Cowardly Congress Scraps Abortion Bill

Cowardly Congress Scraps Abortion Bill January 26, 2015
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons, by Gage Skidmore https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/
Photo Source: Flickr Creative Commons, by Gage Skidmore https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

The United States House of Representatives’ leadership has made the decision to scrap a bill that would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. They went for a bill banning the use of government monies to pay for abortions, instead.

The reason? Evidently, a number of GOP congresswomen objected to the bill based on the fact that it did not allow sufficient exception for rape victims.

I have a couple of points here.

First, why not amend the bill to allow this exception? I know that there are pro life purists who refuse to amend legislation in this manner, but I’m not one of them. The bill would save lives, even with such an amendment. I know from dealing with these things as a legislator that politics is always the art of the possible. If that’s what it takes to pass a 20-week ban on abortion, then do it.

Second, even though I have dealt with upset legislators on these issues and know very well that reasoning does not work, I want to make the point for the record and for public discussion, that 20 weeks and later in a pregnancy is too late to be having an abortion, period.

At this point, it is more dangerous and far more traumatic for the woman to have an abortion than it would be to simply deliver the baby and try to save it. There is a good chance that these babies would live, if they were properly cared for.

Second, rape victims have had months to decide to abort. Even if you accept the idea that a woman should be able to abort a baby because it was conceived in rape, there is no reason why any rape victim needs five months to make up her mind about the question. Abortions after 20 weeks are needless killings. There is no reason to abort any child that far into pregnancy.

If the mother’s health is in danger, just deliver the baby and try to save it.

It’s entirely possible that the House will re-think its decision about this legislation. They are going to get a lot of fire from their own base over it. It’s very, very possible that the heat will force them to back down and move forward with the bill.

If they do, and if the bill gets to the President, he has already promised that he will veto it. That will make the whole issue one big fat vote getting, money raising issue for both parties.

It will be a win-win-win-win for everybody.

Except the babies.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

69 responses to “Cowardly Congress Scraps Abortion Bill”

  1. Here is another problem, in every state in the union you can drop your baby off at a place like a Hospital with very few questions asked and he/she will be a ward of the state. Is that an ideal life? No, but it’s still a life.

    I will also say the idea of exceptions for rape sounds good to a lot of people but I think in practice it would more or less be a nightmare. How are we to determine of a woman was actually raped or if she didn’t make it up to get an abortion. We hardly have a lot of time to examine the evidence of her claims.

    And so many claims anyways often end up in the category where you can’t really prove that there was rape but you can’t prove she was lying about it either.

    However as you point out, even if you accept that abortion has to be available to rape victims, 20 weeks is more then enough time to make a decision. . . How long should this decision take? Even if we do know 100% for sure you are the victim of rape. . . how long should we abort because of this? Right up to the due date?

    (I don’t believe we even need abortion in cases of rape, give birth and turn the child over to the state. At least you give the child a chance.)

    • Amen. And all of our pro-life legislators need to *practice* answering questions about these issues so they don’t get caught flat footed and stutter around like they have before. Right reason should always triumph in these debates, but it can’t if its proponents won’t state it clearly.

      • It disappointed me that when asked about their pro-life no matter what stances a lot of them gave really crappy answers that are easily twisted. From claiming that women couldn’t get pregnant from legitimate rape to “God intended it to happen” they just couldn’t put the answer the right way. The right way to answer is “Rape is a horrible thing, everyone knows that. But you don’t fix one horrible act by committing another horrible act. The infant in that woman’s womb did not rape her and deserves to live.

        To be fair you will probably get ripped apart for that statement as well, but at least it won’t make you look like an idoit.

        • Worse yet are the answers that indicate there is one standard for the “little people”, and a different standard for their own families. Dan Quayle’s response (echoed by George H. W. Bush) typified this. Closely related is the answer, “I used to think this is wrong, but now I find that a close family member has done it, so it must not be wrong after all.”

  2. “It will be a win-win-win-win for everybody. Except the babies.”

    UGH!

    There can be no compromise on anything. Pro-lifers won’t agree unless every single pregnancy is carried to term no matter what. Pro-choicers won’t agree unless every single pregnancy has an option to end it no matter how late it is. Everyone is wrong!

