Sex-Selective Abortion Ban Falls Short of Needed Votes
The bill cited a 2008 study by Columbia University economists that examined the sex ratio of U.S.-born children and found “evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage” along with an obvious “son preference” in certain segments of the U.S. population. “The evidence strongly suggests that some Americans are exercising sex-selection abortion practices within the United States consistent with discriminatory practices common to their country of origin, or the country to which they trace their ancestry,” the bill states.
The measure also highlighted how Congress has passed disapproval of sex-selective abortion in China, and how the U.S. delegation at the 2007 United Nation’s Annual Meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women spearheaded a resolution calling on countries to condemn sex-selective abortion.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) told a story on the floor about a person in India who would wait to hear the repeated splashes of baby girls being dropped in the Ganges, then rescue the girls and take them to an orphanage. “That culture has arrived here in this country,” King warned.
“Public statements from within the medical community reveal that citizens of other countries come to the United States for sex-selection procedures that would be criminal in their country of origin,” the bill states. “Because the United States permits abortion on the basis of sex, the United States may effectively function as a ‘safe haven’ for those who seek to have American physicians do what would otherwise be criminal in their home countries–a sex-selection abortion, most likely late-term.”
Anyone performing an abortion with knowledge that it was sought on the basis of gender or race would have been subject to a fine and/or up to five years in prison under the measure. It also allowed for civil action by the mother or relatives in the event of such an abortion.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters at a news conference today that she opposed the bill, citing the opposition of the American Congress of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (which last year gave Franks, a steady opponent of abortion, a zero rating in its legislator scores).
“Well, the maker of the motion has said he brought it to the floor for a purpose that was not exactly scientific,” Pelosi said. “And so I think it should be treated that way.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked at today’s press briefing how the administration could oppose the ban on gender-based abortion when President Obama was speaking out so vociferously against gender-based discrimination.
“We oppose gender discrimination in all its forms,” Carney said. “And we don’t selectively pursue legislation in order to achieve other ideological goals. We oppose it in all its forms. This piece of legislation would have the hopefully unintended consequence of criminalizing a failure by a doctor and prosecuting a doctor for criminal behavior if — if he or she were somehow to fail to intuit the motivations of a patient in making a very private medical decision.”
This is hardly the last effort by Franks to battle abortion.
Franks recently oversaw a subcommittee hearing on his District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which prohibits abortion in the district after 20 weeks with an exception for the life of the mother, allows civil recourse for the mother and the baby’s relatives, and requires any physician who performs an abortion to report it. That bill has 196 co-sponsors, and has sparked fury from D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who claims it violates the district’s home-rule rights.
“The supposedly small government, Tea Party Republicans lacked the courage to introduce a post-20-week abortion ban bill for the entire nation, which they knew the nation would not buy, and took the bully’s path to make an ideological point at the expense of the District of Columbia,” Norton said earlier this month.
Republicans expressed disappointment at today’s defeat — which came a day after an anti-abortion group released video showing sex-selective abortion counseling at a Planned Parenthood in Austin, Texas — but vowed to press on.
“There are few issues that everyone should be able to agree on,” said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “That abortions performed simply because of the sex of the child are unconscionable is one of them.”
“If there is a ‘war on women,’ as President Obama asserts, where are Democrats when it’s time to protect the most defenseless of all women – baby girls?” King said. “I’m looking forward to House action allowing the pro-life majority to protect baby girls by passing PRENDA under regular order.”
The problem with this law is that, once you give the government the right to intervene in a decision, you cannot control HOW it will intervene.
A law banning abortions based on the sex of the baby would be precedent for the denial of medical benefits for a baby identified as having Down Syndrome.
Be very, very careful.
HEY VALERIE: Is that your advice? “Be very, very careful”?, when little, tiny baby girls who can’t defend themselves, can’t be heard, can’t even halt the abortionists blades with their tiniest of hands, are being slaughtered by the thousands? “Oh, let’s be careful about infringing on that most precious of feminine rights…the right to kill a baby because I don’t like the sex!”
