Good Job, House of Representatives!

Striking a blow for civilization:

Below are statements from The Catholic Association on The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that the House just passed:

“The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act passed Tuesday in the House will save lives. We are deeply grateful to the supporters of this bill. The brutality of the Gosnell case demonstrated that not only is late-term abortion a danger to viable babies, but to women as well. A recent poll reported that only 14 percent of Americans support third-trimester abortions and only 27 percent support second-trimester abortions showing that Americans overwhelmingly support restrictions on late-term abortion.” Ashley McGuire, Senior Fellow with The Catholic Association

“We commend Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and the House for voting to limit late-term abortion in the wake of the murder conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. The overwhelming majority of Americans support such a ban, recognizing that there is no difference between a fetus in-utero in the sixth month of pregnancy and a baby in the NICU born at six months of pregnancy, except the protection of the law.” Maureen Ferguson, Senior Policy Advisor with The Catholic Association

  • F.C. Baur

    So can we finally give up the false pretense that overturning Roe v. Wade is all about principled federalism and sending the issue “back to the states”?

    • sbark

      This is an odd comment to put on a Catholic website. There are people who argue that Roe v Wade is a state’s rights issue and that the decision should be left to the states. The Catholic view is that abortion is gravely immoral and shouldn’t be allowed.

    • Thom Willis

      I don’t think there are many Catholics who pretend that their objection to Roe v Wade is purely political. In fact a pro-life philosophy demands something more than political. But maybe your experience is different from mine.

    • Scott

      There are some who oppose Roe v Wade purely on those grounds. In fact, I’d say that many pro-abortion libertarians would oppose Roe v. Wade on just those grounds (but then advocate for keeping abortion legal at the state level). On the other hand, a pro-life federalist (or libertarian for that matter) might say that abortion is both gravely immoral *and* a matter for the states (and then advocate for making abortion illegal at the state level). In other words, abortion is, properly speaking, a state crime, not a federal one, in the same way that most murders are state crimes, not federal ones. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion was handled at the state level, not the federal level. Constitutionally, the federal government’s power doesn’t extend to this sort of thing (see the 10th amendment).

      • wlinden

        Right. Pro-aborts do not want the matter left to the states because some might make the “wrong” decision. Pro-life ideologues do not want the matter left to the states because some might make the “wrong” decision. Both groups share the attitude of “To Hell with the Constitution whenever it gets in the way of what we happen to want.”

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Rather symbolic blow. At best, this will squeek by in the Senate by one vote, only to be vetoed by ‘leave no child in the womb alive’ Obama.

    • Irksome1

      I’m just as cynical as you are. Get at me when one if the congressional chambers passes pro-life legislation that actually has a chance of becoming law.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I’m even more cynical. Get back to me when they even come up with truly pro-life legislation as requested by the Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade in 1973.

    • http://estquodest.com/ Ⓔⓢⓣ⋅Ⓠⓤⓞⓓ⋅Ⓔⓢⓣ

      This is how legislation works, though. Look at the partial-birth abortion ban. Vetoed in 1995 by Clinton, signed in 2003 by Bush. You work out the details, the vote counts, the amendments, all that legislative crap to get set for the next time. You want this thing to be passed, elect a pro-life president.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I hope so. I pray so. But we’ve had “pro-life” presidents several times in the past, along with “pro life” legislatures, and I’ve yet to see anything more than symbolism that continues to discriminate against some subset of the unborn.

        Incrementalism is a failure.

        We need a personhood amendment, and we need to make sure that *all* other priorities are put on hold until we get it. Balanced budgets don’t matter if we don’t have a right to life. Taxes don’t matter if we don’t have a right to life. Material wealth and the pursuit of happiness doesn’t matter until we have a right to life. Liberty doesn’t matter without a right to life.

        Block everything until we get a right to life.

  • http://blog.goliard.us/ Blog Goliard

    I appreciate the sentiment; but I’d have voted no, as in my view this is beyond the Federal government’s powers as enumerated in the Constitution.

    We increase Federal police powers at our peril.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X