    • Sus1, just one comment. Pregnancy is a temporary condition. It will be over with in a short time. Abortion is not necessary and is not medical care.

      • I’ll be thinking, enjoying, worrying and everything else about my children to my dying breath – little bit longer than 9 months.

        Whether you believe abortions are medical care or not, it is a medical procedure.

        Thank you for proving exactly what I said. There can be no compromise.

          • A bill banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy is a compromise.

            Guaranteed healthcare for their entire lives for mom and baby – the same kind of healthcare that my family has because we can afford to pay for it. That would be a compromise too.

            Being pro-life for the baby means nothing unless you are pro-life for all that are born.

            • Being pro-life means making sure people have opportunities to make the most of their lives without government interference. Why should we start yet another mediocre to poor bill that victimizes more people? Read Rebecca’s post on rationing Medicare.
              I have taken care of babies who were being adopted. Pregnancy is a temporary “problem” with a very simple solution if the mother does not want a baby, adoption.

  3. My congressman, Renee Ellmers, is the head of the Republican Women’s Policy Committee. 20 congressmen came to her about the requirements of rape in the bill.
    Congressman Ellmers is against any rape exemption for the same reason I am against it. She is Pro-Life. I just got off the phone with her office.
    They should not have included this exemption at all. No abortions need to be done after 20 weeks, period.

    • The question Anne is which is better, to save some babies with a bill with an exemption, or to save no babies because you want a perfect bill? I’ve had to make this choice on legislation, and I opted to include the rape exemption in order to pass the legislation. That’s how I got the bill passed that stopped abortions in Oklahoma’s public hospitals. I would not have been able to live with myself if I had let the bill die — and also allowed babies whose lives I could have saved die along with it — for lack of the exemption. It’s not easy, being a legislator, and this sort of thing is part of the reason why. You literally have life and death in your hands, and you have to decide — right then — what you are going to do.

      • They passed a bill without the exemption on Thursday, which is what she preferred. I’m passing along that the story was a hit piece.

          • Here is the order of business on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States for November 22, 2015. There was no vote on an abortion ban for 20 weeks. None. There WAS a vote on a bill to prohibit the use of government money for abortions, which is exactly what the articles I’ve read say.

            9:00:21 A.M. The House convened, starting a new legislative day.
            9:00:26 A.M. Today’s prayer was offered by the House Chaplain, Rev. Patrick J. Conroy.
            9:01:23 A.M. The Speaker announced approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
            9:01:25 A.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – The Chair designated Ms. Bonamici to lead the Members in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
            9:01:43 A.M. ONE MINUTE SPEECHES – The House proceeded with one minute speeches, which by direction of the Chair would be limited to 5 per side of the aisle.
            9:14:32 A.M. H. Res. 42 Considered as privileged matter. H. Res. 42 — “Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.”
            9:14:42 A.M. H. Res. 42 DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 42.
            10:58:03 A.M. H. Res. 42 On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 239 – 183 (Roll no. 42).
            11:05:52 A.M. H. Res. 42 On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 242 – 179 (Roll no. 43).
            11:05:53 A.M. H. Res. 42 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
            11:09:36 A.M. H.R. 7 Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 42. H.R. 7 — “To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.”
            11:09:41 A.M. H.R. 7 Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
            11:09:52 A.M. H.R. 7 DEBATE – The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 7.
            12:33:24 P.M. H.R. 7 The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
            12:33:47 P.M. H.R. 7 Ms. Moore moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on the Judiciary.
            12:34:11 P.M. H.R. 7 DEBATE – The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Moore motion to recommit with instructions, pending reservation of a point order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to report the same back to the House forthwith with an amendment to clarify that no one is permitted to violate the medical privacy of any woman, including victims of rape and incest, with respect to her choice of or use of comprehensive health insurance coverage. Subsequently, the reservation of a point of order was withdrawn.
            12:44:04 P.M. H.R. 7 The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
            1:09:07 P.M. H.R. 7 On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 177 – 240 (Roll no. 44).
            1:16:33 P.M. H.R. 7 On passage Passed by recorded vote: 242 – 179 (Roll no. 45).
            1:16:34 P.M. H.R. 7 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
            1:22:07 P.M. COLLOQUY ON HOUSE SCHEDULE – The Chair recognized Rep. Hoyer for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with Mr. McCarthy(CA) on the expectations regarding the legislative schedule for the House during the upcoming week.
            1:41:48 P.M. Mr. McCarthy asked unanimous consent That, when the House adjourns on Thursday, January 22, 2015, it adjourn to meet on Monday, January 26, 2015, when it shall convene at noon for Morning-Hour Debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Agreed to without objection.
            1:42:25 P.M. ONE MINUTE SPEECHES – The House proceeded with further one minute speeches.
            1:45:24 P.M. SPECIAL ORDER SPEECHES – The House has concluded all anticipated legislative business and has proceeded to Special Order speeches.
            3:06:45 P.M. The House received a communication from Dolores Ridley, District Office Manager. Pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, Ms. Ridley notified the House that she had been served with a subpoena, issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, for grand jury testimony in a criminal case, and that after consultation with the Office of General Counsel, she had determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
            3:07:30 P.M. JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE – Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1024(a), and the order of the House of January 6, 2015, the Speaker appointed the following members of the House to the JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE: Mr. Amash, Mr. Paulsen, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Schweikert and Mr. Grothman.
            3:08:01 P.M. Mr. Franks (AZ) moved that the House do now adjourn.
            3:08:02 P.M. On motion to adjourn Agreed to by voice vote.
            3:08:03 P.M. The House adjourned pursuant to a previous special order. The next meeting is scheduled for 12:00 p.m. on January 26, 2015.