You are a joke…if you can’t take a position on this issue – and the right position, I might add – then you have no business being in the argument. You can’t think right. Your best bet is to get a comfy government job where all you have to do is say “yes” and be sure to take your mandatory coffee breaks. That’s your best bet. That’s where you are……….
The republicans that voted against this need to be targeted in the next election…tell why they voted no to the public or in their church..
AND we need the names of those republicans that voted against it!!!
I want to hear their explanations..they scream conservative yet do not vote that way..explanations are in order..
As per the Washington Post’s Congress Votes Database:
-Voted against:
Justin Amash, Michigan
Charles Bass, New Hampshire
Robert Dold, Illinois
Richard Hanna, New York
Nan Hanworth, New York
Mary Mack, California
Ron Paul, Texas
-Abstained from voting:
Danny Burton, Indiana
Jeffrey Fortenberry, Nebraska
Frank Guinta, New Hampshire
Charles Lewis, California
Connie Mack, Florida
Kevin McCarthy, California
Martha Roby, Alabama
Charles Young, Florida
Here’s hoping that Republican voters in their districts will voice their displeasure in no uncertain terms.
My advice is not to be stupid. You should try following it.
Abortion is evil, and I cannot imagine a consequence that would be grave enough not to be worth enduring to be rid of it.
Wow. That’s some frighteningly muddled thinking you have going on there.
Any push against legal abortion in this country is a push in the right direction.
Funny how you don’t see it as a step toward making more flavors of abortion illegal, and ultimately ALL abortion.
You mean like in Illinois (that obama refused t halt three times) where babies born alive from botched abortions were denied medical care and thrown in a dark closet to die alone? That kind of denial of care?
It has been my fervent wish that anyone in the nation who thinks abortion is a good thing and somehow necessary should be forced to watch one in its entirety with no ability to avert their gaze or close their eyes.
These same pro-abortionists have very odd ideas, to say the least. They defend “women’s health” yet want to eliminate the death penalty. What is an abortion other than a de facto death penalty for doing nothing other than being born at all?
I’m not a very religious guy but not only do I cry inside for every abortion done on this Earth but wonder if God Himself has a plan for those souls and for the ones who commit the act itself.
So much of the argument the left creates and has created about this is about when a person becomes “viable” yet they think nothing of the notion that someone may have considered the very same thing while they were gestating.
THOU SHALT NOT KILL
Again, not overly religious here but we humans seem to have become comfortable with all the rationalizations for that commandment. My own exception is when someone is trying to kill my family or me. But just because the newborn is unwanted? How does anyone rationalize THAT? How?
As I get older this is one issue that makes me sicker every passing minute. The millions of newborns or never-to-be-borns who could’ve invented the perpetual motion machine, been a loving son or daughter, a friend, a giver, a PERSON. The left supposedly harps about HUMAN RIGHTS all the time but what about the ones who cannot speak for themselves?
As member of the human race I cannot absolve myself of that part of the responsibility toward this and like anyone it’s something I have to live with.
It lowers our entire civilization to savage levels.
I agree. The part that gets me is why do these children have to die? Why can’t they be given up for adoption? There are couples out there who want children so bably they will even go overseas to essentially BUY them.
We should be back orphanages or some modern equivalent. Forget foster care – that’s proven to be a bad joke. A lot of children could actually be matched with perspective adoptive parents. But SOMETHING has got to be better than just letting all these babies be murdered before they’ve taken their first breath.
Most leftists no doubt view life beginning when a baby is old enough to vote the straight democrat ticket. Before that, they are useless blobs of inconsequential protoplasm to them. (Unless a creepy trial lawyer like John edwards figures how to use unborn babies for big profits – then they are worth millions.)
Very astute comment. Why is the party of “keep government hands off”, going so gang-busters into moving in between a woman an her physician, at THIS time?
Valerie: Too late I fear-Government already has its hand all over it.
This whole abortion issue has gotten more convoluted than my brain can take. At some undefined time, there comes to exist such a thing as a human being and this human being has legal rights. Prior to this coming out event, it is pre-human and subject to the privacy right of the pre-human carrier (pre-mother?). So, if this pre-human doesn’t have rights, how can there be a law to prevent discrimination against it? How can there be laws that if the pre-human is killed by a criminal assault on the pre-mother, it can be considered murder? How can the government justify spending money on pre-human care? And, since a woman can do whatever she wishes with her body, including disposal of the pre-human, if she allows the pre-human to graduate to human status, how can legal and financial responsibility for this decision be transferred to the sperm donor? Yikes!
In some states if a pregnant mother is murdered and the infant doesn’t survive, it’s considered a double-homicide. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think that’s the case.
Exactly. One of the points I was trying to make.
Why aren’t the Republicans who voted against this bill listed by name? Who are these sub-humans? Why are they not named? I’ve always believed in TRYING to have a big tent for Republicans….but the tent should NEVER include such people. THROW THEM OUT….NOW!
This again supports my basic proposition that Democrats are the party of Man. They are the party that has rejected God, having totally invested themselves in the worship of the Supremacy of Man. They want to supplant God with a glorification of themselves. This is not your grandpa’s Democratic party, no sir! It’s a party filled with people who believe in their own faux supremacy and who DENY the Creator as an indirect platform. Go ask any Democrat today if they believe in God. You’ll get the same worn-out, meaningless, feel-good answers: “Oh, I’m spiritual”, or “I believe in the idea of god”, or “I was raised Catholic, and I’m not putting that guilt trip on my kids!”.
“They hate Me, thus they will hate you”, thus say the Lord (paraphrasing). THIS is why they are so Satan-bent on killing, and killing, and killing the most defenseless, the most precious of His creation. Repulsive, lower than farm animals……
LovelyEarth – Just to add to your statement: How is aborting female fetuses not a war on women?
I grant, though, there would be great difficulty in policing any rule saying that a fetus cannot be aborted when the purpose is to abort a female.
My fear is that if we make certain abortions a “thought crime”, it will open up a can of worms that was cracked open with the idea of “hate crimes”. Another problem is that iirc, ultrasounds are severely restricted in India in a desperate attempt to slow the Indian War on Women; ultrasounds have been an important tool in turning America into a pro-life country so if its use was limited or banned, we’d lose out as fewer women would see what these “blobs of tissue” really look like. And there lies the difference between a Christian country and a non-Christian country: the pro-lifers in Christian countries want ultrasounds so that people can see what their unborn daughters look like, and the pro-lifers in non-Christian countries don’t want people to see what their unborn daughters look like.
good….as liberterian, i dont want the govt having anything to do with heath or reproductive choices. i no more want them to force me to reproduce any more than i would want them to force me not to reproduce. i dont want the govt to tell me the reasons we can and cannot have kids. the choice AND responsibility for reproduction should rest soley on the parents.
Well, with roe vs wade the “government” FORCED every state in this union to accept MURDERING babies as the law of the land. If that is not the government forcing themselves into reproductive rights, I don’t know what is.
This IS akin to slavery. It is the law of the land that babies belong to women as proprty and women can do with their property as they choose. As simple as it is to throw away a pair of shoes, so women can toss their children into a garbage can with no regard to how the fathers of these human beings might feel about their children being murdered.
Amen lolly. You know, this whole blanket excuse that “it’s my body” reeks of such selfishness, such disdain for anything that may interfere with one’s “happiness” (which appears to be going to clubs and getting hammered, ala Snookie types, or “finding oneself” in a European vacation paid for by MasterCard). This issue gets so under my skin that I can’t even response with my usual stupid sarcasm!
THIS. A thousand times this.
The government did not overstep by seeking to restrict abortion. It overstepped when it labeled one human being killable and the other not.
Carn, you hit the nail on the head.
The opinion is online. You can read it for yourself. You might find the section that stops all the good lawyers cold. It’s the one about the consequences of a grant of power to the government. If you bother to read the whole thing, you’ll find out that the arguments that are being raised now against the decision were dealt with in the decision.
You can start here, with the summary, and get all the parts.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html
Don’t be stupid. Read an learn. If you give power to this government to intervene in abortion decisions, it will wind up coercing them, like China is doing right now.
Don’t. Be. Stupid.
You keep acting like the government is breaching boundaries by restricting abortion but your memory is selective. The government already overstepped when it began drawing lines that didn’t exist which allowed some people to be eliminated with impunity.
