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

Skip to comments.

House rejects bill penalizing doctors for sex-selective abortions (Ron Paul Sides With Dems)
The Hill ^

Posted on 06/01/2012 11:22:13 AM PDT by mnehring

The House on Thursday rejected a Republican bill that would impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions for the sole purpose of controlling the gender of the child, a practice known as sex-selective abortion.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), H.R. 3541, was defeated in a 246-168 vote. While that's a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. In this case, it would have required more support from Democrats.

Twenty Democrats voted for the bill, while seven Republicans opposed it. The bill would have needed 30 more yeas to pass.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; rino; ronpaul; sexselection
Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).
1 posted on 06/01/2012 11:22:24 AM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mnehring

“While that’s a clear majority of the House, Republicans called up the bill under a suspension of House rules, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass. In this case, it would have required more support from Democrats. “

WHY did they DO this???

Another Bonehead move by Boehner??


2 posted on 06/01/2012 11:24:45 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

This isn’t about stopping abortion. It was all political theater so the GOP could claim the Democrats are waging a war against women.


3 posted on 06/01/2012 11:27:40 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
WHY did they DO this??? Another Bonehead move by Boehner??

No, it was shrewd politicking. Had the bill been brought up in the usual way, the Dems could have kept it from reaching the floor for a vote. By bringing it up this way, they forced a lot of Dems to vote against it, which will give their Republican opponents an issue to run on in November.

4 posted on 06/01/2012 11:28:10 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Gotcha. Good move then.


5 posted on 06/01/2012 11:28:57 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Will the Paul Bots shut up now?


6 posted on 06/01/2012 11:32:35 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Of course Ron Paul voted against this, he is not pro-life, nether are the other ones listed.


7 posted on 06/01/2012 11:38:01 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

This forced libs to vote on something they did not want to vote on.


8 posted on 06/01/2012 11:46:25 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

I’m with Ron Paul on this. If it’s legal, you can’t control someone’s motivations. Some folks have abortions because they had a big vacation planned, or just found a new boyfriend—disgusting, but perfectly legal.


9 posted on 06/01/2012 1:01:07 PM PDT by des
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: des

I hate to agree with you Des, but what you say makes sense.

Either way, it’s politicians forcing free citizens to or not to do something.

I think abortion is a disgusting practice, but from a legal standpoint, it is a lawful act according to Roe v. Wade. Until we can cut off the snake’s head, we’re really only leaving it to come back and bite us again in another way down the road.

Sadly, no politician would ever put RvW on an issues list. It’s political suicide, even if it is right.


10 posted on 06/01/2012 1:39:16 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Thanks mnehring, additional:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2890099/posts


11 posted on 06/01/2012 1:47:36 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Yes, that is the exact reasoning. It makes the Democrats look TOO liberal. A lot of Democrats will go to the mat to defend abortion for certain reasons, but not for the purpose of determining genetic characteristics, including sex.

They should have added language that would include banning abortion of homosexual babies, in case a genetic link is ever discovered and then watch the Democrats squirm.


12 posted on 06/01/2012 1:54:28 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: des

Exactly. This would be a open door to federal thought police.

Ron Paul has an actual plan to end abortion unlike the political hucksters in the GOP who only play the issue lip service.

Ron Paul - We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It also says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Thus, if an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, as Paul pledged was his position, states must protect the life of the unborn child just as they protect the life of any other person and Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to make laws to ensure that is the case.

In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an “addendum” in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.

“Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents,” said Paul.

“While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life,” Paul continued. “I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.”

In the same statement, Paul went on to say: “A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does—through state laws.

“To summarize my views—I believe the federal government has a role to play,” said Paul. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

“I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues,” Paul said. “The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

“As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” said Paul. “This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.”

In the same addedum to his Personhood Pledge, Paul vowed to stop enforcement of all Obamacare regulations, including the one that would force Catholic employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.

“I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans,” said Paul.

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, however, Paul criticized Santorum for talking about “who is going to pay for birth control pills”—an apparent reference to Santorum’s statements in opposition to the Obamacare regulation Paul said in December he would stop if he were elected president.

“Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?” Crowley asked Paul.

“Well, I don’t see how that’s possible,” said Paul. “And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I’m worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people’s social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-social-conservatism-i-think-its-losing-position


13 posted on 06/01/2012 2:31:05 PM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: des

Exactly. This would be a open door to federal thought police.