          • Ms. Hamilton, When I spoke to a staffer in Ms. Walorski’s office, she stated that my congresswoman would have voted in favor of the bill, but the decision was made “higher up” to cancel the vote. I’m suspicious that I was lied to because this is the issue that Walorski torpedoed Mr. Murdock’s campaign on during the primary (rape exceptions). Do you have any way of finding out for us what really is going on?

            Thank you.

            Jennifer

      • I personally would have abstained at the amendment vote, but I would have voted for the final bill. But that’s my conscience, mine alone, and I wouldn’t begrudge someone who voted for the exception for the purpose outlined.

      • I don’t see you as having that choice at all, given the fact that the bill will draw a veto, and you do not have the votes to override a veto. So in the absence of any real chance for a change in the law, the choice is between presenting a rational and coherent position — that the innocent may not be killed for the convenience of those more powerful than they — or presenting on incoherent position.

        • Howard, we need to do everything we can to pass the bill and not play politics. If this is about making a statement, then I’ve no use for it. That’s just politics. What I care about is saving lives. If the best chance to do that is by amending the bill, then amend the bill.

          You make laws by putting the law over each jump in turn. Would the president veto it? He says yes. Could we override? Maybe not. But we’d have a much better chance with this amendment.

          One reason we’re over 40 years out on this issue is because pro life people are not smart enough to be tactical and determined about passing this kind of legislation. They wuss at the goal line, and, to be honest, our elected pro life people are not all that serious about actually making law. They WANT these things to fail so they can use them for campaign issues.

          I once took advantage of the total lack of tactics in the pro life movement to kill pro life bills. Their idea of tactics was an open charge across a field into a fortified position.

          We need to be smarter than that. I repeat: This is about saving lives, not making statements.

          • No, the reason the pro-life movement has not progressed over the past 40 years is that pro-lifers reward Republicans for making speeches (when they need votes or campaign donations), not for what they get done. So Republicans have made countless speeches about abortion, but they only spend their political capital on what they really believe to be important — trade issues, taxes, etc.

            If you send this as a single bill to Obama, you are just making an empty gesture ANYWAY. Period. You are not being wily and strategic, you are just pretending so that when he vetoes it, you can go back to trade issues and taxes and tell the voters that you really tried and how reasonable you were and that maybe if they elect you again it will be different next time.

            Issues that congressmen really care about get attached to important bills that a president must sign, or that the Congress must pass over a presidential veto — a defense authorization, a debt limit extension, etc. I’ll admit that’s ugly, but it’s also playing hard ball, because in case you haven’t noticed, the other side has been playing hard ball for the past 40 years. The Congress has to play hard ball with the president, and pro-life voters must play hard ball with both.

            • Actually, I agree with you about this. The reason I’ve been so harsh about previous shut downs is that they were always for corporate interests. If they had used the budget extension before the president signed the HHS Mandate, I think they could have stopped it, flat. Also, Congress has the power to overturn the HHS Mandate, you know. As for a 20-week abortion ban that would save babies from a horrible death — I’m with you.