The government already overstepped.
The government itself over-reached and found a constitutional right for women to murder human beings 40 years ago and I’m the stupid one here. Gotcha!
As much as I’d like to ban it altogether, I’ll “give in” only as far as I believe it’s a states rights issue. However, I also believe that since Planned Parenthood is a “for profit” multi billion dollar company that not a penny of tax payer money is given to it.
HEY “JMZ”: Read my response to your brainiac pal Valerie above and apply it to the vast wisdom in your post. Let me ask you something Newton: should the “government” – which happens to be nothing more than the People’s selected representatives – be able to tell you not to kill another person because you simply want to? Or not to strike another person in the head with a baseball bat because “that’s my choice?” Huh, what’s your answer Einstein? The ONLY difference with those examples and killing a CHILD in the womb because you don’t like the sex is because it’s growing in you. You’re given this beautiful ability to create – by the Creator Himself, I may add – and you would allow the killing of that beautiful creation because it happens to have a vagina? You’re okay with that? You see no problem here? here’s my advice: get out of the argument if you can’t get past 3rd grade thinking. I guess the only benefit I got from your post is a re-affirmation that the so-called “libertarian” can’t think his/her way out of a slurpee cup.
Regarding the “It’s my body” argument: The expectant mother is more in the position of a landlord who wants to prematurely terminate a nine month lease by executing her tenant.
Kinda sorta. The argument I’ve heard from progressives is that the fetus is a collection of cells, not a human being. To them, aborting a fetus is akin to popping a zit.
You don’t believe in liberty; you believe in licentiousness. Liberty says that the you are forbidden to violate another person’s body, and that is exactly what abortion does.
Ah, the libertarians are heard from!
I just love that idea that illegal abortion is “legislated morality” and “the state intruding in private lives,” so we just have to let abortion happen.
As if legal abortion is somehow the “value neutral” position.
I really am sick of libertarians.
I consder myself a libertarian. I’m very conservative, but I would allow this to be a states rights issue. The feds shouldn’t interfer (as they did with roevwade) the people of the states vote their conscience and people can vote with their feet if they don’t like the conscience of their state.
What I’d REALLY like to do is forbid it altogether (unless the mother’s life really is in danger) because I just can’t abide this senseless murder being allowed here. It is just truly devilish.
The time to make reproductive choices is BEFORE another human being is involved. As many choices one has these days to prevent pregnancy, it is sheer apathy that says killing these humans is a matter of reproductive choice. This genocide of the unborn is not libertarian, it is barbaric evil. As a libertarian, this lie embarrasses me. I suppose the non-aggression principle goes out the window when infanticide is the topic of discussion.
Many in our government, are very sick individuals. They stand there with a straight face and argue for the right to kill their children, especially the little girls. Ok, the Supreme Court ruled that you have this “right”, so why do I have to pay for it. If you want this right, you should pay for it yourself and leave the rest of us out of it. I don’t want this blood on my hands.
As a religious person, I believe that we will be under the judgement of God for the national policy of abortion on demand. And all nations that turned their face away from God, also faced his retribution and punishment.
What makes you think we are NOT being judged for this. Just look back over the last 40 years (and close to 50 million dead babies later) and look how we have devolved into a barbarous and coarse country. Our society is debased with debauchery and we are a mean spirited people.
Despite our numbers, those of us who consider ouselves Christians don’t stand up for anything righteous and just bow down meekly to the evil in our midst. I see very little to praise about us any more.
Indeed, Lolly, indeed. It will be better for the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah on the last day than it will be for us.
They knew no better. We are supposed to.
I am still amazed at the high number of abortions that occur in this country!. When did we become a Nation who no longer cherishes our Children? How is it that we sanction the decay and selfishness of a few individuals over a thriving community? To all of you on the Left who feel this is appropriate ask yourself this, should your Mother have aborted you?
…should your Mother have aborted you?
Really, the entire decades-long argument can be boiled down to this single question. It’s so obvious, and they refuse to see it.
Does this means that the woman’s body is no longer her own, at least if it’s a girl?