Ron Paul has an actual plan to end abortion unlike the political hucksters in the GOP who only play the issue lip service.

Ron Paul - We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It also says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Thus, if an unborn child is a person from the moment of conception, as Paul pledged was his position, states must protect the life of the unborn child just as they protect the life of any other person and Congress has the explicit authority under the Constitution to make laws to ensure that is the case.

In signing the Personhood Pledge, however, Paul issued an “addendum” in which he reiterated his position that life begins at conception, said he supported a human life amendment to the Constitution, but at the same time argued that the federal government should not interfere with the states in passing laws on abortion.

“Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents,” said Paul.

“While I am known for my defense of Liberty, I often say that you can’t have Liberty without Life,” Paul continued. “I don’t just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.”

In the same statement, Paul went on to say: “A Human Life Amendment should do two things. First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does—through state laws.

“To summarize my views—I believe the federal government has a role to play,” said Paul. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed. I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

“I don’t see the value in setting up a federal police force on this issue any more than I do on other issues,” Paul said. “The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ Does anyone believe that will help life? We should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.

“As President, I will sign and aggressively advocate for a law that removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts,” said Paul. “This approach, done by simple majority vote and stroke of my Presidential Pen, would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to pass strong pro-life legislation immediately. Millions of lives would be saved by this approach while we fight to make every state a right to life state.”

In the same addedum to his Personhood Pledge, Paul vowed to stop enforcement of all Obamacare regulations, including the one that would force Catholic employers to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortifacients.

“I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans,” said Paul.

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, however, Paul criticized Santorum for talking about “who is going to pay for birth control pills”—an apparent reference to Santorum’s statements in opposition to the Obamacare regulation Paul said in December he would stop if he were elected president.

“Do you believe from what you see today that Rick Santorum can beat President Obama in November?” Crowley asked Paul.

“Well, I don’t see how that’s possible,” said Paul. “And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I’m worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people’s social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-social-conservatism-i-think-its-losing-position


14 posted on 06/01/2012 2:36:41 PM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Don’t bet on it. They don’t know how to shut up.


15 posted on 06/01/2012 3:18:38 PM PDT by History Repeats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: History Repeats

I’d like to see Jim Rob ban all Paul Bots.


16 posted on 06/01/2012 3:22:06 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Ron Paul and Obama agree on something this disgusting.


17 posted on 06/01/2012 8:18:19 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: des; rarestia

“..If it’s legal..”

This is legal HOMICIDE of innocent lives, and if we can at least LIMIT evil, we should.


18 posted on 06/01/2012 8:22:53 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

“Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)”

snip http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Abortion

Why is Ron Paul against a parent deciding what’s right for their minor child?


19 posted on 06/01/2012 8:25:50 PM PDT by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sun

I’m not in disagreement with you on any level, Sun. I’m simply pointing out that under our current system of laws, abortion is, sadly, legal. Regardless of who introduces the law, Republican or Democrat, it’s still an infringement on a legal freedom/liberty/homicide.

We have to fix the basis of the law, homicide of an unborn child, before we can fix anything else. This would just be a band-aid to a larger problem.


20 posted on 06/01/2012 9:49:15 PM PDT by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Apparently Ron Paul thinks this should be legislated by the States.

That’s a nice Constitutional viewpoint on it’s surface.

However, abortion supporters know that many States will be very liberal in their permission of it if the Federal government completely abandons the issue and leaves it to the States to legislate.

So in practical terms, making abortion issue a States rights issue would result in an ever-expanding abortion business as women seeking abortions would flock to abortion-friendly States.

The founders clearly were of the mind that a moral populace was necessary for a good government, even if the government is a representative one.

Abortion supporters make the issue one about a “woman’s right to control her own body”.

However, since a child in the womb is not it’s mother’s body, as it has it’s own DNA from the moment of conception, the issue is really one of a “mother’s responsibility to her child in her womb”, i.e., she has a responsibility to protect and nurture her child - because her child is completely dependent on her for survival while the child is in the mother’s womb.

Of course, in practical terms, the mother’s primary responsibility is to simply not intentionally kill her own child in her womb.


21 posted on 06/01/2012 9:52:11 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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