Posted on 02/28/2003 2:44:08 PM PST by ravingnutter
That may not be good enough for you but it is fine by me.
Gee, how nice of him to do that after voting against it last time (perhaps the pro-abortion GA Dems getting creamed in 2002 gave him the hint) Now he joins a dozen or so Senate Democrats-- Tom Daschle and many others-- who are only 95% pro-abortion because they voted against PBA. It passed by around 64 votes. Of course, Zell still loyally supports all other abortions on demand. I read a speech he made as governor where he championed the importance of a "woman's right to choose".
>> Second of all Miller is with us on the most important issues in America today, tax cuts <<
Is he?
Cuts in Marriage Penalty and Death Tax Made Permanent. H.Res. 390 (Roll Call 102) 2002-04-18
Zell Miller voted: In Opposition of ACU
Tax Code Simplification. HR 3991 (Roll Call 85) 2002-04-10
Zell Miller voted: In Opposition of ACU
Speed Up Tax Cuts. HR 622 (Roll Call 38) 2002-02-14
Zell Miller voted: In Opposition of ACU
Tax Cuts On Time. H.Con.Res. 312 (Roll Call 10) 2002-02-06
Zell Miller voted: In Opposition of ACU
Accelerated Elimination of Marriage Penalty HR 1836 (Row Call Vote No. 113 )2001-05-17
Zell Miller voted: In Opposition of ACU
Medical Savings Accounts S. 1052 (Row Call Vote No. 216 ) 2001-06-29
Zell Miller voted: In Opposition of ACU
More likely, I think by "tax cuts" you mean the watered-down 2001 Bush tax cut plan. Zell did indeed vote for the modified (from 1.6 billion to 1.2 billion) Bush tax cut-- which again, a dozen or so other 'RAT Senators managed to support. Since then, Zell and the rest have often wimped out and usually voted the party line when it comes to implimenting MORE tax cuts.
>> the war on the jihadists <<
Yes indeed. And again, so have a dozen or so other liberal Democrats in the Senate. To do otherwise would be suicidial. Just look at John Edwards and Bob Graham trying to outdo Bush on this issue. It's harder to name kooky 'RATs who are stupid enough NOT to support the war. Sharpton, Dean, Mostly-Fraud, Barbara Lee, are the ones I can think of offhand.
>> and PBA. <<
Must take alot of heat for that. I understand the far-far-left Democrats are upset that the far-left Democrats aren't crazy ENOUGH to support indisputable infanticide.
>> That may not be good enough for you but it is fine by me. <<
So by your standards, Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Robert Byrd and many others have done a fine job and should be commended for their committment to conservative principles.
Say what?
Ideological purity is a wonderful thing in Oz. In America, it doesn't get votes.
I'm sure you're a principled purist ala the Libertarian Party. You know, the .5 percenters.
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - February 14, 2003)
---
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. FRIST, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KYL, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. WARNER, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. SMITH, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, Mr. ENZI, MR. LOTT, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr.
CRAIG, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. GREGG, Mr. BENNETT, and Mr. COLEMAN): [Page: S2523] GPO's PDFS. 3. A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion; read the first time.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. I am joined in introducing this bill by 38 of my colleagues, over a third of the Senate. This bill is written to prohibit one particularly gruesome, inhumane, and medically unaccepted late term abortion method, except when the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Partial birth abortion is a procedure that is performed over a 3-day period in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. In this particular abortion technique, the physician delivers all but the head of a living baby through the birth canal, stab the baby in the base of the skull with curved scissors, and the uses a suction catheter to remove the child's brain. This procedure kills the baby. After collapsing the skull, the doctor completes the procedure. According to Ron Fitzsimmons of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, this procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in the vast majority of cases.
The American public finds this procedure repugnant. A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 70 percent of Americans favored laws making it illegal to perform partial birth abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. This procedure is also unrecognized by the mainstream medical community as a valid abortion procedure. The American Medical Association has said this procedure is ``not good medicine,'' is ``ethically wrong,'' and ``not an accepted `medical practice'.''
As far back as the 104th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives both acted to ban this procedure. Unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed that bill. The House voted to override that veto, but the Senate fell short. Likewise, during the 105th Congress, the House and Senate acted to pass a bill banning this procedure. Again, President Clinton vetoed that bill banning an abortion procedure that occurs as the child is inches from being completely outside the mother. The House subsequently overrode his veto. The Senate failed to override by just three votes. In the 106th Congress as well, the Senate and the House both acted to overwhelmingly pass legislation banning this procedure.
