To: Jean S
Who agreed to this stupid “fast-track” process for this bill? Since the bill wouldn’t have survived Obama’s veto it needs to be slow-rolled until 2013 when Obama is replaced by Romney who at least says he’s against abortion.
7 posted on
05/31/2012 6:12:58 PM PDT by
PapaNew
To: PapaNew
I think they were hoping to get an Obama veto, thereby showing who really has started a war on women and baby girls before the election.
To: PapaNew
Romney who at least says he’s against abortion.
Nope he'd rather hand them over to sexual deviants to raise.
10 posted on
05/31/2012 6:18:21 PM PDT by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
To: PapaNew
When I'm suspicious of Congress's actions (which is just about always), I suspect these fast track bills requiring 2/3 are put up just so the Republicans can vote for them but still be quite sure they won't pass so they won't have to get into a political fight.
It's like threatening to get into a fight when your friends are holding you back and you know no punches will actually be thrown.
12 posted on
05/31/2012 6:24:24 PM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
To: PapaNew
“Since the bill wouldn’t have survived Obama’s veto it needs to be slow-rolled until 2013 when Obama is replaced by Romney who at least says he’s against abortion.”
Nobody should want this law passed; it is designed to stop the murder of female children rather than all children. It is a bad bill.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson