Posted on 11/07/2009 5:26:39 PM PST by cmj328
There is two sides to this and each have a point. King is my congressman and I trust him and back him for whatever position he takes. There is no one more pro-life and this is a difference of strategy. Both opinions are to be respected and my sympathy to those making these decisions.
One issue conservatism isn’t going to get us far. Vote no and force the Dims to take the blame for everything.
True, but only if the amendment isn't perceived as having been deliberately scuttled by Republicans intent on wagging the so-con vote.
Unless there is a guarentee that this language remains in the final bill then this amendment is less than worthless - it will simply provide cover to the blue dogs to vote for a bill that will eventually end up publically funding abortion. That said if I was a congressman I probably would vote for this amendment because there is still some chance that Pelosi won’t strip it and I couldn’t live with myself if I guessed wrong. However, what we are dealing with here is not cynical politics it is dedicated pro-lifers who are disagreeing about the best tactic to protect life. It certainly is not something to impugn each others character over.
“Anyone who votes against or “present” for this amendment in order to put party politics over saving the lives of babies and is a murderer and can go to Hell. Literally.”
Anyone who votes “yes” is a communist dupe who is voting to condemn their own descendants to live in slavery.
“Present” is the correct vote!
As do I. This thing would get stripped in conference anyway.
AMEN!!!!
That was my thinking as well.
AMEN AND AMEN!!!!!!!
I was sad to see Jill Stanek calling it a major victory earlier today!
Republicans killing the amendment gives the Democrats more cover than if they killed it in conference.
pingaling
I take it you want pro-lifers out of the party. Your advice serves your goal well.
It’s the party line. Bleh.
On Judgement Day, it will be better to have been taken in slavery than to have innocent blood on your hands.
“Unless there is a guarentee that this language remains in the final bill then this amendment is less than worthless”
Earlier today Rep. Boehner tried to pin down Charlie Rangel with an assurance that if the Stupak (no government coverage for abortion) amendment passed, that it would not be removed in conference. Rangel refused to make any such promise. The purpose of the amendment was to give more pro-life Dems cover to vote for HR3962, then the Stupak amendment would have been removed in conference to satisfy the leftist in the Dem Party, who are the majority.
‘This is a major victory, as indicated by a CNN news report this morning. Ellsworth must have signed on to the Stupak/Pitts amendment, probably thrilled to do so after the tremendous backlash he got (examples here and here) for his phony pro-life amendment. Incredible that Catholic bishops were directly involved in the deal-making...
Anti-abortion Democrats will be allowed to offer an amendment during the House health care debate Saturday that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers in the new so-called “exchange” the legislation would create, 3 Democratic sources told CNN.
The prohibition would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in danger, known as “Hyde” language.”
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/11/breaking_news_h_3.html
You could take that to the bank. In fact, if he had passed I would suspect she would have stripped it on her own before it ever went to the Senate. She has no ethics whatsoever.
Oh, good grief. Whether Stupak’s amendment gets a vote and whether it passes is irrelevant to whether abortion ends up in the final bill if it passes. It will be in the final bill, period. It’s all smoke and mirrors. The pubs should vote yes or no depending on how much more support is garnered from the rats if it passes versus how much support will be lost from the rats if it passes. That’s all that matters. The idea is to prevent the entire bill from passing because, even if the amendment passed, it wouldn’t stay passed. The rats will have abortion back in there the next time the bill goes in for spindling and mutilating. In other words, if the bill ultimately passes, it will cover abortion, end of story.
There’s a time for principles and there’s a time when strategy is the bigger picture that serves the principle better than momentary, overt support of the principle. This is a numbers game. I would not want a congressman to vote yes on the amendment if it made it more likely that the bill will pass because I know that the final bill that zero signs will include abortion. Thus, I’d rather there be no bill, so any amendment vote that lowers support for passage of the bill is beneficial to pro-lifers.
As well as spiritual discernment.
Any bill which ends with, “and then you can kill the baby” -
NRL’s stock in trade - violates God’s enduring command,
Thou shall not murder”!
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.