A little over two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Stenberg versus Carhart decision, struck down a similar, but not identical, law in the state of Nebraska that banned partial birth abortions. The Stenberg majority opinion voiced concern that the description of the abortion procedure as described in the Nebraska law was vague and might apply to other types of late-term abortions. A second concern was that the law did not provide an exception for those instances when the banned procedure was judged necessary to preserve the health of the mother.
Last year, during the 107th Congress, Representative STEVE CHABOT of Ohio introduced a bill responding to those concerns. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 274-151. Unfortunately, the Senate was kept from considering this bill.
Today, I introduced a similar bill banning the horrific procedure of partial birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother. To respond to the Supreme Court's concerns in Stenberg, this bill provides a very precise definition of the partial birth abortion procedure to make it very clear what procedure is meant.
Second, the Court based its decision in Stenberg on the federal district court's factual findings regarding the safety of the partial birth abortion procedure. These findings were highly disputed and inconsistent with the overwhelming weight of authority on the issue--including evidence presented at the Stenberg trial, other trials challenging partial birth abortion bans, and at the extensive Congressional hearings that have been held over the years. Despite the lack of evidence supporting the district court's findings, the Supreme Court was required to accept them because of the ``clearly erroneous'' standard that is applied to lower court factual findings. However, under well-settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Congress is not required to accept these ``factual findings,'' but is entitled to reach its own factual findings--findings that the Supreme Court accords great deference--and may enact legislation based on these findings. The bill I introduce today includes a series of findings from congressional hearings held over the years and from expert testimony that demonstrates that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of the mother, poses significant health risks to the woman, and is outside the standard of medical care.
Over the years, during the consideration of this ban, proponents of partial birth abortion have supported their arguments for this procedure with myth and misinformation. When the time comes for the full Senate to consider this bill, I look forward to again countering those untruths with the truth, and I ask my colleagues to vote to ban partial birth abortion.
It is long past time for the U.S. Senate to again pass a bill banning partial birth abortion. I am pleased that the Senate leadership has seen this as a legislative priority for the 108th Congress. The House and Senate have overwhelming supported such a ban time and time again. President Bush has asked us to send him a bill to end the practice of partial birth abortion. The American people clearly believe this is a procedure that should be prohibited. I appreciate the support of so many of my colleagues who have joined me in introducing this bill. And I am hopeful--very hopeful--that the 108th Congress will not end before this bill becomes law, before children in the very process of being born are protected by the laws of this great nation of ours.
You noted that someone who voted for "tax cuts, the war on the jihadists and PBA." is certainly good enough for you. So Arlen Specter must be your guy. Like Miller, he voted for all three, although I doubt anyone on this forum would argue the guy is remotely conservative.
I perfer Senators to vote my way the majority of time. That's who I vote for. I'm not a purist and NEVER expect anyone to vote the way I want 100% of the time, but I certainly won't support someone who does the bidding of the enemy party most of time.
Zell's "conservative" rating for the past two years has been 47% and 60%. If you answer 60% of the questions right in school test, what grade do you get? An "F" The American Conservative Union rightly gives the 60% crowd an failing grade. Like school, you'd probably have to get a 65% just to manage a D- And 47%? That means you got more questions WRONG than right. If you did that in school, you'd flunk out. Every Senate Democrat flunks when it comes to supporting conservative issues.
Zell's predecessor, Paul Coverdell, passed with flying colors, and it's about time to replace Senator-select Zig Zag Zell with someone who really IS conservative.
It's not asking too much to support a candidate who has a CONSISTANT record of voting conservative. In 80-90% of races around the country, you can usually find one. But among liberal New England RINOs and liberal southern Democrats, you'll be hard pressed to find people who do the right thing.
FYI...from a search at the original link...
H.R.760
Sponsor: Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] (introduced 2/13/2003)
Latest Major Action: 2/13/2003 Referred to House committee.
Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Title: To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.
Amid the uproar over a major decision on abortion Wednesday by the Supreme Court, many people didn't realize that in another case the court dealt a deadly blow to the abortion industry when it let stand laws against so-called "drive-through abortions."
The laws pass legal muster, the high court in effect ruled with its refusal to hear an appeal by the abortion industry seeking to overturn lower court rulings against an Indiana law severely restricting the right to abortion on demand without informed consent - a provision that is the abortionist's worst nightmare.
According to Family Research Council President Ken Connors, the ruling allows Indiana to begin enforcing the law, which requires in-person counseling and an 18-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions, as well as providing information about the risks of abortion and pictures of what the baby would look like at the appropriate stage of development.
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.