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.
Please ping your lists and light up the switchboards for Shadegg, Gingrey, Garrett, and Steve King.
My goodness. Look at the BIG PICTURE. If Stupak fails (and it DID), now the blue dogs cannot, in their good conscience, vote FOR the final healthcare bill and it will fail! All of it. No federally funded abortions, no federally-funded healthcare for illegals, no private option, no NOTHING.
This is utter nonsense.
The goal is to DEFEAT Obamacare and Pelosicare.
Federal funding for abortion will go down to DEFEAT by defating the bill.
Defeating Stupak amendment is the right strategy.
I’ve been wondering about this myself. It seems to me if they vote to muck up the process, even if that means techinically voting against a prolife amendment, that’s still voting prolife in my book. Most research I’ve done, indicates that the amendment is out come conference time, so it’s just to give cover to dems. Don’t give them any cover.
Disagree totally.
If voting the amendment down creates a poison pill for PelosiCare, then I agree with those voting present.
This amendment wasn’t pro-life. It was fake. Designed only to give Democrats from conservative districts cover.
You’re so far off the beam on this it isn’t even funny.
National Right to Life and their mouthpiece Ertelt are completely compromised.
But I’m sure they can leverage this into lots of fundraising dollars. After all, that’s what they’re all about.
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 heard it did fail
Sorry, but if you believe that abortion funding will not be in this bill when Obama signs it, you're an idiot.
I disagree, and I think that NRL is dead wrong on this.
If enough left wing Democrats vote against the amendment, fine. But if they vote for it, with the intention of killing it later, then the Republicans MUST vote present, or even “no” if necessary.
This health bill, even WITH the amendment, would be an atrocity, which would end up legalizing euthanasia. It would also end up legalizing tax-paid abortion—that step would just be delayed a little.
WE MUST VOTE DOWN THIS ENTIRE BILL. WHATEVER IT TAKES. Sometimes parliamentary procedure requires voting in strange ways, especially when you lack a large enough minority to block passage of an atrocious bill.
Frankly, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen NRLC do something stupid. They lack political sense.
Not from me! I think this is a brilliant move. THis bill is very anti life for more than just babies!
This bill is NOT just about pro-life issues. It is about government out of control in just about every area of our lives leaving us with massive debt. ANY Republican who supports any part of it should be booted out. If the amendment fails and abortion is left in, it will put the pro-life Democrats in a tough position. If the amendment passes with Republican support, then the Republicans will have a difficult time not voting for the bill and it will give pro-life Democrats reasons to vote for it.
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.
“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!
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.
Gingrey Will Vote Yes, But Some Pro-Life Republicans May Oppose Stupak Amendment
Pro-life John Shadegg tells Politico that he plans to vote present on the Stupak amendment to ban federal funding of abortions in the health-care bill:
“(Nancy) Pelosi is speaker and she’s pro abortion every minute of every hour of every day as speaker,” Shadegg said in an interview with POLITICO Saturday evening. “This is a vote to help her move the bill forward.”
Politico notes that Rep. Phil Gingrey (R, Ga.) is rumored to be another vote on the Stupak amendment, but Gringrey tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "I’ll be voting for the Stupak amendment."
Gingrey says he thought about voting present earlier today when "some of my most respected colleagues had brought up the possibility of a present vote on the Stupak vote thinking what can we do to stop this bill." But Gingrey says it is a "distinct concern" that voting present on Stupak would appear cynical and give Democrats cover to vote for the bill anyway.
Some Republicans say that Pelosi's decision to allow a vote on Stupak is a cynical move as well, since the language may not survive the conference report. Indeed, three Democratic chairmen refused to say today if they'd support keeping the Stupak amendment in the bill during the conference hearing.
But if Republicans are the ones who help bring down the Stupak Amendment, it may take the issue of taxpayer-funding of abortion off the table in the 2010 elections.
Posted by John McCormack on November 7, 2009 08:51 PM | Permalink
If you, and those who think like you, end up being the cause of this legislation passing...you can rest assured your days of having ANY influence in ANY political party with a chance to win...are over.
You will be relegated to eternal irrelevance.
You cannot see the forest for the trees.