              • I agree with you about everything but ACA. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker and they passed it in conference, illegal on a number of levels, but passed with bribes to a lot of Congressmen, Stupak, Landrieu, “cornhusker kickback”, etc. They couldn’t stop it.

        • If they get enough heat from pro life people, they may indeed vote on it later. But only if they get enough heat.

          I saw video of a couple of the pro life groups who take $ from the RNC saying that this will get done in the future. It may, if other pro life groups have more backbone and raise enough grief for this Congress. Otherwise, no, it won’t.

          Last Thursday, it was scraped, and another bill was run out in its place. That’s a standard political ploy. If pro life people decide to let them get away with this, the bill to end abortion after 20 weeks will not be heard.

          It’s on us Manny, and it’s our responsibility not to be so gullible and partisan that we let them get away with this. No political party is really about pro life. They are about getting power and keeping power. Nothing else. We need to convince them that they have to do this to keep their power. Then, they will do it.

          • Of course we got to hold their feet to the fire. I was furious when it was pulled. But if they had scheduled it for later in the year and not come up last week we wouldn’t know any different. Give them the year. If they doon’t bring it up, we have a problem. As you know legislating is not an easy process.

            • I see no legitimate reason to wait a year. That’s a political consideration, to time it for the next election. They need to do the job they were elected to do and for which pro life people have worked for over 40 years.

  4. 5 months is too late to terminate—and yes, there could have been a provision for rape victims. But I agree—even rape victims can decide to terminate much, much sooner. My limit is 12 weeks.

    • 20 weeks was chosen because it is tied to the “fetal viability” standard in Roe. If one placed it closer to 12 weeks, there is little chance it could be upheld throughout the lower courts. To get this to SCOTUS would most likely require 2 district courts to go in different directions, and that was one of the goals.

  5. Dana Milbank? That’s where you get your information from? They didn’t pull a bait and switch. It’s going back to be revised. The rape reporting clause gave some legislators qualms. It will come up again. I was furious when it happened, but I have been reassured that Congresswoman Ellmers, who was responsible for getting it pulled and who happens to be a nurse in her real life, is truly pro-life. Her real life experience led her to rethink the mechanics of the reporting process. This bill will come up again, and will pass the Republicans. Now of course the Democrats stand in its way.

    • I hope you’re right Manny. But they did not say that. They had the option of a floor amendment, if they had chosen to use it. It was not necessary to pull the bill.

      As for Rs vs Ds on this, it’s true the Ds have become the party of abortion, at least on the national level. However, that does not mean that we should allow the Rs to play us on this issue, which they most assuredly will do, if they can get away with it. This is politics Manny, not family, not church, not friendship. Politics.

      • And it’s thinking like this that maybe led to 50% of ‘catholics’ to vote for a staunch pro abortion president. Perhaps we are played on this issue by liberals when they suggest that the Republican party is just playing us on this issue. I agree that the Republicans are inconsistent on pro life issues but that is still better than voting for a political party that is consistent in it’s support of aborting the unborn.

        • Oh for pete’s sake. You are going off into a totally unrelated tangent. We are talking about the best way to pass a massively important piece of pro life legislation, one that would save lives. Do you WANT to end abortion? Or do you want to play political games with it? That’s what we’ve been doing for the past 40 years; playing political games with it. Getting real means, among other things, doing what we have to do to pass laws that will end the carnage.

          If I have a chance to save lives, I will not stand around waiting for a more perfect chance to save every single life. I will save the lives that I can, right now. Because every day I dither, waiting for perfection, people will die who would have lived if I had acted. It’s a simple as that.

  6. “I know that there are pro life purists who refuse to amend legislation in this manner, but I’m not one of them. ”

    Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church are ‘pro life purists’. Shouldn’t we all be?

    • How many babies are you willing to kill to be a purist? My goal — and I meant it — was to save as many lives as I could. It’s been over 40 years of killing. Maybe we should try getting real.

      • Pro life ‘purist’ seems to imply there are different levels of being pro life. You are either pro life or not. Being ‘real’ means abortion is evil, no exceptions. That is what the Church teaches which means that is what Jesus teaches.

