Skip to comments.
GOP to Pro-lifers: 'Thanks for Your Votes, Now Get Lost!'
NewsMax ^
| 11/15/02
| Limbacher
Posted on 11/15/2002 1:38:38 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Except, except...what happened was that the House
Republicans plain flat refused to vote to bring it up until the Schumer language was stripped out of it. Once the language was taken out, they voted to bring the measure to the floor. So what is this guy talking about?
2
posted on
11/15/2002 1:41:29 PM PST
by
3AngelaD
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The ban on "partial" birth abortion will happen in the next Congress. The last thing we want to do is pull a Newt Gingrich and announce that "all the Democrat bases are belong to us."
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
""Pro-lifers are asking themselves why they bothered when the GOP appears intent on sticking them with a gratuitous anti-life law that would expose peaceful anti-abortion protestors to financial ruin," Connor continued. "Perhaps the Pro-Life group needs to form their own political party to promote their agenda.
4
posted on
11/15/2002 1:44:12 PM PST
by
Kerberos
To: Kerberos
The bill was defeated BECAUSE IT CONTAINED THE ABORTION PROVISION -- read this morning's Wall Street Journal; what is this man screaming about?
5
posted on
11/15/2002 1:46:00 PM PST
by
laconic
To: 3AngelaD
This guy is a lunatic. You can see this in this statement
"Pro-lifers are asking themselves why they bothered when the GOP appears intent on sticking them with a gratuitous anti-life law that would expose peaceful anti-abortion protestors to financial ruin," Connor continued.
Law-abiding protestors can't be sued into financial ruin.
The provision was stupid. It was inserted as a poison pill to kill the bill. The bill was killed. Then it was fixed.
This guy just wants to scream and make a scene. Protesting is probably his whole life.
6
posted on
11/15/2002 1:46:51 PM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: 3AngelaD
Limbacher's an idiot. Most everything he writes has errors or idiotic claims in it.
It's sensationalistic tabloid trash.
To: 3AngelaD
I don't know either! I stopped reading when I got to this at the beginning.
Republican leaders are jabbing a thumb in the eyes of pro-lifers whose votes were largely responsible for the GOP victory in the November 5, elections, an angry Ken .................
A false assumption to begin with IMHO.
8
posted on
11/15/2002 1:46:59 PM PST
by
Cold Heat
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Can anyone explain to me what kind of 'judgement' would be levied against a pro-life abortion clinic protester who doesn't break any laws or damage any property in the course of the protest? Have their been any civil judgements like this and on what grounds?
Sounds to me like an amendment without a real purpose other than to make the whole bill toxic.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
The ban on "partial" birth abortion will happen in the next Congress. What are you smoking?
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I got an email about this that said the pro lifers had been successful. I'm confused.
To: Kerberos
Perhaps the Pro-Life group needs to form their own political party to promote their agenda.Perhaps you should be made aware of the number of pro life Republicans.
12
posted on
11/15/2002 1:50:32 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: laconic
"The bill was defeated BECAUSE IT CONTAINED THE ABORTION PROVISION "Yes but I believe the provision that it contained was that people who end up getting fines for their participation in pro life demonstrations cannot file them off in bankruptcy.
13
posted on
11/15/2002 1:50:38 PM PST
by
Kerberos
To: Kerberos
Perhaps the Pro-Life group needs to form their own political party to promote their agenda. They have, it's called the Republicans.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
The ban on "partial" birth abortion will happen in the next Congress. The last thing we want to do is pull a Newt Gingrich and announce that "all the Democrat bases are belong to us." One thing that strikes me as odd in this Partial Birth Abortion debate is this. If you honestly believe that PBA is the taking of an innocent life why would you want to wait? Does politics trump the innocent lives that will be lost while we wait? - Tom
To: Saundra Duffy
I got an email about this that said the pro lifers had been successful. I'm confused.COnservative pro lifers joined with liberals to defeat the bill.
16
posted on
11/15/2002 1:51:21 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Capt. Tom
They won't wait on PBA. Lott has already said it will be brought to the senate floor when he becomes majority leader. The House has already passed the ban.
Daschle could give a flying .... how many die in the interim.
17
posted on
11/15/2002 1:53:02 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
My understanding is that this is bill has 'died' and is not expected to 'resurrect' unless the verbiage singling out pro-life activists is removed. So what did I miss, or is it this guy that's missing something?
18
posted on
11/15/2002 1:53:45 PM PST
by
MEGoody
To: SwordofTruth
"They have, it's called the Republicans. "But I thought the thrust of this story was that the Republicans don't seem to be treating them real well.
19
posted on
11/15/2002 1:54:00 PM PST
by
Kerberos
To: Kerberos
The reason conservatives joined liberals to defeat the bill was because the dims put the rider in there making pro lifers a separate and unequal group of Americans. I, for on, am glad it was defeated.
Pro Life conservative republican here.
20
posted on
11/15/2002 1:55:01 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson