Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003 Introduced in Senate, Placed on Calendar

To: unrestricted

What war on women? (President Clinton is out of office) I don't know how a libertarian can advocate the idea that the government has the authority to decide who is worthy of rights. Do we want to go back to the times when only certain people were allowed to vote?

21 posted on 02/28/2003 3:50:36 PM PST by nickcarraway

Lamar is more of a RINO than anything.

22 posted on 02/28/2003 4:43:06 PM PST by Maigrey (Part of the Gonzo News Service)

To: ravingnutter

23 posted on 02/28/2003 4:52:54 PM PST by k2blader (Please do not feed the Tag Lion. ®oar.)

To: ravingnutter

With Bill Frist being the point man on this bill, I can't imagine that he won't make a very compelling case and get very positive media coverage.

Peace begins in the womb BUMP.

24 posted on 02/28/2003 5:41:12 PM PST by foreshadowed at waco

What about Kay Bailey Hutchison?

25 posted on 02/28/2003 6:00:39 PM PST by lormand

To: B-Chan; sockmonkey; austinTparty

Why isn't Kay Bailey Hutchison signed on to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban?

27 posted on 02/28/2003 6:30:35 PM PST by Siobhan (+Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet+)

MEA CULPA!!!

Warner IS signed on. It is Hutchison who is NOT signed on. But my analysis still holds.

The odd thing about Kay is that she has 100% pro-life voting record. Yet, I distinctly remember that when she first ran for Senate she claimed to be pro-choice.

28 posted on 02/28/2003 7:06:08 PM PST by rhinohunter

Just another reason for Toomey to unseat Specter for the Senate.

29 posted on 02/28/2003 8:03:44 PM PST by P.O.E.

>> Why isn't Kay Bailey Hutchison signed on to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban? <<

Probably because she's a moderate wuss. But then again, even Liddy Dole managed to co-sponcer this one.

30 posted on 02/28/2003 8:39:08 PM PST by BillyBoy (George Ryan deserves a long term...without parole.)

>> What the hell is Zell Miller doing in that damnable party? He belongs with us.<<

You mean THIS guy?

American Conservative Union ratings- Georgia 2002
Sen. Zell Miller (D) 47%

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. HR 4965 (Roll Call 343) 2002-07-24
The bill would ban the grisly abortion procedure known as partial-birth abortion. ACU opposes this method of abortion and supported the bill, which passed by a vote of 275-151 on 24 July 2002.
This Representative voted: In Opposition of ACU

Armed Pilots. HR 4635 (Roll Call 288) 2002-07-10
The amendment would allow pilots to be armed in commercial aircraft as deputized federal officers to combat terrorism. ACU supported the amendment, which passed 250-175 on 10 July 2002.
This Representative voted: In Opposition of ACU

International Criminal Court. HR 4546 (Roll Call 155) 2002-05-09
The amendment would ban spending any U.S. government funds to support the International Criminal Court in any actions against American citizens. The ACU strongly opposes the dilution of American sovereignty implied by such a court and so supported the amendment, which was adopted by a vote of 264-152 on 9 May 2002.
This Representative voted: In Opposition of ACU

Withdraw From Ballistic Missile Treaty. (Roll Call 214) 2002-06-06
The motion would defeat a resolution that would require congressional approval before the U.S. could withdraw from a treaty outlawing a shield against ballistic missile attacks. ACU supported the motion to allow President Bush to withdraw from the treaty with the now-defunct Soviet Union. The vote was 254-169 on 6 June 2002.
This Representative voted: In Opposition of ACU

Cuts in Marriage Penalty and Death Tax Made Permanent. H.Res. 390 (Roll Call 102) 2002-04-18
The resolution would make the cuts in the marriage penalty and the death tax permanent. ACU supports the permanent extension of these cuts. The motion was approved 218-205 on 18 April 2002.
This Representative voted: In Opposition of ACU

Tax Code Simplification. HR 3991 (Roll Call 85) 2002-04-10
The bill would ease Internal Revenue Service penalties for minor and unintentional errors in completing forms, estimating taxes and excluding interest, as well as giving greater discretion to discipline IRS employees who violate taxpayer confidentiality. ACU supported the changes. The bill was defeated by a vote of 205-219 on 10 April 2002
This Representative voted: In Opposition of ACU

Campaign Speech Limits. HR 2356 (Roll Call 34) 2002-02-13
This bill would eliminate campaign contributions over $2,000 to political parties and limit the rights of individuals and groups to participate in the political process in the two months before elections. ACU opposed this unconstitutional interference with freedom of political speech. The bill passed 240-189 on 13 February 2002.
This Representative voted: In Opposition of ACU

Campaign Finance Reform - Union and Shareholder Consent S. 27 (Row Call Vote No. 43 )" 2001-03-21
McCain (R-AZ) motion to kill the Hatch (R-UT) amendment that would require unions and corporations to obtain permission from dues-paying members or shareholders before spending money on political activities. It also would require corporations or labor organizations to disclose information regarding the funds spent on political activities. ACU supported the Hatch amendment, and opposed the McCain motion.
This Senator voted: In Opposition of ACU

