US Senate Votes 108th Cong - 1st Sess Q: On the Amendment (Harkin Amdt. No. 260 )

United States Senate Website ^ | March, 2003 | no byline

[sitetest]

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Harkin Amdt. No. 260 ) Vote Number: 48 Vote Date: March 12, 2003, 04:03 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 260 to S. 3 Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Vote Counts: YEAs 52 NAYs 46 Not Voting 2

~ snip ~

Hutchison (R-TX), Yea

~ snip ~

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING ROE V. WADE.

(a) FINDINGS.--The Senate finds that--

(1) abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)); and

(2) the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of States to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and

(2) such decision should not be overturned.

[sitetest]

I was asked to post this by TitansAFC.

Sadly, it shows that Ms. Hutchison is pro-abortion.

This was an amendment to an underlying bill offered by Sen. Harkin in 2003. The substance of the amendment is that it is a sense of the Senate resolution affirming that Roe was rightly decided and that there is a constitutional "right" to abortion.

Ms. Hutchison voted in favor of the amendment, endorsing Roe and a "right" to abortion.

She is a pro-abort, however moderate a pro-abort she may be.

* sigh *

[sitetest]

Here is the URL for the actual text of the amendment:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:4:./temp/~r108g98BKn::

You have to click a couple of times to get it from the initial link, and it wasn’t altogether obvious to me the first time or two where I needed to click.

[sitetest]

Dear TitansAFC,

Here it is.

If you still think this should go on the sidebar, you can express your preference to the mods.

I've also pinged a few folks who seemed interested in the discussion on Ms. Hutchison.

sitetest

[NonValueAdded]

Has she ever issued an explanation of that vote and squared it with her other pro-life votes? I can think of one and only one explanation that might be acceptable but I’d like to hear hers first.

[sitetest]

Dear NonValueAdded,

What's to square?

Someone can believe that abortion is a “right,” and should generally be legal but still believe that the government may put restrictions on it, such as against partial birth abortion, or for parental notification, or for waiting periods.

The bottom line is that Sen. Hutchison voted for a sense of the Senate amendment affirming that Roe was rightly decided and that there is a constitutional “right” to abortion.

And that was in 2003.

The thing is that the federal Congress seldom addresses the principal issue - should abortion be generally legal? Is abortion truly a constitutional "right"? Most of the votes taken by congresscritters related to abortion are regarding peripheral issues, not central to the primary issue - is this really a "right"?.

Her “pro-life” costume comprises voting on peripheral issues on abortion.

sitetest

[NonValueAdded]

We’re probably in violent agreement on this. RvW is a travesty with absolutely no Constitutional foundation. That said, I’d still like to hear her explanation.

[sitetest]

Dear NonValueAdded,

I'm not sure that any explanation would suffice for me, save, “I lost my mind that day.”

Which likely would be disqualifying, in itself, for the vice presidency.

sitetest