Skip to comments.Who Are The Seven RINOs That Voted Against Banning Sex-Selective Abortions?
Posted on 06/01/2012 12:02:30 PM PDT by ElIguana
ACN Staff) The House of Representatives failed to pass a bill that would ban sex selective abortions on Thursday. Although a majority voted in favor of the bill (246-168), the measure reqired a two-thirds majority vote to pass. Many may be under the impression that the final vote tally was along party lines; however 20 Democrats actually voted in favor of the ban and shockingly, seven Republicans votes against banning sex selective abortions. Those Republicans were...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativeamericaonline.blogspot.com ...
You don’t have to be a RINO, just politically competent.
This is the stake that will end ALL abortion in the US.
The only way the left can leep abortion legal...is to outlaw ONLY abortions that will lose them the support of hedonistic women.
If this practice remains just as legal as other abortions...then the plug will be pulled on the abortion industry.
As far as what other countries do, we can't be responsible for the inhumane practices of other countries.
The FACT remains that an innocent American is murdered every 24 seconds in an abortuary.
The Constitution explicitly and imperatively requires that ALL innocent persons be protected, regardless of gender.
That means it is not optional.
Has Ron Paul ever actually voted for anything? It is probably easier to make excuses why he doesn’t support any particular legislation and appear principled than actually make a tough decision.
Here is Justin Amash reposnse to his vote from his facebook page. He is NO RINO:
When did Republicans start supporting hate-crime legislation? Hate-crime bills, like H R 3541, are apparently okay if they have to do with a baby’s gender but not okay if they have to do with a person’s skin color or sexual orientation. Or maybe they’re okay if it’s an election year and Republicans are trying to make the President look like he doesn’t care about women. I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon.
Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the “wrong” reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the “abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”
The bill also shockingly makes it a crime for a medical or mental health professional NOT to turn in someone who they SUSPECT of having committed this thought crime. They can be thrown into prison for a year if they don’t “report known or suspected violations . . . to appropriate law enforcement authorities.” Free societies do not criminalize inaction.
I’m pro-life, and I think all abortion should be illegal. But Congress should not criminalize thought. And this bill won’t stop a single abortion if it becomes law. Every person seeking an abortion simply will sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby. Those of us who are pro-life should demand more from Congress. While we waste time on stuff like this, genuine legislation to protect life is ignored
I just won a $1,000,000 bet with myself!
Ron paul is a rules-based libertarian. That’s why you can’t trust these types to make the right decisions in cases like this. Paul is hard-wired and programmed and is not always capable of analysis or even reasonable thought.
” had thought that Ron Paul was pro-life. Was I wrong about that?”
Ron Paul isn’t as pro-life as he led some of us to believe; in fact, he has a mixed recordon abortion:
“Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)”
I know. I think about it a lot.
I'm watching an eagle family for a couple months now. Mom, dad, kids. How carefully she nurtures the eggs then the babies every step of the way. Dad shares in the tasks of hunting, protecting, a little setting on the eggs, feeding.
Now they are learning to fly and will soon be gone.
I know there are "exceptions" to most everything in nature, but this is the way it was intended for some creatures. Oh make that it's how they evolved and cats don't mate for one month to the next, never mind for life. One night during a storm, the mother eagle sat all night with the babies under her wings so they wouldn't get wet because until they get juvenile feathers, they're susceptible to pneumonia.
It really makes you think. They don't have free will. They will protect the EGGS and young at all costs to themselves. Except sometimes a sibling will kill a sibling, and the parents don't try to stop them.
So I'm mindful of how far we've gone astray because some among us think they know better.
Paul is not pro-life if you look at his actual voting record and not listen to what he says.
Hmm, that's what they used to say about slavery.
Ron Paul's votes must always be framed in his unique (and not necessarily incorrect) view of the Constitution. His vote always needs such an asterisk. This is NOT in support of his vote, BTW>
“He is but he wants the states to decide for themselves cause that is what the constitution prescribes”
If that were the case, slavery would be legal in some states, but not others.
The Tenth Amendment is not the only amendment.
“Ron Paul is right. Conservatives have long argued that abortion is a States rights issue. Why was this bill any different?”
They are wrong if they believe that. Although some might just want it to return to the states to save as many babies as possible.
Once again Ron Paul is right, if congress can make such federal laws they can make hate crime laws.
Ron Paul is the most pro life republican there is. As President he actually has a plan to end abortion in America unlike this GOP nonsense that is nothing more than political theater in an election frenzy.
Ron Paul - We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”
Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It also says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Thus, if an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, as Paul pledged was his position, states must protect the life of the unborn child just as they protect the life of any other person and Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to make laws to ensure that is the case.
In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an “addendum” in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.
“Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents,” said Paul.
“While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you cant have Liberty without Life,” Paul continued. “I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.”
In the same statement, Paul went on to say: “A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does—through state laws.
“To summarize my views—I believe the federal government has a role to play,” said Paul. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”
“I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues,” Paul said. “The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I cant agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.
“As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” said Paul. “This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.”
In the same addedum to his Personhood Pledge, Paul vowed to stop enforcement of all Obamacare regulations, including the one that would force Catholic employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.
“I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans,” said Paul.
On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, however, Paul criticized Santorum for talking about “who is going to pay for birth control pills”—an apparent reference to Santorum’s statements in opposition to the Obamacare regulation Paul said in December he would stop if he were elected president.
“Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?” Crowley asked Paul.
“Well, I don’t see how that’s possible,” said Paul. “And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I’m worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people’s social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood.”
H R 3803, District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act:
Bans abortions in DC if the baby is 20 weeks old or older.
To quote him, "I am appalled and outraged that we would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon. Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period."
And yet, he still hasn't fundamentally changed his decades-long belief that states can allow abortion if they want to, thereby abrogating the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the absolute requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Abortion is a life or death issue.
Paul is not pro-life.
He supports sex selection abortions.
He supports the transport of minors over state lines to get abortions.
He supports giving drugs to end pregnancy after a rape.
Not one of those is pro-life.
I do not care what he pledges, he does not vote the way he talks.
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.