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.
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.
Vote present, I agree.
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.
The amendment contained not only rape and incest exceptions, it provided a health of the mother exception. It wouldn’t stop a single abortion, in other words.
You understand what is at stake while the poster of this thread doesn’t have a clue. The needed to vote no because Pelosi was going to strip it from the final bill anyway and basically said as much and why she agreed to a voice vote.
I agree with your comments 100%!
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.
My blood pressure is probably off the chart tonight.
We’re watching the destruction of our country.
That’s exactly right in our convoluted political system. Voting against a fake “pro-life” amendment is itself a pro-life act because it makes it crystal clear that it would only have facilitated the passage of an intrinsically evil bill.
Bullshit. It was life of the mother. Your hatred has compromised your soul. Go to Confession.
Absolutely. I appreciate the concern, but there is the reality of the legislative process: you can rarely get anything done if you take a vow of purity.
This approach is simply a means to an end. The GOP has few options these days, and if it can defeat Pelosicare through this maneuver, our ultimate goal is achieved.
Voting present gives cover to dems.
Me too.
Mine is right with you! I cannot believe what we are witnessing and also cannot believe anyone on here would fall for the Pelosi trick on abortion knowing full well she believes in abortion 100% including partial birth.
How many lives has Alan Keyes saved?
Which party is interested in saving lives, and which in playing politics?
Exactly! When she agreed to the vote figured it would be a voice vote and it would be defeated — no way would she allow any anti-abortion amendment on this bill. Voting for this would have given the Dems cover — they need to stand on their own and vote yes or no with no cover.
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’m not Catholic.
Earlier in the day the reports were that they were including the health of the mother exception. If I’m wrong, I’ll retract.
But, the rape and incest exceptions are still not pro-life.
The “leaders” of NRTL once believed that, before they sold their souls to the almighty dollar and the politicians.
And besides, giving Democrats from conservative districts “pro-life” cover is just plain stupid.
I heard it did fail
That's what Stalin said, and Hitler.
Why bother voting for a pro-life GOP rep when he won't vote pro-life? The GOP is playing Christians--secretly supporting legalized abortion on the one hand while offering themselves as the only alternative to stop it on the other.
We've just woken up to the game. The GOP has just lost half the social conservative vote. That's the bigger picture, Komrade.
They haven’t saved any lives. All they do is abandon the core principles that protect innocent human life in this country, collect more money, and let the slaughter continue.
The ploy to make Democrats look bad is so obvious as to be scandalous. The GOP has imploded and the coalition is dead.
It is not often that I defend Alan Keyes and EV at the same time but you are dead wrong. Alen Keyes has been out in front for pro-life and has never wavered and neither has EV. You can say a lot about Alan Keyes but to diss him like you have just done is wrong. EV is the most pro-life person I know — we do not always agree but I respect people like EV who do not waver in their pro-life beliefs.
Why don’t you back to the Democrats because Republicans that I know who are elected officials live the fact they are pro-life and do what they can to make sure abortion is not common. I come from a very pro-life state of Oklahoma and resent your inference that the Democrats are pro-life. Not many of them are pro-life or we would have had this bill killed a long time ago.
If there was a guarantee that the pro-life amendment wouldn’t simply be stripped out by the leadership before a final vote, I’d oppose this gamesmanship (because the democrats would never vote for a bill that didn’t have abortion funding).
But the problem is, there is no democracy in the house and senate any more. They take votes, and then behind closed doors they simply re-write things however they want, and then put it on the floor as the “real bill”.
We saw dozens of amendments to the Baucus bill wiped out by Reid.
But by passing a pro-life amendment, it might give cover to a few democrats to vote for the bill — and we need every vote against this bill. We need votes for the repuiblican bill.
Sorry, but if you believe that abortion funding will not be in this bill when Obama signs it, you're an idiot.
Thank you.
But now it will be in the bill because the GOP tried to play a stupid trick. Big difference.
I watched Romney play this game with gay marriage and think it would work, and now it looks like his acolytes in the GOP think they’re equally brilliant. The blood is on their hands now and anyone can see it.
I agree! And the Catholic bishops who actually support universal healthcare will have to be against it.
Agree 100%. This was a ruse that covered blue dogs in an attempt to secure 218 votes. Don't think for a minute that another amendment wouldn't be attached somewhere...sometime...that would over-ride this.
This was a facade. Blue dogs cannot be given cover by the GOP...that is STUPID & this is hard-ball.
Your BP and mine too. I have a horrendous headache and feel like we are in a atmosphere of spiritual darkness in our land.
Watch what happens when the USCCB drops its objection to the bill.
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.
The bishops are not going to be played for suckers.
It was only cover for ‘Blue Dogs’ that want government control health care & abortion, but didn’t want to get nailed for it. With no commitment for it to go into the Conference bill, it was just cover. Period.
My Dem had stated that he could not vote for HR3962 if the abortion amendment wasn’t included. It was defeated? Then I and alot of other Catholics in the district will hold his feet to the fire if he votes yes to HR3962. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.
This is why we can never win. We are in total agreement about abortion. But you can’t see that them defeating the abortion provisions actually gives us great ammunition.
The Catholic Bishops will have to publicly oppose it from the rooftops. This gives us impetus to join with bleeding heart liberals who are against the murder of children but for big government healthcare, and yes, I know a lot of them. The majority of America is pro-life now, the idiots just haven’t accepted that.
You vile Troll.
Go back to the DU .
Pray
You apparently don't understand Catholic moral teaching as it related to legislative processes. You can't force a legislator to support your policy simply by holding a gun to the head of a baby.
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.