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 |
Yeah, blocking progress to end abortion sure is working like a charm.
I'm not blocking progress to end abortion. I'm opposing illegitimate, immoral, unconstitutional, lawless lawmaking that is absolutely guaranteed to prolong the practice of abortion in this country, because it surrenders the only moral, constitutional, and legal argument against abortion. "Laws" that codify "legal" permission to kill every child, as long as you do it by the calendar.
Unfortunately, in the real world Judie Brown has taught her followers to boycott elections and to turn in ballots that are mostly blank. Examples:
New Hampshire – Pro-Life Catholic activist Jennifer Horn lost a close primary to Charlie Bass in 2010. A.L.L. affiliate did not support her because a 3rd minor candidate jumped n the race and they did not think it right to decide between him and Horn. Two GOP candidates, O’Brien and Lambert, are running vs. Kuster in ’14. A.L.L. will find flaws in both.
Massachusetts - A.L.L. bad-mouthed Scott Brown in ’10 during his campaign vs Martha and then publicly advocated a blank ballot vs. Lizzy Warren. In the special that elected Mrs. Tsongas,, they campaigned for 3rd party candidate who received 3% giving Tsongas a 2% victory. In western Mass, they bad-mouth Dr. Jay Fleitman (anti-Obamacare activist in the medical community) and opponent of Neal and Olver.
NY: they trashed Tedisco, 99% pro-life voting record in Albany, in his race in the open 19th. Perhaps “pro-choice” Gibson (who votes pro-family) is getting worse treatment against his NARAL opponents. They did nothing for Doug Hoffman NY=23.
Nan Hayworth (opthamologist and anti-Obamacare activist), voted against the sex-selection bill (which is the ALL position!), and ALL folks purged her, giving us openly-gay NARAL celebrity Sean Maloney.
CT: They bragged about blank balloting in the DeLauro race even though her opponent was a pro-lifer. “we didn’t know”. Same with Martha Dean AG candidate (”She’s a lawyer and they aren’t usually pro-life”.) They smeared pro-life candidate Mark Greenberg (”he’s a Jew and has been married 4 times!”) The Jew part is true although he is non-practicing Jew. The “4 wives” is a lie. He’s a happily married man.
In Tolland, Nancy Wyman’s house seat just went to a pro-lifer. The large ALL group in the town boycotted cuz Waterbury didn’t tell them to get involved. The gun owners did the door knocking and phone banking.
The A.L.L. Cult is teaching people to boycott society and to become non-voters. It’s the Pontius Pilate card. “Piety in place of duty is no piety at all”. Boycotters are Morons.
No. Don't be dishonest. You know very well that I've never said anything so barbaric.
What gives you the right to sacrifice innocent human lives for the greater good??
I'm not sacrificing anyone. I'm simply advocating that we follow God's command, and the explicit, imperative requirement for equal protection for every innocent person that our Constitution absolutely requires, and that we demand that every single one of our representatives in government fulfill the primary obligation of their sacred oath.
Did the 0.03% of the vote that you got in the 2012 presidential election give you a mandate to overrule millions of pro-life Americans and to sentence to death unborn children who were conceived more than 20 weeks ago?
I'll reply with the words of Lincoln in this regard, since I agree completely with them:
"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me — take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever — but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man's success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity — the Declaration of American Independence."-- Abraham Lincoln, speech in Lewiston, Illinois, August 17, 1858, four days before his first historic debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Printed in the Chicago Press and Tribune.
Here’s Father Frank Pavone’s column:
“I’m often asked what a voter can morally do if two opposing candidates both support abortion. I recommend asking a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?
For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that’s the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.
One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.
In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not “choosing the lesser of two evils.” We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good.
You can have a clear conscience in this instance, because you know that no law can legitimize even a single abortion, ever. If the candidate thinks some abortion is justified, you don’t agree. Moreover, you are doing the most you can to advance the protection of life.
By your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it’s not the best strategy. But it is morally permissible.
Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem, “Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position.” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).
What if there’s a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position? Of course, we should work like crazy to build up that person’s base of support to make him or her electable. But that is not done on Election Day. That takes years of work, which should start now.
Meanwhile, remember that your vote is not a vote for canonization. It is a transfer of power. We can vote for a less than perfect candidate because we aren’t using our vote to make a statement, but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.”
http://priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-10-23choosingevil.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence
Prudence (Lat. prudentia, contracted from providentia, seeing ahead) is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. It is classically ...
Although prudence would be applied to any such judgment, the more difficult tasks, which distinguish a person as prudent, are those in which various goods have to be weighed against each other, as when a person is determining what would be best to give charitable donations ... or how to punish a child so as to prevent repeating an offense.
Circumspection — ability to take all relevant circumstances into account
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound+judgment
sound judgment noun the capacity to assess situations or circumstances shrewdly and to draw sound conclusions [syn: judgment
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral
This is precisely the sort of habit associated with prudence, which Aquinas defines as “wisdom concerning human affairs” (STIIaIIae 47.2 ad 1)
http://biblehub.com/luke/10-27.htm
“’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your MIND’
MIND MIND MIND .... Luke Chapter 10
people who follow the boycotter philosophy are sinning against DUTY. “Piety in place of duty is no piety at all” We have a duty to defeat NARAL candidates.
people who follow the blank ballot philosophy are guilty of IMPRUDENCE. Foolishness. They are preaching a false gospel, centered around their own imprudence being a virtue. A.L.L. is A Religious Cult with a false gospel.
