Posted on 11/07/2009 5:26:39 PM PST by cmj328
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A handful of pro-life Republicans in Congress have a difference of opinion on legislative strategy and it has produced a friction that has blossomed during the debate on the pro-abortion health care bill. The difference concerns whether the Stupak Amendment could result in helping the health care bill.
The pro-life movement has been fighting for months to get language included in the health care reform bill to make sure it does not fund abortions through the public option and the affordability credits.
After refusing pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak a vote on his amendment to stop abortion funding, Speaker Nancy Pelosi caved in on Friday night and allowed a vote today because enough pro-life and moderate Democrats threatened to defect and vote against the bill.
Pelosi allowed the vote but, during the debate today, House Democrats refused to say whether they would keep the Stupak amendment in the bill as it moves along in the process, even if it is approved.
Sensing that and worrying that adding the amendment would allow more votes on the bill itself from pro-life Democrats who would otherwise vote against it should it lack the Stupak amendment, some pro-life Republicans plan to vote "present" on the Stupak amendment.
Rep. John Shadegg, an Arizona Republican who is pro-life, has been emailing back and forth today about the amendment vote and is the leading lawmaker who may vote present. He even signed a letter calling on Congress to allow the Stupak amendment vote.
He disagrees with groups like the Family Research Council and Americans United for Life who have said they will score any present votes as a no vote against the pro-life amendment.
Shadegg told Politico this afternoon that this is a “bad call” for pro-life organizations and he doesn't want to “give a vote away” to pro-life groups that he believes would help ensure passage of the health care reform bill.
“(Nancy) Pelosi is speaker and she’s pro abortion every minute of every hour of every day as speaker,” Shadegg said. “This is a vote to help her move the bill forward.”
“This is a gut-wrenching issue for a lot of people,” Shadegg said. “But I won't support Pelosi’s bill, which is not pro-life at all.”
Shadegg said he expected four other pro-life Republicans to go along with voting present on the amendment -- which could jeopardize passage of the Stupak amendment and keep abortion funding in the bill.
Politico indicates Republican Reps. Phil Gingrey, Steve King and Scott Garrett are likely to vote present.
National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson told LifeNews.com he is very disappointed to hear some pro-life members will vote present. His group sent a letter to every Republican member of the House urging a yes vote on the Stupak amendment.
"The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), its state affiliates, and many other pro-life groups -- including major religious bodies -- have worked hard for months to win adoption of the amendment to remove federal funding of abortion from the health care legislation," the letter said.
He noted that 158 republicans signed a letter to Pelosi calling for the vote.
"If lawmakers who claim the label of 'pro-life' now were to betray past commitments and withhold support from the amendment to remove government funding of abortion from the health care bill, by voting 'present,' resulting in the defeat of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, it would be a day that would live in infamy," the Right to Life letter continued.
How many lives has Alan Keyes saved?
Which party is interested in saving lives, and which in playing politics?
Exactly! When she agreed to the vote figured it would be a voice vote and it would be defeated — no way would she allow any anti-abortion amendment on this bill. Voting for this would have given the Dems cover — they need to stand on their own and vote yes or no with no cover.
You just don’t get it, do you?
You have to look at the bigger picture.
Voting ‘present’ was the right thing to do.
I’m not Catholic.
Earlier in the day the reports were that they were including the health of the mother exception. If I’m wrong, I’ll retract.
But, the rape and incest exceptions are still not pro-life.
The “leaders” of NRTL once believed that, before they sold their souls to the almighty dollar and the politicians.
And besides, giving Democrats from conservative districts “pro-life” cover is just plain stupid.
I heard it did fail
That's what Stalin said, and Hitler.
Why bother voting for a pro-life GOP rep when he won't vote pro-life? The GOP is playing Christians--secretly supporting legalized abortion on the one hand while offering themselves as the only alternative to stop it on the other.
We've just woken up to the game. The GOP has just lost half the social conservative vote. That's the bigger picture, Komrade.
They haven’t saved any lives. All they do is abandon the core principles that protect innocent human life in this country, collect more money, and let the slaughter continue.
The ploy to make Democrats look bad is so obvious as to be scandalous. The GOP has imploded and the coalition is dead.
It is not often that I defend Alan Keyes and EV at the same time but you are dead wrong. Alen Keyes has been out in front for pro-life and has never wavered and neither has EV. You can say a lot about Alan Keyes but to diss him like you have just done is wrong. EV is the most pro-life person I know — we do not always agree but I respect people like EV who do not waver in their pro-life beliefs.
Why don’t you back to the Democrats because Republicans that I know who are elected officials live the fact they are pro-life and do what they can to make sure abortion is not common. I come from a very pro-life state of Oklahoma and resent your inference that the Democrats are pro-life. Not many of them are pro-life or we would have had this bill killed a long time ago.
If there was a guarantee that the pro-life amendment wouldn’t simply be stripped out by the leadership before a final vote, I’d oppose this gamesmanship (because the democrats would never vote for a bill that didn’t have abortion funding).
But the problem is, there is no democracy in the house and senate any more. They take votes, and then behind closed doors they simply re-write things however they want, and then put it on the floor as the “real bill”.
We saw dozens of amendments to the Baucus bill wiped out by Reid.
But by passing a pro-life amendment, it might give cover to a few democrats to vote for the bill — and we need every vote against this bill. We need votes for the repuiblican bill.
Sorry, but if you believe that abortion funding will not be in this bill when Obama signs it, you're an idiot.
Thank you.
But now it will be in the bill because the GOP tried to play a stupid trick. Big difference.
I watched Romney play this game with gay marriage and think it would work, and now it looks like his acolytes in the GOP think they’re equally brilliant. The blood is on their hands now and anyone can see it.
I agree! And the Catholic bishops who actually support universal healthcare will have to be against it.
Agree 100%. This was a ruse that covered blue dogs in an attempt to secure 218 votes. Don't think for a minute that another amendment wouldn't be attached somewhere...sometime...that would over-ride this.
This was a facade. Blue dogs cannot be given cover by the GOP...that is STUPID & this is hard-ball.
Your BP and mine too. I have a horrendous headache and feel like we are in a atmosphere of spiritual darkness in our land.
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.