Posted on 11/15/2002 1:38:38 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
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 Connor charges.
Connor, president of the Family Research Council, ripped into the Republican congressional leadership for not standing firmly against the bankruptcy bill which contains Sen. Chuck Schumer's hostile pro-abortion amendment.
"The GOP is saying to pro-lifers, 'Thanks for your votes, now get lost!'" Connor said.
"Instead of rewarding pro-life Americans for giving their votes overwhelmingly to Republican candidates in last week's election, the GOP leadership is jabbing a thumb in their eye barely a week after the election at the behest of the well-heeled business wing of the party.
"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.
"Meanwhile, as GOP leaders ram through the Schumer amendment, pro-lifers are being told there is not enough time in the lame duck session to get a Senate vote on the bill banning partial-birth abortion the House passed last July.
According to Connor, The Schumer amendment "effectively says, 'If you are a pro-life protester and you wind up with a money judgment against you for engaging in what we regard as constitutionally protected speech and activity, you are not going to be able to discharge that debt in bankruptcy,'
"The effect of that is to create a disfavored class for purposes of punishing politically incorrect speech, because the only group that is being singled out for this kind of treatment is pro-life protestors.
"It's imperative that the GOP leadership put the same muscle behind the partial-birth abortion ban as they appear to be giving to the bankruptcy bill."
Once again, the GOP leadership is proving that they simply don't know who their real friends are.
I get the impression that he's complaining that Trent Lott didn't hold a noon press conference with a brass band to announce that the GOP will kill the bill because of the abortion-protestor provisions.
Of course, the people who attack libertarians for failing to support the GOP without reservation or complaint will soon be ALL OVER this clown, right?
[crickets]
[owl]
[wind]
So then murder, rape and robbery are ok ?
The following is the text of a May 19, 1997 letter from the American Medical Association (AMA), to Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), expressing support for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1122). Please see also NRLC's May 19 press release, "NRLC Lauds AMA Endorsement."
American Medical Association
May 19, 1997
The Honorable Rick Santorum
United States Senate
120 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Santorum:
The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.
Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.
The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.
Sincerely,
P. John Seward, MD
Executive Vice President
American Medical Association
New Bankruptcy Bill Clears HouseWASHINGTON (AP) -- Sharp partisan differences over abortion have doomed prospects that the lame-duck Congress will pass a bill making it harder for Americans to shed their debts.
In a marathon session until early Friday, House Republicans sent the Democratic-controlled Senate a stripped-down bankruptcy bill without a controversial abortion provision.
Sharp partisan differences over abortion have doomed prospects that the lame-duck Congress will pass a bill making it harder for Americans to shed their debts.
In a marathon session until early Friday, House Republicans sent the Democratic-controlled Senate a stripped-down bankruptcy bill without a controversial abortion provision.
The Senate, still grappling with homeland security legislation and poised to leave for the year, is unlikely to even consider the bill.
In the House, Republicans revolted against language that would have have prohibited anti-abortion protesters from seeking shelter through bankruptcy laws to avoid paying court-imposed fines.
Senate Democrats had inserted language into the compromise that would ban abortion protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines for blocking clinics if they knowingly violated the law.
The anti-abortion Republicans blocked the bill in July because of that provision. They did so again Thursday, saying the law would be used against even legal abortion protests.
I don't think an absolute abortion ban will ever be viable (so to speak), but I don't have a problem to restricting it to the first trimester (before the cerebral cortex, which is the nexus of what makes a person a person, is well-formed).
Why don't you read what I wrote before you make a fool of yourself?
I never said that Bush stopped this ban. However, he did have an opportunity to rally congress to pass this ban in his first 100 days of office when the Republicans controlled the House and Senate, but he didn't. He waited then until it was too late.
We are not being, nor are we going to be taken for granted. Bush will push this issue as far as politically possible. He will push it in increments--and possibly after winning some issues that the independents are more comfortable with than abortion. I hope he can push it a long way. But the worst thing that could happen for our cause would be for Bush and the rest of the Republicans to commit quick political suicide by letting the RATS newt us.
The RATS have had 70 years to mess things up. Roe vs Wade is only one of many grievous wounds bleeding in the side of our country. It's going to take more than 2 years to fix things. Let's work together to build a power base that will last for 50 years so we can take back America from these people--and keep it. If we don't work together, we are doing Hillary Clinton's work and the work of Planned Parenthood.
Instant gratification followed by angry hysterics when we don't get our way immediately will accomplish nothing for our cause. NOTHING!
OR-perhaps they would enjoy making steady, slow progress in trying to change the attitude of this nation regarding this issue.
I suppose you think God almighty is irrelevant, right?
God is pro-life, and I can assure he's not irrelevant.
Well it has always seemed to me that the GOP candidates do a good job of pandering to the pro-life group and getting them all riled up to vote for them, and of course get their donations. But when they get into office they never really seem to do much to promote the pro-life agenda.
I think the truth of the matter is that the leadership understands that the pro-life position is a no win position. But there are enough people out there that has this as a single issue that it is still worthwhile to pander to them during the campaign stage and then ignore them until the next election cycle.
Sad? Maybe....but it's a fact you'll have to deal with.
Show me any of these so-called "falsehoods." Do you deny that the GOP routinely turns its back on conservatives and even under Republicans, government gets bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive?
My tent is big enough to include anyone who is for limited governmetn, who is for the goal of making the government smaller, cheaper, less intrusive, and more effective in its few legitimate functions.
These "conservatives" have no clue about politics or how to effectuate change. They can and should be ignored since they are clueless lamebrains.
The Republicans have no desire to effectuate change. They just increase government.
You have to compromise along the way, but we need to start moving things in our direction. The GOP seems disinclined to do that, and part of the reason, IMO, is that Republicans know conservatives will vote for them no matter how liberal their policies get.
Too bad your candidates didn't win on Nov. 5.
Actually, many of them DID.
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.