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.
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.