Skip to comments.Sex-selection abortion ban wins strong House majority, but fails to clear 2/3 hurdle
Posted on 05/31/2012 2:50:02 PM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON, May 31, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill to outlaw abortions based on a child’s gender received a strong majority of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday but failed to gain the two-thirds margin of support needed for passage.
The House voted 246-168 in favor of H.R. 3541, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA). 226 Republicans and 20 Democrats (Altmire, Barrow, Boren, Cooper, Costello, Critz, Cuellar, Donnelly, Garamendi, Holden, Kissell, Lipinksi, Lynch, Matheson, McIntyre, Peterson, Rahall, Reyes, Ross of AR, and Shuler) voted yea; while 161 Democrats and seven Republicans (Amash, Bass of NH, Bono Mack, Dold, Hanna, Hayworth, and Paul) voted no. Eight Republicans and nine Democrats were absent.
The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly perform a sex-selection abortion or coerce a woman into such a procedure, or to transport a woman across state lines or into the United States to obtain a sex-selection abortion. The woman herself is not liable for prosecution.
President Obama had announced his opposition to the measure a day earlier, claiming that the bill would result in “subject[ing] doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine” a sex-selection motivation. The National Right to Life Committee criticized the excuse by pointing out that the bill explicitly bars requiring abortionists “to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion” if it were unknown to them.
Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!
Another prominent opponent of the bill was Planned Parenthood. The abortion chain, which was caught on video published this week encouraging sex-selection abortions in Texas and New York, said it opposed “gender bias” but confirmed it does perform sex-selection abortions upon request.
Sex-selection abortions, often fueled by son-preferring Asian cultures indigenous to China and India, normally result in the extermination of unborn girls. At least one poll has found 77% of Americans opposing the practice.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) had warned Wednesday that the bill presented a difficult ultimatum for pro-abortion politicians, because voting against it would be seen as condoning gendercide.
I think this has come up because someone has decided politically that it was a difficult place to put people in,” said Hoyer. The lawmaker said he is against abortion based on the baby’s gender but that a woman and her doctor gotta have the choice of what alternatives she wants to choose.
Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for Family Research Council Action, said he was “deeply saddened” by PRENDA’s demise.
“That anyone on either side of the political aisle would vote against a bill preventing gendercide in the United States is profoundly troubling,” said McClusky.
We are heartened that a strong majority of House members voted to ban performing or coercing abortions for the purpose of eliminating unborn babies of an undesired sex usually, girls, said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. Shamefully, President Obama, and a minority of 168 House members, complied with the political demands of pro-abortion pressure groups, rather than defend the coerced women, and their unborn daughters, who are victimized by sex-selection abortions.
NRLC pointed out in a release Thursday that the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) had warned legislators that it would score the PRENDA vote as a vote against “women’s health.”
“So, for PPFA, abortion for sex selection is just another menu option, except where it is illegal and PPFA vehemently opposes making it illegal,” said the pro-life group.
READ THE BILL, SPORT!
“SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNBORN ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR SEX.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Sec. 250. Discrimination against the unborn on the basis of race or sex
(a) In General- Whoever knowingly—
(1) performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child;
(2) uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion;
(3) solicits or accepts funds for the performance of a sex-selection abortion or a race-selection abortion; or
(4) transports a woman into the United States or across a State line for the purpose of obtaining a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
If that doesn’t paint Dems as radicals, nothing else does!
I assume you're just being ironic and/or sarcastic.
But America is the best country in the world, despite her flaws. Unquestionably. The. Best. Period.
If you honestly don't think that's the case, you're welcome to look elsewhere.
But, if you honestly don't think that's the case, you might want to find a more sympathetic internet forum to post your complaints on. I daresay most of us here think America is The Best and would take issue with you over that.
But like I said, I assume you're just being ironic and/or sarcastic. :)
If the Ku Klux Klan offered a bounty (a paid-for abortion plus a cash payment for the mother) for any black children aborted, should I assume the folks who voted against this ban would be reluctant to interfere legislatively?
If the American Nazi Party offered a similar bounty for abortions of unborn females, would the legislators against this bill still be okay with sex-selective abortions?
Actually, so does Boehner as he's the one (and his "leaders") made the 2/3 vote necessary - this is NOT a spending nor taxing bill, so why the 2/3 vote if not to give GOP votes cover?
Rush talked about this today; how many women are going to be killing the males?
The law is designed to stop people from aborting their female children; read it however you’d like - that is the purpose. These laws failed in Asia, and they’ll fail here. I was in elementary school 30 years ago, and my class was 3:2 male:female back then. The influx of foreigners from the Third World will simply speed that up; they take many of their customs here with them (and don’t assimilate).