        • Pope John Paul II wrote that it was permissible to do things such as this exception if it was necessary in order to create a greater good. Passing a 20 week ban on abortion after decades of carnage is certainly a greater good.

          I repeat: This is about saving lives. A 20-week ban, even with an exemption for rape, would save many lives.

          • The problem with this exception is that anyone could claim that they had been raped, 5 months earlier and have a legal abortion even the day before their due date. So as amended the law wouldn’t ban even one abortion.

            I have heard from someone who talked to my representative Walorski that she acted at the request of the House leadership because they wouldn’t be able to get the bill as written through the Senate. It will be rewritten and passed later.

            • Yes, but it is a starting point. We need to pressure the Speaker of the House. He is behind only the VP in line to the presidency. He needs to listen.

              • There is no point in passing “pro_life” legislation that doesn’t save any lives. It makes it look as though Congress thinks if we’re pro-life we must be stupid.

                • Sue, if you stop 50% or 75% or 90% of abortions after 20 weeks that saves a lot of lives and makes people think. It also cuts into abortionists profits because they charge way more for late term abs. We have to win, even if it is step by step. This is how they won 40 years ago. I remember.

                  • If we allow women to say they were raped whether they were or not all they have to do to get an abortion is lie. I don’t see how legislation that allows this kind of loophole is going to save any lives at all, much less 50% of them.

            • As a former 15 year House staffer, this has nothing to do with passing it through the Senate. The House passes hundreds of bills that go nowhere in the Senate. Droipping the reporting requirement won’t move people off of where they are in the Senate.

              The best thing to do would have been to pass it, and make people in the Senate defend voting for abortions past 20 weeks.

          • It wasn’t just a rape exception, but it was mandating that the rape be reported to police that was objected to. Ellmers wanted to drop the reporting requirement.

            And honestly, it would gut the bill if you dropped it, because an assertion of rape would be enough. We have the case law here.

            • I agree. The bill I passed in Oklahoma had the requirement to report it to the police with a period of time after the alleged rape.

        • @ Johnnysc, i believe Ms. Hamilton is simply using the term “purist” as a means for articulating strategies and tactics for legislation. A “purist” is essentially one who proposes an all or nothing bill. It is one thing to propose quixotic solutions. It is another thing for a legislator to do nothing or even help “kill” a pro-life bill that will actually pass while telling us that they will somehow win the whole pro-life effort in a single grand legislative effort. When Ms. Hamilton talks about “the art of the possible” she is not saying that comprising on life is acceptable. She is talking about supporting legislative opportunities to protect life wherever and whenever we can. That is not compromise. Clearly, she is not wishy washy when it comes to the sanctity of life. I don’t think “purist” was meant without a good deal of irony.

  7. It’s my understanding that Ellmers voted for essentially the same bill a year ago. Was it really the rape thing or was it as the secular press reported–not now wanting to lose the female vote and millennial vote? I also thought that because of the defection in the female ranks it would not pass–is that correct or not? I do feel betrayed by Ellmers as I voted for her.

    • Ellmers did. She is pro-life with a 100% rating from Right to Life. She is also head of the women’s conference. A group of 20+ came to her complaining about the reporting requirement in the rape exemption. She took it to leadership. Boehner pulled the bill. So, call her and Boehner’s office and request that they bring the bill back up. Btw, she said she would have voted for it with or without the exemption to get it passed. Then, get ready to call Tillis and Burr and McConnel’s office and do the same. Burning up the phone lines will help.

      • It sounds like the Cuomo thing to me–Ellmers is caught between her Faith and her position. The leadership as well. I guess we will see if Republicans have the courage to take a stand.

          • I live in her district. Been there, done that. Emails and telephone calls. She is very much into women’s issues as they play out on the National scene. Let us hope she votes with an informed conscience.

  8. The whole 20 weeks idea is preposterous. Life begins at conception, like the day begins at dawn. With such a corruption of the truth, we we can kill anybody we want who is under an anaesthesia and doesn’t feel any pain. How do we know the unborn child or a drugged person don’t feel the pain??? Just because they don’t scream and cry when their bodies are ripped apart, doesn’t prove anything. Abortion is a barbaric and inhuman act that leaves a huge blood stain on a modern society. And those coward and lying Republicans who stalled the bill should be ashamed of themselves and look for work in the Democratic Party. God said: I have known you before you were born. Isn’t that enough for those thick headed feminists? A plague on both their houses!