No – it means that little girls have no more rights to life than little boys (and less rights for those parents only seeking sons). So, apparently, women only have control over their bodies when they reach reproductive age – not before.
This is a shame. I have always said that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, but we are going down a bad road here. If you can kill a child just because it’s a girl, what’s next? With DNA testing that’s going on today, you could probably tell what any fetus is going to look like when it grows up. So do we start aborting kids because they have the wrong hair color, or if they’re too short or too tall, or if they’re going to be too fat or too small? We are already justifying the extermination of fetuses if they are going to have physical or mental problems, so why is it such a stretch of the imagination to believe that one day we will be aborting kids simply beccause they won’t be visually appealing when they grow up?
Soon certain parents will either abort a kid because they either want to breed the “perfect” child or they simply don’t want to be bothered with what nature handed them, and that’s not only a shame, it just isn’t right. The Nazis tried to breed a master race and I fear that we’re attempting to go down that same road.
Do I have an answer for this? No I do not. As I said, a woman should be allowed to do what she wants to do with her body. But who fights for the weakest among us, especially those that may not be “perfect?” We need to have a few more people stop and think about what’s actually going on when they make this decision, rather than treating a human life as if it were some sort of “distraction,” to use our president’s very unfortunate phrase.
With genetic testing they can also identify dna sex based mutations that lead to “gayness”. Are they testing for that giving women the option to abort children that will become gay,lesbian ,transgenger etc ?
I guess libs are ending the war on women by eliminating their existence .
OK liberals, help me out here.
Aborting all the fetuses is better than aborting half of them?
Just so we’re clear…
“george(The Killer) tiller” …… Meh, he murdered tens of thousands. I consider his death no more immoral than a late term abortion. In fact, I consider his death much less immoral than a late term abortion. Kind of along the lines of ..”If you could have assassinated…insert name of any mass murderer here….. ”
I’ll let God decide that one. If I am on a jury of tiller The Killer’s abortionist. I would let him go.
“The measure also highlighted how Congress has passed disapproval of sex-selective abortion in China,”
This is a myth. The vast majority of people have neither the healthcare nor desire to do such a thing as screen against girls. There is the occasional practice of raising girls with relatives in order to cheat the 1-child policy. The western media loves turning such cases into statistical time-bombs, or even infanticide. However all of these “crises” are false, nasty stereotypes meant to foment racial fears for political gain. Dissident “Chen” is most assuredly aware of this, as are his supporters (creators) in the news media.
long time congresscritters being dethroned all around. more to come. bad mistake. this helps conservative and many other voters in a way. votes like this will make it easy to spot the kooks in congress at election time.
Really what the abortion supporters are saying is, “Your baby is no good ” and in their hearts they feel the mother is no good either. That’s just the bottom line and pro-lifers must do a better job of articulating the goodness of that baby and mother.
So, tell me what’s so good about being raised by some street walker or some brood mare who has 7 kids by 7 different dads who finally realizes it’s not a good idea to have kid #8. These are the kind of people who, if they do have a car, they just might leave you sitting in it (in your gov’t-issued car seat maybe) to swelter in 100+ degree heat while they gamble, shop or whatever.
Yes, I am playing devil’s advocate here, but someone needs to do it.
If she’s pregnant, she already has kid #8, so it’s a little late to be deciding that it’s a bad idea to have kid #8. Murder is never a solution.
As a human being I find abortion abhorrent. As a constitutional conservative I oppose the bill because the federal government has no authority to legislate in this area. If you disagree with me please cite the relevant constitutional article. Emotion driven legislation is the province of Liberals.
This is an area reserved for the states.
We can’t insist on fealty to the Constitution only when opposing the Left. We have to be consistent and demand fealty from the Right as well.
“the federal government has no authority to legislate in this area.”
Does it have the authority to say what can be killed with indifference without a trial?
To define human by laying down false lines in the sand?
Show me your relevant article.
Eric, the relevant portion of the Constitution is the due process of law provision. If an unborn baby is considered human, to kill it without due process is illegal. I too find abortion abhorrent and wouldn’t it be interesting if the numbers of babies killed by abortion in this country since Roe vs. Wade is roughly equal to the numbers of illegal immigrants in the same time period?
Never pick up a loaded question like the one that you answered. Fiends just want to waste your energy.
To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Just who is our posterity?
“What in God’s name have we come to?” he added.
This is what we have come to:
Once the Supreme Court said that women have the right to choose to kill their unborn babies for any reason or no reason, the part of society that still has some morals and a conscience can no longer object to any particular reason.
The surprise is not that the pro-death camp sees nothing wrong with killing babies because they’re girls. The surprise is that the pro-life camp is still shocked by the details of depravity.
Bobbcat, there have been 60 million abortions in this nation are you suggesting that all these women are whores and child abusers?
No, not entirely. As I indicated above, I was playing devil’s advocate to the statement “..pro-lifers must do a better job of articulating the goodness of that baby and mother.”
The last time I checked the stats, the most common reason for seeking elective abortion was the notion that the woman could not afford to raise her child. Obviously this would cover all types of people, not just whores & child abusers.
Bottom line? The RvW decision recognizes reproductive rights as just that. They trump any & all rationales that people can possibly come up with to outlaw elective abortion, including my own arguments.
There are no throwaway women. The women you describe need God, to get to the heart of the problem. Their children need love from their mothers, their fathers, and to know God’s love too, not death. But thanks for giving us a glimpse into the depths of your soul.
Which god are you referring to? There are many gods and many religions.
You know full well he was speaking of Yahweh. You’re just being obnoxious.
Dr. Anthony Levatino delivers testimony, May 17, 2012, on H.R. 3803, the “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”. 5:12 video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t–MhKiaD7c
Interesting discussion! Recall that Margaret Sanger was all about eugenics, and abortion can be used as a tool in this pursuit. We often think of eugenics as the government controlling marriage and breeding, but an alternate strategy is to give people the tools and then “teach” them how to use them via indoctrination. Obama tells us that having a child is punishment. Knowing that your child will be disabled and not getting an abortion is looked upon as peculiar, perhaps even wrong. Progressives seem to have indoctrinate African-American folks into believing abortion is about as desirable as having a baby – after destroying the African-American family structure with the Great Society. Birth rates tend to fall in more “advanced” countries, where progressive ideology supplants traditional values. Gender-based abortion is just the next step along the progressive social engineering highway.
True about Sanger but not sure it’s a conspiracy among the leftist elites. Many people do believe it though & they are not exactly tinfoil hat types. It (population control through elective abortion) does seem to dovetail just a bit with the pattern the Democrats displayed back during the civil rights era (many voted against the Civil Rights Act).
Earlier this year, an anonymous writer posted an anguished description of his witnessing the abortion of one of his twin children, conceived by his wife as the result of in vitro fertilization.
In that piece (“Abortion, the New Scar on My Soul,” March 4, AT), the tormented author describes how, at the moment the needle entered the amniotic sac, both babies instantly perceived its threat and tried to get away. He further describes, in some of the most haunting words that I have ever read, watching the child chosen for elimination fight for his life until the very last moment.
My identification with that tiny baby is well-nigh beyond description because of a personal experience.
For a whole host of reasons, none of them good, my maternal grandmother opposed my mother’s marriage to my father with the violence of a hell-cat, at one point petitioning the Archbishop for an annulment (in a smashing display of wrong-but-never-in-doubt chutzpah, a trait that, alas, I’m more than a bit tainted with myself).
She’d come from Germany, it was the late 30’s, my dad was olive-complexioned with fiercely dark eyes. She routinely referred to him as a “sand-nigger,” and went so far as to tell my mother that all her children would be born black (and, God knows where she got it from, the hilarious additional imprecation that, “he’ll make you eat grasses,” a taunt I used to toss his way every time I returned from our garden with a fistful of mint for the evening’s salad).
Despite being a generally happy baby, a frightened, anxious mood inexorably crept over me as darkness would begin to fall, and some of my earliest memories included an unwillingness to dutifully lie down and fall asleep, compelled somehow instead to rage at my father’s retreating back as I shook the railing of my crib and shouted two questions with all the ferocity I could muster: “Where was I before I was here?” and “Where do I go when I die.” (How the guy held up is beyond me. Let’s just say he was pretty much the rock of all time.)