I guess I just posted while infuriated. Although my comment was neither irony nor sarcasm, it also wasn’t temperate, at least at the end of my comment. I would never bail on America, can’t even imagine it. I would gladly die for the USA.
Believe me, this forum is where I belong, at least I feel and think it is.
I try to be judicious in my comments, but this gendercide thing bewilders and angers me to the point where, instead of commenting, I should have just taken a walk. Literally.
I suppose all we can do is struggle onward.
No apology required (but thanks for it anyway). I suspect we've all been so outraged at times that we overload, and fail to see the balance, when one side of the scales has such an awful wrong. There certainly are times when I have to back away from the keyboard, lest I post something I'll wish I hadn't, and I don't always get my fingers off the keys in time.
Thanks again for your very thoughtful reply. Best FRegards, Dayglored.
On the contrary, I believe the bill was designed for another purpose entirely: To force House members to vote YEA or NAY on the atrocities contained therein.
Because, as I mentioned above, the bill, even if enacted, would accomplish NOTHING. Even if we did start requiring a pregnant woman to state a reason for wanting to kill her unborn child, all she'd have to do is say anything other than the unlawful reasons cited therein.
Furthermore, it seems to me that this bill is akin to another stupid "hate crimes" law. Murder is murder, regardless of whether the victim's race/gender/religion/etc. is different than that of the murderer.
This guy that’s on the ballot for McCotter’s seat has been compared to Amash, I don’t know if he has any actual Paul ties though. Unless Loren Bennett is a RINO I’d inclined to back his write in effort.
Hayworth and especially Hanna have GOP seats by New York standards. Hanna’s was a tie in the 2008 Pres election. He stinks.
Hayworth. what a disappointment. Still in a swing district but I think she got strengthened with re-districting.
I forget what happened to Hanna with re-districting.
Seven Republicans voted against a law that would have prohibited sex-selection abortions:
1. Justin Amash of MI-03. Another in a serious of goofy votes that run interference for liberal Democrats by Western Michigan’s Ron Paul wannabe. As I wrote back in February of this year:
“Amash has turned out to be a turd sandwich, casting ridiculous, Ron-Paul-type votes to make a point, thus giving liberal Democrats ammunition to claim that even conservative Justin Amash agrees with us or the bill was so extreme that even Republican Justin Amash voted against it. I hope that he doesnt cap off his embarrassing first term by finding a way to lose one of the most Republican districts in Michigan.”
Bill Hardiman (conservative former mayor of Kentwood and 8-year state senator from a swing district) would have never cast such a stupid vote. I hope the next time a young man runs for Congress based on solely on his record during a single term in the state assembly that we check the fine print.
2. Ron Paul. The gift that keeps on giving (for Democrats). Thankfully, he’s gone on January 3, 2013. Funny how Paul claims that Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to prohibit or limit abortion (ignoring Section 5 of the 14th Amendment), yet a few years ago he voted in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortion—as usual, Paul shed his “principled” view of congressional power when he knew that he’d lose reelection if he didn’t vote for the bill. And now Justin Amash wants to amulate Paul? Just peachy.
3. Richard Hanna of NY-24 (now NY-22), who is probably the most pro-abortion Republican in Congress. He has been one of only 2 Republicans to vote against the Pitts-Lipinski Protect Life Act (the 2011 bill that would ban the use of public money for abortion under Obamacare), one of only 10 Republicans to vote against a bill that would prohibit hospitals that take federal funding from discriminating against doctors who object to participating in abortions, and one of only 7 Republicans to vote against the ban on federal funding for Planned Parenthood (the biggest abortion “provider” in America). Hanna represents execrable RINO’s Sherry Boehlert’s old district, and he is as pro-abortion as Boehlert ever was. But some Tea Party groups think that Hanna is a good conservative because he supports cutting the size of government (as long as it doesn’t include decreasing funding for abortion, I guess). We can certainly do better in a district that leans Republican. Unfortunately, no prominent Republican filed to run against Hanna, leaving only the largely unknown and underfunded Mike Kicinski as a Republican challenger. http://www.kicinskiforcongress.com/ Kicinski sounds like a good man and solid conservative, but he’s not going to win the primary, at least not in 2012 (and, Impy, he’s got a mustache). We need to recruit a strong challenger for 2014.