    • Robert, we have to fight step by step. That’s what Rebecca is saying. You are 100% right about abortion. But, do you want to move towards eliminating them? Then, take this opportunity to move the goal. We’ve done it in lots of states and now have a chance to do it in the whole country. Move the goal line to 20 weeks and go from there. Call your congressman, then Boehner. After that will be your 2 senators an McConnel.

      • AnneG – I appreciate your comment and your involvement, but step by step is not good enough. It’s been 40 years and 50 millions innocent baby victims of this kind of politics. Moving the goal doesn’t save a soul. Having lived under communist regime for far too long, I have learned two things: nobody is as tough as they appear, and any compromise is a sign of weakness. The republicans got emboldened because they know that the conservative voter has no other choice but to vote for them, so their little comfy nests are not endangered. Obama is laughing in their face like they were bunch of insignificant and destructing rebels without a cause. Trump was right. The GOP can only talk but does absolutely nothing. And why vote for something that will be vetoed by the president? It’s a circus out there and the president isn’t even representing the majority of Americans. He, and his gang, should be impeached without a delay, and then the government would be able to do what is right and necessary. This step-by-step approach is naïve and wasteful. Two more years of this nonsense will take America 20 years to dig itself out of the Obama nightmare.

        • You sound like a lot of my Cuban friends. I’m sympathetic, but to use a football metaphor, you cannot always throw Hail Marys.
          We have made a huge amount of progress in the states. State by state we are turning the bloody tide. Not enough, but a start.
          I’m concerned about where the country is headed, too. But I know that most of the time, the Lord chastens so that we will become more faithful and return to our first love. That’s what I see and, even if we lose, I am an American, but God’s first.

          • I don’t know about the Cubans, Anne. I come from Eastern Europe where we have 1 religion – Catholicism. The problem with America is its prevailing Protestantism. If Ameica was Catholic, Roe Vs. Wade would never happen and you would have to move any goals, or making baby steps to reverse it. You are simply not on the same page, and Pseudo- Catholic politicians calling your rightous effort as “War on Women” only adds to the confusion. I understand that God should be first, but I also believe His Holy Spirit moves people to more decisive actions. The Berlin Wall would still stand today, if people would try to take it down with their nails and screwdrivers. America has helped made the Central and Eastern Europe free, I think it’s time you now learn from us.

  9. I just spoke to Congressman Ellmer’s DC office. First, the bill that passed Thursday defunded all abortions. It has gone to the Senate. I think it is HR 7.
    The fetal pain bill, restricting abortions after 20 weeks, is being rewritten. The blowup was over language concerning a rape exception, that rape had to be reported to police. She says she does not care if that is in the bill or not, but there is a group in the R caucus that does, probably because they get beat up on that by Emily’s List and other pro abortionists.
    So, I called the Speaker’s office and told them that I expect to see our party be able to pass these restrictions and that I was watching.
    I will keep calling.
    Rebecca, part of the problem is politics. I think we need to keep reminding the people in DC who ey work for and that we are watching. They are getting lots and lots of calls.
    Btw, they are taki up a bill this week outlawing human and child trafficking. Not sure the particulars.
    That’s DEFUNDED. Darn autocorrect.

  10. While our hearts ache for the day preborn babies are safe at last, the unwelcome truth is that not only must an absolute approach result in absolute failure, it also will entail some collateral damage, in the form of dismay among pro-lifers while those in the pro-death camp exult yet again.

    Right now gyms and fitness centers all over the country are jammed with new members bravely attempting to fulfill their New Year’s resolutions. Their ranks will thin out sharply after a few more weeks as unrealistic expectations yield the inevitable experience of yet another failure. This must not be our model.

    Those who have had relevant legislative experience, such as our kind host, have advocated an incremental approach, simply to overcome inertia. Nothing succeeds like success. In football, establishing a solid ground attack creates opportunities for big passing plays. In any sport, a team coming off a victory enjoys significant advantages against a team which has just endured a loss.

    Well, we’ve had enough losses in the last few years to last the rest of the 21st Century. Let’s get a few wins on the board so we can make it to the playoffs!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.