I donate money both to the American Life Leage and Priests for Life. I was not aware that ALL even participated in electoral matters—its newsletter talks about their work to close down Planned Parenthood clinics and Judie Brown uses it to explain her philosophy (with which I largely agree). Where does ALL publish voter guides?
Tsongas won by 51%-45% in that first special election, so the third-party spoiler wasn’t really relevant. Still, backing Jim Ogonowski should have been a no-brainer.
A.L.L. has state affiliates.
Most of them have a PAC. They mostly do things informally
Jim Ogonowski. They smeared him relentlessly throughout the campaign. I was there and heard it. Schmartz.
I donate a few times a year to ALL, but have never donated to one of its PACs (and now know never to do so).
That law saved no children, and led to the spectacle of the Supreme Court sitting around arguing over the appropriate, "legal" way to butcher babies. Which has only led to Gosnell. Meh.
We should have all awakened fully to the scam in 1992 when the Court decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey. William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall were gone, replaced by Republicans. In fact, eight of the nine justices were Republican appointees, and at that point the only Democrat appointee on the Court was Byron White, who had voted AGAINST Roe v. Wade. The case concerned a Pennsylvania law that regulated abortion, exactly along the lines you support. Why, pray tell, was Roe v. Wade not "overturned"? Why is the mass murder continuing lo these two decades later, if your "incrementalist" "strategy" is so great?
ALL gives money to its state PAC
Thank you for replying.
Although most people would not surmise the following because corrupt Congress wrongly now ignores the limits of its constitutional powers, are you aware that Congress has only those powers expressly delegated by it to the states via the Constitution? That’s why I’ve been trying to find out from posters what clause in the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to define what a person is.
And after Congress defines what a person is then they can define what a natural born citizen is. /sarc
As I mentioned to another poster, given that Congress has only those powers delegated to it by the states via the Constitution, what clause given Congress the power to define personhood? There is no such clause as far as I can tell.
Amendent 14, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I emphasize with the connection that you are trying to establish between Sec. 1 of 14A, Congress and the legal definiton of personhood. But I think that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, simply did not foresee eventual problems with the wording of Sec. 1 and abortion.
After all, as I mentioned in another post, pioneering parents deliberately had many children because they could not expect all children to survive to adulthood. And those that did survive certainly had their share of farm chores. So Bingham was probably not concerned with abortion when he drafted Section 1.
The law doesn’t mean much until you get a date in court. Hard to separate clauses from the case law regarding them. Cite some cases.
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich
U.S. vs Lopez
the Thomas opinions are a good place to start.
Regarding constitutionally indefensible federal pot-growing laws, for example, please consider the following. Regardless of the Court's wide interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn, consider the following excerpts which clearly indicate that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce regardless of the Commerce Clause.
First, using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Thomas Jefferson had clarified that the regulation of intrastate commerce is off limits to Congress.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
But Thomas Jefferson's opinion doesn't count because only Supreme Court justices can infallibly interpret the Constitution, right? So the next excerpt is an official Supreme Court clarification of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers which actually reflects what Jefferson wrote.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphases added)." --Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But since the above excerpt is just a generalization of the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, how do we know that intrastate agriculture was possibly an exception to such limits? The excerpt below is from US v. Butler where Constitution-respecting justices officially clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added)."--Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.
The only problem with the Supreme Court's decision in Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor is that FDR's puppet justices seem to have "overlooked" all three excerpts above when deciding Wickard. And "strangely," using terms like "some concept" and "implicit," the justices seem to have regarded the 10th Amendment as a wives' tale as evidenced by the following excerpt from Wickard.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit (emphasis added) in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," "manufacturing," and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause."--Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Again, beware of any post-FDR era interpretations of the Commerce Clause is Congress's favor. Maybe Jefferson actually knew something about the Constitution after all.
Are we having fun yet?
The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as previously noted. And furthermore the Fourteenth, as a subsequent enactment, takes precedence over the Tenth. See also section 5 of the Fourteenth granting to Congress the power to enact appropriate legislation to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. That necessarily includes the power to distinguish between citizens and mere persons. The Fourteenth can also be a treasure trove for Congressional liberal mischief as any conservative or historian may readily recognize. OTOH, the amendment says what it means and means what it says. The private letters of its sponsors or their speeches, in the absence of ambiguity in the text, are strictly irrelevant.
By your reasoning concerning the the order of amendments, our 1st Amendment protections are the weakest of our constitutional protections.
I agree. The founders did not need to explain that we don’t kill our posterity. It needs to be explained now unfortunately that the state shall not deprive any PERSON of life. A baby in the womb needs to be defined as a person under the protection of the law.
Also, giving that witch (or whatever) Schakowsky a seat in Congress is about as responsible as giving one to Sheila Jackson Lee or giving a three-year old keys to the dynamite shed and an easily triggered cigarette lighter. The difference is that the three-year-old in the dynamite shed cannot kill as many people.
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.