When I would eventually fall asleep, I could frequently count on being awakened in naked terror by a recurring nightmare. (Persistent sleepwalking was also on the menu—talk about a placid nocturnal trifecta!!
) In the nightmare, I was underwater in an inescapably small space, and some sort of juggernaut akin to the asteroid that took out the planet literally filled all the space in front of me and I knew my utter annihilation was seconds away. I would awaken screaming at this point, as a kid, in later years, “simply” beside myself.
One day in my twenties a beloved uncle and I were visiting over coffee, and he was filling me in on many details about my parents’ star-crossed (to all the witnesses), but ultimately tragic and short-lived love affair. Since I was six weeks old when my mother died, I hung on every word. When we got into the area of my grandmother’s relentless browbeating and harassment of my mother, which I’d known about but not that it had also included physical abuse, he revealed to me that my grandmother had thrown a chair at my mother’s belly when she was carrying me. A jolt of recognition electrified me from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet: my nightmare, unmasked!! Best of all, it went away. (My other favorite part of this story was learning that my upright father, a pillar of the community who literally defined the word “dignity,” had stormed from the house that day, hunted down the brother-in-law who had participated in this unthinkable act, and cold-cocked him on the main corner of the central downtown business district.)
I have always been opposed to abortion, but I have never had the balls to go big or go home by making any sort of public statement about it until seeing the movie, “October Baby,” which brought all of this back to me after so many decades. The protagonist and I share the same birthday, and yes, I took that as a sign that it was long past time for me to stand up and be counted, despite what many readers here may ridicule as a lurid, senseless tale.
But I cede its meaning to no one.
Moving post.
Award-Winning Documentary – “Shocking!” About abortion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI&feature=player_embedded
While it is understandable that Democrats voted against this bill, as they are, for the most part, mentally deranged to begin with (though, it should be noted that the 20 of them who voted according to their conscience and not their demented party’s ideology, deserve to be commended), it is completely inexcusable that 7 Republicans voted against it, and (just as inexcusable, in my opinion) that 8 Republicans chose to abstain from voting. Did they consult their constituents before making this choice? Have they tried to explain themselves. What a bunch of scumbags! As per the Congress Votes Database (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/house/2/votes/299/) of the Washington Post (here’s hoping it becomes the Washington Ghost as soon as possible), the names of these cretins are:
-Voted against:
Justin Amash, Michigan
Charles Bass, New Hampshire
Robert Dold, Illinois
Richard Hanna, New York
Nan Hanworth, New York
Mary Mack, California
Ron Paul, Texas
-Abstained from voting:
Danny Burton, Indiana
Jeffrey Fortenberry, Nebraska
Frank Guinta, New Hampshire
Charles Lewis, California
Connie Mack, Florida
Kevin McCarthy, California
Martha Roby, Alabama
Charles Young, Florida
Hopefully they’ll be judged in this world for their choices as harshly as they’ll be judged in the next. While their 15 votes wouldn’t have been enough to pass it, that is simply not the point. Where is their conscience?? Here’s hoping they get their comeuppance.
This is clearly a bill that the majority of the American people want passed! G-d has mercy on the unborn and will punish those who don’t. Libertarianism is as much of a disease as Liberalism!
So, the 15 Republicans who either voted against the bill or abstained are scumbags…..because they didn’t vote in accordance with your personal religious views?? Really??
“Did they consult their constituents?” If you don’t live in one of their districts, then what is your issue? Their votes are between them and their constituents; not between them and you.
“Libertarianism is as much of a disease as liberalism!” I’m trying to figure out what you are. You’re obviously not a libertarian or a liberal. I’m not sensing that you’re a conservative either; since most conservatives that I know don’t advocate for the state/big government to impose certain religious views on the entire country. Maybe a socialist?
The bill was bad tactics. My preference would be to collect data on abortions such as sex of victim, presumed condition of victim, reason for aborting, whether pregnancy would be desired in the future.
Looks like the “progressives” are wanting to progress us back to the middle ages. I have three grandchildren two boys and one girl. All three are more precious to me than my own life. I wouldn’t trade any one of them for the entire liberal/rino population of this country.