feel pain, I’m sure, logically, you would have no problem with a bill that would allow someone to put a bullet in the heart of a paraplegic, right? Or to suffocate Grandma if you’ve given her enough morphine? I mean, after all, they won’t feel a thing, right?
Well, you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about, seeing as I’m on my county’s Republican Party Central Committee. And I’ve been involved in opposing abortion a lot longer. What have you been doing to stop abortion?
“are you ok with the exception that will allow innocent babies to be brutally ripped apart after 20 weeks”
I am not Ok with abortion. Unlike various morons, I am not okay with sitting by during election season and allowing NARAL candidates to get elected without putting up a fight.
It doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what I do. And anyone who claims is to be pro-life but does little to oppose the NARAL candidates ... is no pro-lifer in my book.
Ma’am, you hardly get a say on this matter. I doubt yer in the state legislature in Des Moines and even the folks there have little to say about it, individually. Go and defeat some NARAL incumbent and then get back to us.
We moved to equally protect all here in Iowa. But the effort was blocked by the sorts of Republicans who support these immoral, unconstitutional, irrational, illogical, lawless, and ultimately unfruitful "fetal pain" laws.
Thanks for posting this! Spot on!
OK, it matters what you do? What have you done? What are you doing to defeat NARAL candidates? I’m out there every election cycle supporting pro-life candidates. The problem is they don’t always follow through on their campaign promises, such as voting to continue tax-payer funding for abortion, as the slippery eels have done here in Iowa.
BTW, it is Sir, to you.
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.