Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sex-selection abortion ban wins strong House majority, but fails to clear 2/3 hurdle
Life Site News ^ | May 31, 2012 | The Editors

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 112th; abortion; gender; proaborts; sexselection

1 posted on 05/31/2012 2:50:11 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; little jeremiah; narses

Ping!


2 posted on 05/31/2012 2:51:31 PM PDT by NYer (Open to scriptural suggestions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Why mention that it didn’t get two thirds...unless you’re anticipating Osama’s veto?


3 posted on 05/31/2012 2:54:33 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: another casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

WHY are they focusing on this stuff?

They are so stooopid.

Actually, in a philisophical sense and with Biblical history in mind, senseless killing of innocents is the LAST thing we should toy with, we who need God’s help with the state of our country. It just doesn’t invite grace.


4 posted on 05/31/2012 3:00:52 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

One thing to always remember. There is no such thing as a pro-life democrat. You can’t be both. To say otherwise is a lie. Not just a lie, a damn lie.


5 posted on 05/31/2012 3:01:17 PM PDT by papageo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stanne

I do know how to spell philosophical.


6 posted on 05/31/2012 3:02:40 PM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative
Why mention that it didn’t get two thirds...unless you’re anticipating Osama’s veto?

The bill didn't go through the usual Committee route. It was brought to the House floor under a special procedure that requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

7 posted on 05/31/2012 3:04:44 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I understand the intent of the bill, but unless you outlaw abortion, how would you enforce this?


8 posted on 05/31/2012 3:09:28 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Someone please show me where I'm wrong but, until then, I have to think this bill is stupid politics. It's pure BS. What difference will it make if we DO outlaw abortion for the purpose of gender selection? When did we start requiring a pregnant woman to state ANY reason (let alone the true reason) for her desire to murder her unborn child?
9 posted on 05/31/2012 3:09:57 PM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Someone want to try and splain why the IJIT, Weeeper of the House brought this up under the "Special Rules" which required 2/3 majority?

I almost think that Bone-Er did this intentionally so as not to incur the wrath of Dear Leader, the Demo-Rats and their sycophant Lame Stream Media in accusing them of waging a "War on Women."

10 posted on 05/31/2012 3:10:16 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Can somebody edumicate me...why isn’t a simple majority sufficient?


11 posted on 05/31/2012 3:10:46 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is ridiculous.

The left keeps saying the unborn are not people. Gender of a blob of tissue is a moot discussion according to them. You aren’t getting rid of any “girls” if you’re a lefty. It makes no sense to talk in terms reserved for people, and the left has to be called on this. Either they are people and you’re admitting you’re murdering them before they’re born, or they aren’t people and stop trying to make an issue out of gender because they aren’t people.

They cannot have it both ways without being the biggest hypocrites in the world, as well as destroying their own arguments in the process.


12 posted on 05/31/2012 3:11:00 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

“I understand the intent of the bill”

I’d say the intent of the bill is to flush out an opinion from Obama on sex selective abortions....and Carney complied!


13 posted on 05/31/2012 3:12:31 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
why isn’t a simple majority sufficient?

Because Obama will veto it.

So time it for after Obama's removal. At least Romney claims he's against abortion.

14 posted on 05/31/2012 3:16:25 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Zero’s position on this is so outrageous as to defy credulity. Maybe he wants to lose the election. It just disgusts me. These days I often wonder where I live. Used to be evil was condemned; now it’s celebrated by the abortionists and those in their camp.
Maybe God will have mercy on their souls. I despise them, but I’m preaching to the choir. It’s all just so sad what has happened to our country.
Talk about a war on women! This BS takes the cake.
What’s a good country, stressing good, to move to?


15 posted on 05/31/2012 3:23:04 PM PDT by BIV (typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man
They cannot have it both ways without being the biggest hypocrites in the world, as well as destroying their own arguments in the process.

Hence the shift in public opinion on abortion. Pro-life advocates now exceed those who are pro-choice, and the number continues to grow.

