The law they passed in Texas, a “20 week ban” so called also had an “undue burden” exception clause in it.
The vote in Washington was political symbolism to divert from other social issues like the gay marriage one currently flaming and pretend that the GOP is strongly Pro-Life when it isn’t.
All but a handful of Republicans (four) were easily able to vote for this watered down legislation they know Obama would veto anyway.
95 PERCENT OF REPUBLICANS ELECTED TO OFFICE EITHER REPUDIATE CONSERVATISM OR FAKE CONSERVATISM.
These people are idiots. The left knows how to play the long game. You move the ball in increments. Look at same sex marriage. Twenty years ago nobody thought it would happen. But they kept chipping away, one small victory at a time, and now depending on how Anthony Kennedy feels next month it’s likely to be mandated nationwide.
I’m fully in favor of “incremental laws” when there’s no other option for passage of the bill (just as I’m in favor—reluctantly—of a “squishy” GOP candidate who’s “pro-life with exceptions” when he’s running against a pro-abort)—so long as it’s made clear that we don’t find the result “satisfactory” and that we’re going to continue fighting until abortion is abolished completely (no exceptions).
I guess, if I were Rep. Hice, I’d turn around and tell the others: “I’ll vote for yours if you vote for mine!” There’s no reason NOT to vote for the “partial” (no grim pun intended) bill, so long as one’s own stance is clear and carefully understood (e.g. “*&^#, no... I’m not ‘settling’ for this bill! I’m letting us take one of the enemy’s ‘hills’ in the battle, in the hopes of being in a better position to take all the others!”
I suspect that Gen. Patton, if he’d said, “Forget about any battle plan that doesn’t attack Rome and Berlin at once!”, he wouldn’t have gotten very far...
Bullies?
So, they will still make the innocent party pay with a life for the evil actions of one or two others?