4. Nan Hayworth of NY-19 (now NY-18). A very disappointing vote. while I had opposed Hayworth in the 2010 primary because she campaigned as “pro-choice,” she had pleasantly surprised me by having a perfect pro-life voting record during her first term in Congress—until yesterday. She’s running unopposed in the GOP primary, so we’ll have to wait until 2014 to challenge her. While her district is more socially liberal than Hanna’s, it could certainly elect someone like state senator Greg Ball (who is pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother—the George W. Bush position). http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/greg-ball
5. Charlie Bass (NH-02). Not a big surprise, since Bass is adamantly pro-abortion, but he recently voted for the Protect Life, and years ago voted for final passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (albeit not against its sham substitute amendment from pro-abortion liberals), so I had held out some hope he’d vote the right way. Bass is in a socially liberal district and will face a highly funded liberal Democrat in the general, so we’re in a hold-your-nose situation there right now. But hopefully a more conservative, and politically viable, Republican will run in 2014.
6. Bob Dold (IL-10). Dold warned us that he was “pro-choice,” and his voting record so far has been identical to that of Charlie Bass’s. The socially liberal IL-10 has been made even more liberal, and Dold faces a very uphill reelection, so I’m not really surprised by his vote.
7. Mary Bono (CA-45, now CA-36). Mary Bono used to have a largely pro-life voting record, but has gone off the deep end of late, including being one of only 10 Republicans to vote against a bill that would prohibit hospitals that take federal funding from discriminating against doctors who object to participating in abortions, and one of only 7 Republicans to vote against the ban on federal funding for Planned Parenthood. However, she voted for the Protect Life Act late last year and I would have never pegged her as a “no” vote on such an uncontroversial pro-life bill. She’ll be tough to dislodge under California’s new jungle-primary format, but we should recruit a conservative to run against her in 2014.
But the biggest surprise on the GOP side was the fact that reflexively pro-abortion RINO Judy Biggert (IL-13, now IL-11), who has voted pro-abortion (with very few exceptions) throughout her dozen yearsin congress and had voted in lockstep with Richard Hanna over the past two years, voted in favor of the bill. This is even more surprising given that Biggert will now run in a Democrat-leaning district in which a pro-life voting record wouldn’t be very helpful. Good for Biggert, who’s the only Republican with a shot of winning in that gerrymandered district (and is the GOP nominee in 2012 against ultraliberal Democrat ex-Congressman Bill Foster).
As for the 20 Democrats who voted for the bill, this includes the 13 Democrats with largely pro-life voting records that are a dying breed: Dan Boren (OK-02; he’s retiring, and his district will almost certainly go Republican); Mike McIntyre (NC-07; GOP has a 50% chance of beating him); Heath Shuler (NC-11; he’s retiring, and his district will almost certainly go Republican); Dan Lipinski (IL-03; will win reelection); Jerry Costello (IL-12; retiring, and may well be replaced by conservative Republican Jason Plummer); Collin Peterson (MN-07; will probably win reelection); Joe Donnelly (IN-02; stepping down to run for the Senate, will definitely be replaced by conservative Republican Jackie Walorski); Tim Holden (PA-17; defeated in Dem primary by liberal Democrat, who will win in November); Mark Critz (PA-12; will probably lose to Republican Keith Rothfus this November); Jason Altmire (PA-04; defeated in Dem primary by Mark Critz); Mike Ross (AR-04; he’s retiring, and his district will almost certainly go Republican); Nick Rahall (WV-03; will almost certainy be reelected); and Henry Cuellar (TX-28; he’ll definitely get reelected).
At least 5 of the Democrats that voted for did it mostly due to political opportunism: Jim Matheson (UT-02, now UT-04; facing tough reelection against Republican Mia Love in a largely new district); Larry Kissell (NC-08; running for uphill reelection in new, heavily Republican CD); John Barrow (GA-12; running for uphill reelection in new, heavily Republican CD); Jim Cooper (TN-05; district changed a bit in redistricting, and while a bit more Democrat than before, Cooper’s not taking any chances); and John Garamendi (CA-10, now CA-03; redistricting left him with a much less liberal district, and he feels he has to pretend to be a moderate).
That leaves 2 Democrats who surprised me by voting for the bill despite not having pro-life voting records and not having political reasons to cast such a vote: Stephen Lynch of MA-09 (now MA-08) and Silvestre Reyes of TX-16. Lynch, who is safe in his congressional district, used to vote pro-life quite often, but appeared to have turned pro-abortion more recently (including voting pro-abortion throughout the past two years), so hopefully he’s returning to his principles. As for Reyes, he lost his primary to a more liberal Democrat last week, so I assume that he’s voting his principles. Perhaps he voted pro-abortion with few exceptions all those years because he was afraid of a challenge from the left in his strongly Democrat district.