Needle Exchange Programs HR 2994 (Row Call Vote No. 328 ) 2001-11-07
Landrieu (D-LA) motion to allow the use of taxpayer funds for needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. ACU opposed this bill.
This Senator voted: In Opposition of ACU

Dairy Cartel S. 1731 (Row Call Vote No. 362 ) 2001-12-11
Agriculture Overhaul - Dairy Policy Jeffords, I-Vermont, motion to preserve in the Agriculture Overhaul Bill a $2 billion direct taxpayer subsidy to milk producers. ACU opposed this bill.
This Senator voted: In Opposition of ACU

Yeah, he belongs with us all right...if you want the Olympia Snowe "wing" of the party to have more power.

31 posted on 02/28/2003 8:57:44 PM PST by BillyBoy (George Ryan deserves a long term...without parole.)

To: nickcarraway

To some of the democrat fanatics defending indefensible partial birth infanticide, the term reproductive rights is meant to include the god-like right to legally hire a serial killer to off the already alive unborn if the woman decides she doesn't want to continue life support for an individual human being. Killing is part of the fanatic's set of rights and deemed an integral part is the right to halt a life already reproduced.

The really astonishing thing is, they don't see the paradox in their horrific assertion of a right to kill an alive individual human being, calling it (amazingly) a reproductive right.

32 posted on 02/28/2003 9:13:08 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)

To: ravingnutter

Thanks for the notice. Unfortunately I cannot email my "senators" - they are beyond the pale: Chuckie Schumer and Hitlery Clinton.

I will however contact the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and ask them to put pressure on fellow Orthodox Olympia Snowe and Paul Sarbanes to vote their conscience and not their party.

33 posted on 02/28/2003 9:24:10 PM PST by eleni121

To: foreshadowed at waco

one of Frist's first interviews on MTP he told Russert that the AMA says their is NO medical indication for this procedure. Frist will bring this up. Can you imagine the Dems FILIBUSTERING something 70% of America agrees with!!! That will happen if Hillary gets her way!

34 posted on 02/28/2003 10:28:15 PM PST by votelife (call Frist/Hatch and support Estrada!)

Specter pretty much has to vote for this, no? With Toomey ready to kick his butt? Same for Murkowski. If she votes against the ban she's history in the primary.

Besides, we passed it last time and it's pretty generally acknowledged that it will pass this time too.

If Harry Reid doesn't support it he has a challenger in 2004, Jim Gibbons, who voted for it and can claim the moderate position. Blanche Lincoln has to vote for it, Ben Nelson, etc etc.

35 posted on 02/28/2003 10:47:59 PM PST by JohnnyZ (I am just here for the beer)

To: ravingnutter

Much as I would support having all 50 states ban partial-birth abortion, I'm somewhat torn over this bill. Homicide is a matter of state jurisdiction, and different states use their authority to create different rules. In some states, ambushing a night-time vandal with a shotgun would be considered first degree murder. In Texas, it's legal (not saying it's a good idea, but it's legally allowed).

I find it hard, then, to justify having the federal government imposing new homicide laws on the states. To be sure, the status quo in which babies are legally unprotected is unacceptable, but the problem isn't that states don't want to protect them but rather that the federal government won't let them.

The real problem isn't with the states, but is instead with the Supreme Court. I see no basis that this proposed statute would better withstand a court challenge than have state laws which have been struck down. If the court gets reformed enough to uphold the proposed statute, I see no reason it couldn't just allow states their authority to restrict homicide.

36 posted on 02/28/2003 11:27:25 PM PST by supercat (TAG--you're it!)

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton in a letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873. Recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library.

"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." -Alice Paul is the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923)

37 posted on 03/01/2003 1:36:09 AM PST by nickcarraway

To: Right Wing Professor

Every right carries with it an equal responsibility. If a woman cannot (will not) assume the responsibility of bearing a child, then she had better be prepared not to exercise her 'right' to conceive one. And, as an aside, there are many men who recommend abortions to women, so they're no better than the women they impregnate, who opt for an abortion. It's not just about womens' rights. Its about people, men and women, taking responsibility for their actions. That they can call aborting a fetus taking responsibility is only an extension of their original problem: they scream about their right to CONTROL their own lives, yet they exercise no SELF-control.

38 posted on 03/01/2003 1:37:56 AM PST by DontMessWithMyCountry (It's serious business being an American in America these days.)

To: unrestricted

I hope this is the end of the War on Women

I hope it's the beginning of the end, too. It's terrible to see what abortion has done to women.

39 posted on 03/01/2003 2:05:04 AM PST by nickcarraway

To: ravingnutter

Save the children,ABORT THE MOTHERS!

40 posted on 03/01/2003 2:11:36 PM PST by INSENSITIVE GUY

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794