Posted on 04/08/2015 11:45:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
Three years ago, the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee approved a bill to prohibit doctors in the District of Columbia from killing unborn children who are 20 weeks old or older unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
When the bill was brought to the floor on July 31, 2012 -- under a motion to suspend the rules, which required it to get a two-thirds vote -- some pro-abortion Democrats objected that it went so far as to protect the lives of 20-week-old-or-older babies who had been conceived through rape or incest and that it did not include a "health" exception.
To them, this was an outrage.
"The callous indifference that is shown to the lives, the health, the well-being and constitutional rights of women in this bill simply beggar description," Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York said in a floor speech. "For instance, the bill has no provision whatsoever for women who have been the victims of rape or incest, and there is no exception for a woman's health."
The bill did not get the two-thirds needed to pass under a suspension of the rules, but it did get a majority: 220 members voted for it, including 17 Democrats.
A year later, Republican leaders brought to the House floor a national Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Unlike the D.C. bill, the final version of this national bill did contain rape and incest exceptions -- but not a "health" exception.
This version, explained the official summary by the Congressional Research Service, would prohibit an "abortion from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater, except: (1) where necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury, excluding psychological or emotional conditions; or (2) where the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect."
This time, pro-abortion Democrats objected that a doctor would not be allowed to kill a 20-week-or-older unborn child conceived through rape or incest unless the rape or incest was reported -- and that the bill did not have a "health" exception.
"The narrow health exception in the bill only allows for abortions that are necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman," complained Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California.
"The rape and incest exceptions are insulting and excessively narrow," she said. "They require reporting the crime to law enforcement prior to seeking care."
The majority did not find this argument persuasive. The House passed the bill 228 to 196, with 10 members not voting. Six Democrats voted for this version, which allowed a doctor to kill a 20-week-or-older unborn child if the child was conceived in rape or incest that had been reported.
The Republicans then won a 247-to-188 majority in the House in the 2014 elections and also took control of the Senate. Theoretically, they had the votes to pass and send to President Obama a bill banning abortion in the United States at 20 weeks or later.
In January, the House Republican leadership scheduled and then canceled a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This time, a group of Republicans complained that the rape and incest exceptions, the same as those in the 2013 bill, were too stringent and the bill posed political problems.
If House Republicans continue on the trajectory they have followed so far, the next version of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act they bring up for a vote will have exceptions broad enough to make it meaningless.
Congress needs to move in the other direction. If we human beings have a God-given right to life -- which we do -- it belongs to all of us, not only to those who belong to groups preferred by the current members of Congress.
A human being conceived in rape or incest -- whether an unborn child or a 90-year-old man or woman -- has the same God-given right to life as every other human being.
The snail darter and owls and such come first ...
How about this legislation, EV? Support it, or not?
Weird question. The article keeps using the words like 20 week old child. I though a 20 week old child was a person who is 20 weeks old meaning from the time of birth. Shouldn’t the correct word be “fetus”? Isn’t there a difference between a fetus and a child such as a child breathes and eats on their own whereas a fetus is getting oxygen and nutrients through the mother? I am not arguing whether someone is a human or not depending where the person is in the cycle of life, just the terminology used in the article.
No. It’s immoral and blatantly unconstitutional.
No. "Fetus" is nothing more than the Latin word for "offspring," or "child."
It would be immoral to vote against this legislation. Your moral analysis is flawed.
I don’t know about that. In my mind, it is used to describe an unborn mammal that is almost fully developed. I think the author needs to use the correct wording. But hey, maybe I am just being a little too picky.
Not if the Left screams loud enough.
You cannot get a moral result by voting for what is clearly immoral. You're fooling yourself.
Actually, means unborn child...
http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definition/20845/foetus-foetus
young while still in the womb
I heard Roe was unconstitutional. The problem is, our constitution needs to include unborn humans.
Our Constitution includes the unborn. They’re persons, and the Constitution repeatedly requires the protection of their lives.
But even if they weren’t enumerated, it doesn’t matter. They still have the God-given, unalienable right to live.
Read the Ninth Amendment. It forbids the depriving of the individual’s God-given rights just because that right may not be enumerated.
James Madison insisted on the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment before he would support the Bill of Rights, because he feared people doing exactly what you are doing here.
I think James Madison is my second favorite President. This is unbelievable. I will do some more homework.
Awesome.
Alexander Hamilton argued at length in Federalist #84 against including a Bill of Rights.
“It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.”
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
You know, when the Constitution is taught, it is not always stated that the purpose of its conception was to limit government control. It is most often viewed as the agreement to have government be the knight in shining armor when in fact it is the evil wizard.
If unborn, are they alive? If alive, are they human beings? ... Simple logic that the subPreme Court twisted into a demonic pretzel.
I did a quick search (had to download a 99 page pdf for L8R) and laughed at this quote...
“Power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, those who have sympathy for property owners and their rights, and who understand that the fundamental task of the government is to protect the minority opulent from the majority.” James Madison...
When the Bible permits the slave to remain with a good owner for the rest of his life, it does make sense. Why have someone who doesn’t know how to balance a checkbook (or even use one) decide what to do with taxes? I’m living in that situation right now. Sister is executor. Lord have mercy.
It’s a misnomer to state that the “purpose of our government’s conception was to limit government.”
No. It’s purpose was stated very clearly in the Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Now, they knew the nature of man, and the tendency of men to abuse power, so they tried to use every process means they could think of to limit one man, or one faction, from having too much power. Of that there is no doubt. But it wasn’t the primary raison d’etre of government. The primary reason for the existence of all human governments had already been clearly stated in our nation’s charter, which is the first part of the organic laws of the United States:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...” —The Declaration of Independence
But let’s not forget, the Constitutional Convention was called because of the failure of the Articles of Confederation to provide enough power to the general government to preserve the country and protect the life, liberty and property of the people.
That’s the unavoidable danger of government. You have to create a powerful enough entity to do its job. But with that power there is always the inevitable risk of that power being abused. There is no way around it, except for a vigilant, knowledgeable, wise, moral people to rise up and put a stop to such usurpations and abuses then they arise.
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.