The most surprising “no” vote on the Dem side was Dale Kildee of MI-05, who used to vote 100% pro-life but apparently is now pro-abortion as he departs Congress (he’s retiring at the end of this term.) A was also disappointed to see Marcy Kaptur of OH-09 vote against it; she’s got a split record on abortion, and I thought that the thought of women aborting babies just because they didn’t was a girl would sicken her and send her to our side.
This bill was a missed opportunity to chip away at Roe v. Wade and force Democrats to face what “the right to choose” really entails. We should remember how people voted on this one.
At the very least, "true conservative" Justin Amash and Mrs. Connie Mack IV (Mary Bono) need a primary challenge. They have no excuse whatsoever for voting with the RATs on this. Bono has always been a squish but has become a full fledged RINO in recent years, and Amash is just screwy. He's definitely a warning sign to scrutinize any future Paulbots who don the "tea party" mantle to win primaries.
I really wanted to like Bob "Dold with a D", but sadly he's just morphed into another Mark Kirk. Of course Dold said he was "pro-choice", but he claimed to be "middle of the road on abortion" and "against government funding for it" (just as Kirk had claimed in 2000). Well, we now know that's 10th District RINO speak for "I will do Planned Parenthood's bidding on every abortion bill". (and "independent" translates to "I will vote how the media tells me to") Of course a full fledged RAT would be worse, but I've had it up to here with the "moderates" from the 10th district flat out lying to pro-life conservatives to get our support. After Porter, Kirk, and Dold, it's like a bad rerun of the phony "conservative" PAN candidates in Mexico who we're told are our buddies. Dold can win re-election without my help. If he wants to vote far-left on abortion, then that's who he should be seeking votes from. Good luck trying to out-pander the RATs.
Biggert was a pleasant surprise, I never cared for her because she's mostly worthless when it comes to sticking her neck out to support the GOP, but at least when calls herself a "moderate" , she actually votes that way. I know Dengar01 thinks she's a good representative. I've meet her twice. Meh.
It's funny Lipinski has been pretty solid on these issues, just like his old man was. He's probably a real thorn in he side of 3rd District RATs, who know Illinois is under total Dem control statewide and wish they could replace him with a more liberal Dem. Unfortunately, Lipinski is still a machine Dem at heart and he'll switch his vote to the RAT side if they really need it. Still, it's good to have him around if only because every vote cast he casts goes against the media, GOP establishment, and DEM establishment script that "socially conservatives CANNOT win in Illinois, because they scare away the nice moderate suburban moms in Cook County with their anti-abortion beliefs"
As for Dale Kildee, that's another good riddance. The crepy old guy always reminded me "evil Bob Dole" from another dimension. Good thing Bod Dold "with a D" doesn't look like Kildee or voters would think Bob Dole has gone to the dark side.
>> This bill was a missed opportunity to chip away at Roe v. Wade and force Democrats to face what the right to choose" <<
I don't think the GOP leadership expected this bill would pass and chip away at Roe v. Wade. They figured it would die in the RAT-controlled Senate but wanted to bring it up for a vote in the House to expose vulnerable Dems and show their constituents how out of touch their record is. The fact it didn't even pass the House is a real disappointment. This should be a noncontroversial bill, most Americans except the far-left would agree that abortions should not be granted if the sole purpose is gender selection. It's a been a disaster in China. That's a REAL "war on women" and the Dems are the ones wagging it.
“Of course Dold said he was “pro-choice”, but he claimed to be “middle of the road on abortion” and “against government funding for it” (just as Kirk had claimed in 2000). Well, we now know that’s 10th District RINO speak for “I will do Planned Parenthood’s bidding on every abortion bill”. (and “independent” translates to “I will vote how the media tells me to”)”
“Unfortunately, Lipinski is still a machine Dem at heart and he’ll switch his vote to the RAT side if they really need it.”
As for Kildee, yeah, he’s “Evil Bob Dole.” Were you the FReeper who came up with that? Those side-by-side pictures of Dole and Kildee posted on FR a few months ago (when allegations that Kildee had sexually abused his teenaged nephew a few decades ago made national news) were hilarious. But Kildee actually voted 100% pro-life until very recently, and since there is no political incentive for him to do so (he’s retiring, and his nephew is running unopposed in the Dem primary), I think that senility has turned him pro-abortion.
That’s one heck of a great write up Goldwater. Kudos!!!
Steve Lynch is the closest thing to an American we in MA have in our Congressional Delegation. He also voted against ObamaCare.
Kicinski for Congress then! I was an early advocate of Hanna cause of how he almost won in 2008. Fail on me. Kicinski's crap website tells me all I need to know however. Hanna is safe.
Kicinski for Congress then! I was an early advocate of Hanna cause of how he almost won in 2008. Fail on me. Kicinski's crap website tells me all I need to know however. Hanna is safe.
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.