Skip to comments.Obama and 168 House Members Defend Sex-Selection Abortion (Bill defeated; who are the 168?)
Posted on 06/03/2012 12:52:39 PM PDT by Salvation
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 2:30 PM EDT
Strong U.S. House majority votes to ban sex-selection abortion
NRLC says Obama and 168 U.S. 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
WASHINGTON The U.S. House of Representatives today conducted a roll call vote on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to make it unlawful to perform or coerce a sex-selection abortion. The vote was 246-168 in favor of the bill a strong majority, although short of the two-thirds vote required under the fast-track procedure utilized today. In a statement obtained exclusively by ABC News late May 30, the White House acknowledged that President Obama opposes the bill. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of state right-to-life organizations, issued the following statement after the roll call:
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.
Among the organizations that warned House members not to vote for the bill was the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nations major abortion provider. PPFA sent an email memo to House members on May 29 warning of its intent to score a vote for the bill as a vote against womens health. Also on May 29, the Huffington Post reported that no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions (Arizona, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Illinois). So, for PPFA, abortion for sex selection is just another menu option, except where it is illegal and PPFA vehemently opposes making it illegal.
We commend the House Republican leadership for bringing this bill to the floor today under the fast-track procedure, Johnson said. Todays groundbreaking majority vote was a stepping stone to this bill ultimately becoming law perhaps after the replacement of some of the lawmakers who today were unwilling to protect victimized women and their unborn daughters from sex-selection abortions, because they were more concerned with maintaining favor with the abortion industry, pro-abortion advocacy groups, and Hollywood donors.
NRLCs letter to House members in support of the bill, and links to academic studies demonstrating the prevalence of sex-selection abortions (often coerced) within certain immigrant communities in the United States are posted on this page: http://www.nrlc.org/Sex-SelectionAbortion/index.html
Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nations oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization.
Strong U.S. House majority votes to ban sex-selection abortion
But who are the 168 house members who voted to kill girls rather than boys?
Do they deserve to be re-elected? Especially the women who voted for this?
Since it was a roll call vote, aren’t the names now public domain?
“Do they deserve to be re-elected?”
Of course not. I only hope that this is campaign fodder against the members who did. If we’d had a different President, the ban would be signed into law by now.
Mary Bono Mack - CA, Bob Dold - IL, Justin Amish - MI, Charlie Bass - NH, Nan Hayworth - NY, Richard Hanna - NY and good 'ol Ru Paul - TX :(
Just an observation. Connie Mack(R) Florida running for Senator, did not vote; However, his wife Bono Mack(R) voted along with the other 167. Is this not telling or what? LeMiex and MacCalister are looking better in my eyes. Pisses me that they put this guy in to capture the vote and keep saying he is our only hope against Bill Nelson (D). Shows what his character is all about.
Make that NAY - not yea....oops.
Ron Paul voted to kill baby girls. Huh. Some prolifer...
Realistically speaking, how would you prove and enforce it?
Would need a brand new government agency to interpret motive, prosecute, and file paperwork from now to eternity.
Vdare.com has an article about sex selection abortion which is, as I supected tied to the Chinese and Indian communities. China and India place a high premium on sons, so many of their girls are aborted causing an imbalance in the male to female ratio, as a result there are millions fewer females than males in those countries.
I couldn’t help but wonder how what is left of our moral principles may come in conflict with those immigrants who come from other non-Christian parts of the world. It makes you wonder how many other customs are out there from the many countries that do not follow our age old traditions and are now coming into our country in large numbers. What are some of their customs that would conflict with our moral views? Has anyone ever heard of muti? What about honor killings? What about marrying little girls to grown men? I don’t know if the Chinese still practice the binding of girls’ feet, but that was practiced for centuries. What about sutee, the Hindu practice of requiring the widow to throw herself on her husband’s funeral pyre? Is that still done in some places in India, even though it has been outlawed? There have even been cases of some immigrants bringing slaves into the country.
I would have voted no too. Washington is not of right to pass any law on the subject of abortion period. That goes as much for their employees in black robes as congress and excustve feot.
The power is NOT in the Federal constitution, it therefore is not theirs to weld.
Roll Call Vote
A bill is “defeated” because 168 out of 435 vote against it?
Could someone please explain?
China and India place a high premium on sons, so many of their girls are aborted causing an imbalance in the male to female ratio, as a result there are millions fewer females than males in those countries.I've read travelers accounts of visiting village after village in India and being amazed at how many boys vs girls are visible on the street. Some of it might be due to little boys having more freedom to walk around the village than little girls, but a lot of it is probably because of sex-selective abortions.
Regarding China, the ratio of boys to girls being born has been 6 to 5 for a decade or more. That's in a country of 1.3 billion. That's an incredibly huge imbalance. In China, of course, it's not all be sex-selective abortions, but just plain old sex-selective infanticide... not that there's any difference, morally.
And now Obama and the American Industry of Death wants to bring this horror to America. Not that it's much different than the abortion horror that already exists here. But it does add a new ghoulish dimension to it. Not too ghoulish for Obama and the ghouls at Planned Parenthood... but ghoulish nontheless.
I’m not familiar with these rules. But whatever they are, can’t we just get a plain old majority-wins vote on this? Don’t we control the House?
among those apparently voting for murder of baby girls:
rinos mary bono mack (no surprise), nan hayworth (somewhat surprising), bob dold, richard hanna, charlie bass.
libertarians justin amash and ron paul. done with any possibility of supporting them. they are clearly not conservative.
I am coming around to your point of view, even though I am so opposed to abortion I wouldn’t have one even if raped.
Can one be an extremely conservative libertarian?
Well the unannounced problem is if congress can outlaw a particular kind of abortion(murder) then they not only implacably inlaw all other forms they could one day inlaw that form as well.
I don’t find that power anywhere mentioned in the Federal Constitution except for Federal districts & territories where they have state like powers.
Abortion like murder are State issues, each state has to decided theses matters for themselves and by themselves.
The only thing congress has any kind of authority to do is to control the state borders as to insure that people don’t simply cross the State lines to gain that which is prohibited by their own people in their own state. This is no different than controlling the international borders.
Many southern States already have retrocipical laws setup to respect their neighbors in this way.
Left out Don Young (R) of Alaska, for one...
The Democrats made a deal with the devil and they are going to have to pay the devil his due.
It is not just about the economy it is about morality as well.
I am 100 percent pro-life believe me, but I don’t see how passing this bill either saves lives or ultimately fights abortion in general.
First, once you have already established by law, and apparently in our country in the national consciousness, that murder is perfectly OK, legally and morally, what difference does the REASON make?
By adding “stipulations” or “yes/no” scenarios to individual abortions, you simply reinforce that abortion overall is acceptable and permanent as part of our society.
Second, this is impossible to enforce and will lead to all sorts of government (taxpayer) expense. Hate to be crude, but let’s face that.
Here’s the reality of what will happen (simplified):
Woman is 5 months pregnant with a boy. Decides to abort and try again with husband for a girl. Goes to Planned Parenthood and says, “I want an abortion.” PP says, “OK, but first you have to sign this form from the Federal Govt declaring that you are not having this abortion for reasons related to the sex of the child.” Woman says, Sure, signs form, sex-selection abortion is performed.
There will be Fed and State forms, reports, audits, compliance inspections...were easily talking in the millions. If it saved one life, it would be worth it. But considering the mentality of a woman who has already decided it’s OK to murder her baby, I don’t see that this law would save lives. We cannot and should not presume to read anyone’s mind.