16 posted on 05/31/2012 3:27:43 PM PDT by NYer (Open to scriptural suggestions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued; Impy; BlackElk; Clemenza
>> 161 Democrats and seven Republicans (Amash, Bass of NH, Bono Mack, Dold, Hanna, Hayworth, and Paul) voted no. <<

There's goes "tea party" Amash again, as well as his pal Ron Paul (no doubt Paulbots will tell us Paul has a really good "constitutional" reason for voting that way and we "hate the Constitution" if we don't agree with it). I see Mrs. Connie Mack IV (Mary Bono Mack) was a NAY. She's always been a squish compared to Sonny but she's really become a full fledged RINO in recent years (the cap n' trade vote she cast was even worse). I dread the thought of her "conservative" hubby getting a promotion to the U.S. Senate. Bob Dold in Illinois replaced Kirk and has official morphed into Mark Kirk Jr. Sad. We should have known better, but the guy had potential to actually be the "independent" he claimed to be, but probably the same combine forces that control Kirk are controlling him. I remember some freeper was all excited when Dold won and said he read in National Review that Dold was a "staunch conservative". I told him the Review writer must be smoking something illegal because even Dold wouldn't use the word "conservative" and himself in the same sentence. The problem is that IL-10 politicians use the phrase "middle of the road" as codeword for "I will do Planned Parenthood's bidding 100% of the time". Don't know enough about Hanna and Hayworth. Any chance they're in districts where we could dump them in favor of real Republicans?

17 posted on 05/31/2012 3:30:53 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
Can somebody edumicate me...why isn’t a simple majority sufficient?

The bill didn't go through the normal process of being voted on by a committee, etc.; it was brought to the House floor under a special fast-track rule that requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

18 posted on 05/31/2012 3:50:58 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: petitfour

The intent of the bill is to limit the murders to male children; as India has already discovered, it cannot be enforced. When doctors don’t tell parents the gender (they often do anyway), some parents simply discard the newborn female by the side of the road.

God will not be mocked.


19 posted on 05/31/2012 3:56:43 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

What is going unmentioned is that this bill outlawed abortion for gender selection (which the MSM is reporting) AND also for racial selection.

Mark Levin made this case on his show and it won’t be touched by the MSM.... anywhere!

Francis


20 posted on 05/31/2012 4:40:16 PM PDT by Frank Sheed (This tagline space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

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!


21 posted on 05/31/2012 4:51:12 PM PDT by Frank Sheed (This tagline space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BIV
> What’s a good country, stressing good, to move to?

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. :)

22 posted on 05/31/2012 5:16:58 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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?


23 posted on 05/31/2012 5:42:07 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
No and "absent" GOP votes need to be "G.O.N.E." come November!

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?

24 posted on 05/31/2012 5:42:51 PM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank Sheed

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).


25 posted on 05/31/2012 6:53:21 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dayglored

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.
Apologies.


26 posted on 05/31/2012 7:16:02 PM PDT by BIV (typical white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BIV
Hi BIV,

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.

27 posted on 05/31/2012 9:44:03 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
The law is designed to stop people from aborting their female children; read it however you’d like - that is the purpose.

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.

28 posted on 06/01/2012 10:03:45 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; AuH2ORepublican; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT

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.


29 posted on 06/05/2012 12:12:04 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

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.


30 posted on 06/05/2012 4:18:44 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (and we are still campaigning for local conservatives in central CT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Impy; BillyBoy; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT; cripplecreek; Darren McCarty; ..

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 doesn’t 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.


31 posted on 06/05/2012 8:04:15 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Impy; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT; cripplecreek; ...
Good anaylsis, AuH2ORepublican. Your post was a lot more in-depth than mine and gave me some good info on the makeup of Hanna and Hayworth's districts.

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.

32 posted on 06/05/2012 2:07:15 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Illegals for Perry/Gingrich 2012 : Don't be "heartless"/ Be "humane")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

“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”)”


Dold voted for the Protect Life Act, so he’s already better than Kirk on abortion. But, you’re right, not much of a difference between Dold and Kirk. That being said, the IL-10 is now even more liberal than before (thanks to Democrat gerrymandering), and we no longer can dream of a conservative Republican being elected in IL-10 until at least 2022.

“Unfortunately, Lipinski is still a machine Dem at heart and he’ll switch his vote to the RAT side if they really need it.”


That’s what everyone thought, but Lipinski didn’t switch to vote for the 2010, Stupak-Pitts-less Obamacare even though the Dems really, really needed his vote (the bill passed with, what, one vote to spare?, and several Democrats from conservative districts were forced to fall on their sword to pass that monstrosity). I think that Lipinski has proven to be a machine Democrat *except when it involves the right to life*.

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.


33 posted on 06/05/2012 3:06:42 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Impy; Clintonfatigued; fieldmarshaldj; raccoonradio; All

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.


34 posted on 06/05/2012 4:19:42 PM PDT by GOPsterinMA (We may die, but DISCO LIVES FOREVER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; sickoflibs
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).

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.

35 posted on 06/06/2012 5:28:31 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy
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).

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.

36 posted on 06/06/2012 5:29:05 PM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson