Late-term abortion ban bill dropped in House after GOP women object

posted at 9:21 am on January 22, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

Today, the March for Life will take place in our nation’s capital, drawing attention to more than 50 million babies aborted since the Roe v Wade decision 42 years ago. If that seems like an odd time for the new Republican-majority Congress to disappoint and anger the pro-life activists who will almost literally be marching on their doorstep, well, you’re hardly alone. Conservatives erupted in outrage yesterday as the House GOP backed away from a vote on a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks except in cases of rape and incest:

House Republican leaders abruptly dropped plans late Wednesday to vote on an anti-abortion bill amid a revolt by female GOP lawmakers concerned that the legislation’s restrictive language would once again spoil the party’s chances of broadening its appeal to women and younger voters.

In recent days, as many as two dozen Republicans had raised concerns with the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” that would ban abortions after the 20th week of a pregnancy. Sponsors said that exceptions would be allowed for a woman who is raped, but she could only get the abortion after reporting the rape to law enforcement.

A vote had been scheduled for Thursday to coincide with the annual March for Life, a gathering that brings hundreds of thousands of anti-abortion activists to Washington to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

But Republican leaders dropped those plans after failing to win over a bloc of lawmakers, led by Reps. Rene Ellmers (R-N.C.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who had raised concerns.

The House will vote instead Thursday on a bill prohibiting federal funding for abortions — a more innocuous anti-abortion measure that the Republican-controlled chamber has passed before.

The concerns in this case came through the inclusion of an exceptions for reported rape [see update]. Recall that three years ago, Republicans got pilloried when Todd Akin opposed that exception (in an exceptionally clumsy manner) because it was supposedly so easy to claim as a predicate. This time, Ellmers and Walorski opposed the bill because the exception is too burdensome — despite running in both cases as pro-life legislators who pledged to act on those principles. This despite the fact that this exception is demanded by abortion advocates in any kind of limiting legislation as a baseline expectation to deal with the <1.5% of abortions to which those exceptions apply. That data, by the way, comes from surveys done by the abortion-supporting Guttmacher Institute, and not law enforcement data on reported incidents of rape.

Ellmers and others appear to be worried about the message that this bill sends as one of the first actions from a new Republican Congress. The argument is that it will give Democrats a powerful message in next year’s elections by painting new members from more moderate districts won in this election as extreme. David Harsanyi dispenses with that notion rather powerfully:

A new Marist poll finds 84 percent of Americans favor some level of further restrictions on abortion. And regardless of their feelings about the legality of the procedure, 60 percent believe it to be “morally wrong.” If you aren’t keen on that poll—it was sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, after all—you can take your pick of others.

A Quinnipiac poll found that 60 percent of women support limiting abortions to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. A CBS News poll found that 60 percent of Americans thought abortion “should not be permitted” or available only under “stricter limits.” A CNN Poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe abortion should legal only in a “few circumstances” or “always illegal.”

Yet the GOP caves on a bill that would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks and promises instead to pass another worthless ban on taxpayer funded abortions—which we all know can be ignored by hiring an accountant.

Today is the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And while the media continues to treat every Obama non-starter and crowd-pleaser as genuine policy idea, the 20-week abortion ban was predictably framed as another divisive play by zealous conservatives.Controversial. Republican leadership helpfully confirmed this perception by abandoning the only bill their party has come up with in years that widely supported.

There is nothing extreme about limiting abortions after 20 weeks to cases of rape and incest. A baby at 20 weeks has been human life for all of its 20 weeks, but especially at this stage is fully formed and nearly viable on his or her own. There are almost no medical reasons to terminate a pregnancy at this stage, which we have known for two decades after Bill Clinton and his allies attempted to argue the opposite when this issue first came before Congress. It’s an issue of disposability and utility, and we are allowing the butchery of human life for those “virtues” for far too long as it is.

Even if Democrats planned to use this as a way to paint Republicans as “extreme,” so what? They will do that with every vote against their agenda anyway. Voters sent Republicans in Congress as a rejection of the Democratic agenda and a mandate to pursue the GOP’s. Besides, the next election is more than 20 months away. When will Ellmers, Walorski, and their colleagues feel comfortable voting in line with their proclaimed beliefs? If not now, then probably never. If they are this easily discouraged, perhaps they should seek other work.

Update: Here’s Ellmers vocally supporting the same legislation in the summer of 2013, via John McCormack:

Update: I incorrectly stated that the bill included exceptions for health emergencies and incest. Thanks to Marcus in the comment section. I’ve corrected that paragraph above; in any event, it was the reported rape exception to which Ellmers and other Republicans objected as too burdensome.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

your inability to think in anything other than black and white is not my problem, just yours.

everdiso on January 22, 2015 at 12:18 PM

Thats called psychological projection.

Mimzey on January 22, 2015 at 9:12 PM

Try again. Ellmers Tweeted less than 24 hours ago that she supported, and would vote for H.R. 36 – whilst she was working to build support AGAINST the bill.

Pork-Chop on January 22, 2015 at 4:17 PM

If you say so, but that has nothing to do with what I responded to. I responded to a comment about Ellmers comments on video from 2013.

So you know, if you want to address the actual issue…any time now…feel free.

Tlaloc on January 22, 2015 at 9:13 PM

WestVirginiaRebel on January 22, 2015 at 9:01 PM

That’s a different bill.

Mimzey on January 22, 2015 at 9:14 PM

Pennsylvania/Gosnell is only one example – “common sense measures” to catch offenders like Gosnell are already on the books, across America – the laws simply aren’t always enforced – and it has nothing to do with opposition to abortion from pro-lifers.

Pork-Chop on January 22, 2015 at 4:13 PM

You’re wrong. The endless attempts by antiabortion types to sabotage abortion clinics, hou8nd abortion providers out of their homes, jobs, communities, and to shame and harm abortion seekers has led to a reaction by the other side to view any attempt to enforce rules on abortion providers as just another stealth attack by fanatics…because 99% of the time they are.

That’s exactly what has led to Gosnell types getting through.

If you guys weren’t so damned unethical, so willing to spew any lie, commit any crime then there could be an honest conversation. But so long as the antiabortion movement is run by complete fanatics that’s impossible and reasonable people spend so much time stopping your tantrums that they have no stomach to do anything that may be seen as helping you.

…and that is a shame. There are any number of common sense regulations that can and should be put in place, but you guys have no credibility on the issue.

Tlaloc on January 22, 2015 at 9:19 PM

LOL – GOP, hellbent on breaking all campaign promises, holding to their convictions perhaps *less* than Democrats, and fully alienating every last bastion of their base.

*slow clap*

Dead Party Walking.

Midas on January 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM

Tlaloc on January 22, 2015 at 9:19 PM

LOL, dude, you’re comical – thanks for the laugh. You might work on turning down the projector a bit next time, though.

Midas on January 22, 2015 at 9:29 PM

Uh, no. But nice try.

The left has dug themselves a really big hole by their recalcitrant position against measures that would protect women against the Gosnells of this world. And there’s ample evidence to indicate that although ‘safe” was a stated priority of theirs, it has never been reinforced by action or deed. In fact, they’ve dug their heels every inch of the way on safety measures for women, even those that are uniformly accepted across the healthcare industry.

Uh huh, and your “ample evidence” all comes from antiabortion fanatics who have lied over and over again but you still trust implicitly.

Isn’t it convenient that “safety” is also an easy way to demand ridiculous things of abortion clinics as a stealth way of shutting them down. Why between that and all the “hope they burn in hell” rhetoric I almost suspect the anti-abortion types don’t give a fig about safety at all!

Since the events in the Gosnell case were revealed, it has been Repubs who have attempted to put protective measures into legislation at the state level, not Dems.

If by that you mean tried to shut down good abortion providers by falsely tarring them with Gosnell’s butchery then you’re right. What the right has not tried to do is honestly clean up bad clinics, they’ve just used gosnell as a club to attack abortion as a whole.

Even going back to the days of JANE, Pro-abortion proponents cared little about safety…only access.

Such a farce, and it’s long past time for it to be revealed. But only by knowing the history of the movement can the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion movement be seen.

lineholder on January 22, 2015 at 4:26 PM

Your “history” is mostly BS, lineholder. Myths that get regurgitated in the antiabortion echo chambers over and over until you swallow them uncritically. That’s a part of brainwashing, and the anttabortion movement has more than a little in common with a cult…

Tlaloc on January 22, 2015 at 9:29 PM

Everdiso…reducing abortions is about regulating morality…….but only when you dont have any morals….you worthless POS!!

elvis lives on January 22, 2015 at 9:42 PM

Your “history” is mostly BS, lineholder. Myths that get regurgitated in the antiabortion echo chambers over and over until you swallow them uncritically. That’s a part of brainwashing, and the anttabortion movement has more than a little in common with a cult…

Tlaloc on January 22, 2015 at 9:29 PM

I don’t know whether my favorite “pro-life” lie is that abortion causes breast cancer (male version: masturbation causes hair to grow on the palms) or how they lie about Margaret Sanger by attributing other people’s statements to her. Either way, the “pro-life” movement is morass of lies.

thuja on January 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM

If you guys weren’t so damned unethical, so willing to spew any lie, commit any crime then there could be an honest conversation. But so long as the antiabortion movement is run by complete fanatics that’s impossible and reasonable people spend so much time stopping your tantrums that they have no stomach to do anything that may be seen as helping you. Tlaloc on January 22, 2015 at 9:19 PM

Hands up, don’t shoot!!!

bigGwillie on January 22, 2015 at 10:22 PM

thuja on January 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM

How about abortion kills an innocent life.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2015 at 10:24 PM

Tlaloc on January 22, 2015 at 9:29 PM

And you post your “opinion” and recollections as fact. I have to admit, at least you and thuga just admit you enjoy the idea of population control through infanticide.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2015 at 10:27 PM

Fact…abortions kill humans.

CW on January 22, 2015 at 11:02 PM

Thuja sucks *****.No surprises…what a nasty puke.

CW on January 22, 2015 at 11:03 PM

What is the conservative case for Federal legislation of any sort on the subject of abortion? Isn’t this a classic example of state jurisdiction?
wbcoleman on January 22, 2015 at 7:35 PM

The whole “state jurisdiction” ship sailed in 1973.

anuts on January 22, 2015 at 7:50 PM

State laws have to comply with Roe v. Wade. I would absolutely take the deal if we overturn Roe v Wade, don’t pass laws on abortion at the federal level, and let states take care of it.

cptacek on January 22, 2015 at 11:14 PM

State laws have to comply with Roe v. Wade. I would absolutely take the deal if we overturn Roe v Wade, don’t pass laws on abortion at the federal level, and let states take care of it.

cptacek on January 22, 2015 at 11:14 PM

Ditto. This should have stayed at the state level in the first place.

LawfulGood on January 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM

cptacek on January 22, 2015 at 6:04 PM

God bless you. I’m sorry. Life is the most precious gift we have.

njrob on January 23, 2015 at 1:10 AM

Life is the most precious gift we have.

njrob on January 23, 2015 at 1:10 AM

Thread winner!..Amen to that..:):):)

Dire Straits on January 23, 2015 at 1:12 AM

Rumor on the hill is the GOP is going to bring this bill back up for another vote real soon..That is good news..:):):)

Dire Straits on January 23, 2015 at 1:14 AM

What is the conservative case for Federal legislation of any sort on the subject of abortion? Isn’t this a classic example of state jurisdiction?
wbcoleman on January 22, 2015 at 7:35 PM

The whole “state jurisdiction” ship sailed in 1973.

anuts on January 22, 2015 at 7:50 PM

But that’s not quite true. Roe v Wade set up a trimester distinction in which states had no authority over abortion in the first three months and a lot of authority in the last. If a bill banning abortion passes muster at SCOTUS, then it passes muster if enacted at the state level.

My point is that, from a conservative standpoint, one cannot find constitutional authority for Congress to do anythingon this subject, pro or con. It’s a question of state police power. Isn’t it?

wbcoleman on January 23, 2015 at 1:19 AM

Ellmers and others appear to be worried about the message that this bill sends…

I’ll predict that in about 18 months Ellmers will be a lot more worried about message her betrayal sent to Republican voters.

RJL on January 23, 2015 at 1:31 AM

The House GOP leadership and Ellmers & ilk are being shredded over this. I’ve seen the same points hammered in several things I’ve read: the feckless cowardice, Ellmers previous vote for a bill with the same provisions, Senatorial Dems facing problems over the issue of late-term abortion, and that if the GOP won’t fight on banning 20+ weeks abortions, then it won’t fight for anything.

Best and most to the point headline:

Republicans Surrender to Infanticide
By David Harsanyi

It scorches from the beginning:

Evidently, Republicans don’t feel competent enough to make a case against infanticide. Why else would the GOP pull its 20-week abortion limit bill?

Here’s a short list of things that are less popular than banning late-term abortions: “Acting” on climate change. “Free” community college. Taxing the wealthy. Building the Keystone XL pipeline. President Barack Obama. Future President Hillary Clinton. Every Republican who’s thinking about running for president….

To the end:

This is about politics. Tragically incompetent politics. Even though a veto was imminent, you have to wonder: If the party representing the pro-life position, a party with a sizable majority, can’t pull together a vote on an issue as unambiguous and risk-free as this one, what are the chances of it coming to a consensus and offering compelling arguments on issues such as health care and tax reform? Very little, I imagine.

INC on January 23, 2015 at 2:33 AM

The GOP is facing wall to wall fury.

News Flash: Political Courage Isn’t Even Real Courage
By David French

And yet our “leaders” can’t quite seem to muster up even that level of faux backbone. The House bailed on a late-term abortion ban? Really?

In a vote where lives were at stake — a vote with the overwhelming majority of the public behind them – the House GOP blinked. They blinked in the face of . . . what? Angry columns from Jezebel or the HuffPo? Cold feet from a handful of members?

If you are a Republican office holder, and you find yourself incapable of making the public case for a late-term abortion ban — for banning procedures that dismember living children who feel every agonizing tear of their flesh — then resign. Please. I can assure you that there are thousands of conservatives in your district who can make that case and would be eager to make that case.

If you’re a conservative, and a Republican tells you they’re pro-life, don’t believe a word they say until they can prove that support with actions, not words.

The actual pro-life movement is full of people who endure scorn; who face censorship on campus; who work every day with young women in desperate circumstances; who give their money, their time, and their heart and soul to save America’s most innocent and vulnerable citizens. They deserve better — on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and every day — than the pathetic display we just witnessed in Washington.

INC on January 23, 2015 at 2:44 AM

Erick Erickson has had enough. I never thought I’d see him write this:

…There must come a time, however, when we are willing to blow up a Republican in a general election and make an example of them for betraying our first principles.

That time is now.

This site must now commit itself to defeating Republicans in general elections, even if it means a Democrat will get elected, should those Republicans betray the first principles of our party….

And he says pro-life voters must do the same.

The GOPe assumes that because it never had a principle it couldn’t throw away that others are the same.

INC on January 23, 2015 at 3:26 AM

Great photo of today’s March For Life:
https://twitter.com/alissagolob/status/558370144334782464/photo/1

On a usually happy and even triumphant day, pro-life leaders found themselves angry at a vote in the U.S. House that never happened.

Much of the talk today at the annual March for Life, that likely brought close to 500,000 mostly young people to Washington DC, was about how House leaders canned a bill that would have banned abortion after the 20th week of gestation, the point at which an unborn child is said to feel pain.

Much of the anger was directed at Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, who, as reported by Breitbart News, organized a group of female House members to block the vote on a bill that leadership had promised to pro-lifers.

There was talk backstage at the rally preceding the March for Life that Ellmers needs to be defeated in her next primary. There was also talk of open electoral “warfare” if the bill is not brought up for a vote — and soon.

Marjorie Danenfelser is president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that spent $13 million to elect pro-life legislators in the last cycle. When asked by Breitbart News if Ellmers would get a primary challenge, Danenfelser said, “That tidal wave has already begun. Before you came on the air, the same day that she began to discus ditching this bill to the main stream media, creating a firestorm on an issue that this was never about, that this was about rape. That’s going to happen and she deserves it.”

INC on January 23, 2015 at 4:06 AM

Ellmers tweeted yesterday afternoon at 3:00 that she would be voting for H.R. 36.and posted on facebook that she would be voting for H.R. She pulled her co-sponsorship on Tuesday.

https://twitter.com/RepReneeEllmers/status/558037862286102528

Three hours later WaPo tweeted the bill was dropped.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/558085721605812224

She was foolish enough to think she would be able to get away with being two-faced. Instead she poured gasoline on a fire that was already raging.

From the NC Right to Life:

At the same time that Ms. Ellmers was stating on her Facebook page and in the news media that she would vote for the bill on Jan. 22, she worked behind the scenes to make sure she would not have to vote on the bill.

Pro-lifers have RENEE ELLMERS to blame for the vote not taking place to protect thousands of pain-capable unborn children. She has betrayed the pro-life people of this state and country.

North Carolina Right to Life and pro-lifers will not forget what Renee Ellmers has done.

INC on January 23, 2015 at 4:26 AM

Melissa Clouthier @MelissaTweets

My son was born at 24 weeks. Most people know a surviving preemie. THIS IS NOT AN EFFING HEAVY LIFT. Stick it to the Dems. But no.
8:59 PM – 21 Jan 2015

INC on January 23, 2015 at 4:28 AM

Renee Ellmers forgot the first rule of holes–when you’re in one, stop digging! Her pro-life tweets and the responses raking her over the coals:

This is the one in which she says she’ll be voting for H.R. 36.

https://twitter.com/RepReneeEllmers/status/558037862286102528

Today she welcomed North Carolinians who came to the March For Life.

https://twitter.com/RepReneeEllmers/status/558260908930400257

Still not happy that the hole she was in was not deep enough, she posted a video of herself giving a speech about H.R. 7 (no taxpayer funding of abortion).

https://twitter.com/RepReneeEllmers/status/558345527591718912

INC on January 23, 2015 at 4:39 AM

“I hope they don’t continue to disappoint us because voters outside of D.C. are looking for a big change, not incremental changes,” Jindal said Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

House Republicans did pass another bill later in the day, but Jindal wanted them to pass a bill that banned most abortions after 20 weeks.

Younggod on January 23, 2015 at 6:42 AM

Want to limit abortion? Stop using tax-payer monies to pay for them.

iosivich on January 23, 2015 at 10:48 AM

Elmers did the Republicans a favor

georgealbert on January 23, 2015 at 11:12 AM

State laws have to comply with Roe v. Wade. I would absolutely take the deal if we overturn Roe v Wade, don’t pass laws on abortion at the federal level, and let states take care of it.

cptacek on January 22, 2015 at 11:14 PM

Ditto. This should have stayed at the state level in the first place.

LawfulGood on January 22, 2015 at 11:56 PM

If you concede the legitimacy of federal abortion legislation on federalism grounds, it still has to pass muster with SCOTUS on privacy grounds. My point is simply that attempting to legislate abortion restrictions on the national level in Congress violates conservative federalism principles. This whole question belongs in the states which IMHO is the reason that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

wbcoleman on January 23, 2015 at 11:42 AM

If you concede the legitimacy of federal abortion legislation on federalism grounds, it still has to pass muster with SCOTUS on privacy grounds. My point is simply that attempting to legislate abortion restrictions on the national level in Congress violates conservative federalism principles. This whole question belongs in the states which IMHO is the reason that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

wbcoleman on January 23, 2015 at 11:42 AM

I’m there with you. It was wrongly decided. It does belong on the state level, which it can’t be as of now. So…we should just accept it and let it stand?

cptacek on January 23, 2015 at 12:14 PM

Oh come now, Tlaloc.

It never ceases to amaze me just how much of the leftist psychopathology is consumed with projection.

Now, it’s clear that you’re using the word cult here, because you think that it sounds insulting. But it’s equally clear, that you don’t have a fundamental understanding of what a cult actually is. Your fortunate though that I’m willing to take the time and use this opportunity to help correct your misunderstandings.

Now, the reason that we know that it is leftists who gravitate to cultish or collective behavior, is because we have real historical examples to base this understanding on. For instance, socialist Jim Jones, labor agitator Cesar Chavez, and communist Charles Manson, were all cultists. So we know that the left has historically openly embraced death cults as a way of life.

We can also look to the present day, where mountains of Obama devotional material support this claim. We can look to hipster doofii students on college campus’ who wear terrorist scarves that are all the fashionable rage with them these days, in an effort to emulate the beheading terrorists that they’re infatuated with. And we mustn’t forget the pungent Gaia sect who rejoices at the thought of a perfectly sustainable abortion mill.

This is the very, very sick legacy that leftists claim ownership of. So when it comes to the cult of infanticide enthusiasts, there’s not much difference.

Isn’t it convenient that “safety” is also an easy way to demand ridiculous things of abortion clinics as a stealth way of shutting them down. Why between that and all the “hope they burn in hell” rhetoric I almost suspect the anti-abortion types don’t give a fig about safety at all!

Well, it’s important for you to understand here, that ultimately safety does involve keeping people away from death hungry leftists. Whether it be abortion, the IPAB Death Panel, Concentration camps, or whatever fashionable euthanasia practices appeals to their flights of fancy this season; ultimately safety calls for steering clear of the left’s proclivity for bizarre social experimentation in whatever form it takes.

If by that you mean tried to shut down good abortion providers by falsely tarring them with Gosnell’s butchery then you’re right. What the right has not tried to do is honestly clean up bad clinics, they’ve just used Gosnell as a club to attack abortion as a whole.

Now, I think we both know that it breaks your heart to be forced to say these things because social change hasn’t advanced far enough yet for Gosnell to be canonized as a leftist folk hero in the way that you’d like him to be. Because if we’re being completely honest here Tlaloc, then we are both fully aware that infanticide enthusiasts such as yourself do in fact revere Gosnell as yet another leftist folk hero, in the spirit of Che Guevara or Bill Ayers. But you need not fret Tlaloc, Gosnell’s reputation will be rehabilitated in textbooks 10 years from now, where he’ll be lauded as a social justice warrior who was unfairly maligned for merely halting “social deterioration.” You’ll be able to wear T-shirts and pins with his visage on them and assigning your students to paint his image on hallway walls on campus to celebrate his accomplihsments in no time.

Your “history” is mostly BS, lineholder. Myths that get regurgitated in the antiabortion echo chambers over and over until you swallow them uncritically. That’s a part of brainwashing, and the anttabortion movement has more than a little in common with a cult…

The problem you’re having here is that it’s entirely unnecessary to have to listen to anyone. We can go directly to the source, and listen to leftist eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger speak highly of the social engineering aspects, and indicate how she hopes to facilitate a Black Genocide with her organization. This of course is why infanticide enthusiasts such as yourself love her; she is the Death Cult’s matriarch.

It’s also important to remember here Tlaloc, that citing an echo chamber merely serves to highlight the silly antics of your own kind, and reveals your inherent distaste for freedom of expression as a leftist.

The endless attempts by antiabortion types to sabotage abortion clinics, hou8nd abortion providers out of their homes, jobs, communities, and to shame and harm abortion seekers has led to a reaction by the other side to view any attempt to enforce rules on abortion providers as just another stealth attack by fanatics…because 99% of the time they are.

Well let’s certainly hope so. Any anti-collective measures that can help save lives is always a good thing.

If you guys weren’t so damned unethical, so willing to spew any lie, commit any crime then there could be an honest conversation. But so long as the antiabortion movement is run by complete fanatics that’s impossible and reasonable people spend so much time stopping your tantrums that they have no stomach to do anything that may be seen as helping you.

…and that is a shame. There are any number of common sense regulations that can and should be put in place, but you guys have no credibility on the issue.

Here’s where the projection is the most evident in your rants. It’s important for you to understand Tlaloc, that it is leftists who are inseparable from lies. Take for instance the “hands up, don’t shoot” movement. It never happened. And yet your kind is completely convinced it did happen, so much so, that you made a movement out of it. This is the extent to which your kind is eager to believe your own lies.

“It’s not a lie, if you believe it” ~ George Costanza

Remember Tlaloc, there is nothing reasonable nor common sense about infanticide. To think that there is, is where the true brainwashing lies.

Now, would you describe for us in detail how all of this makes you feel, as you grit your fuzzy yellow teeth beneath your flea-bag beard?

Star Bird on January 23, 2015 at 12:50 PM

Just once in my life I’d love to see an elected official do something not because of the potential political gain but because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

Fools dancing to the whims of polling rather than following an apparently-absent conscience.

WhaleBellied on January 23, 2015 at 12:55 PM

Just saw where Eric Erickson over at REDSTATE called for pro-lifers to stop being whores for the GOP.That’s rich coming from somebody whose mantra is to “vote conservative in the primary and Republican in the general”.Conservatives shouldn’t be whores for the GOP period!

redware on January 23, 2015 at 4:27 PM

redware on January 23, 2015 at 4:27 PM

You need to read the entire piece. I quoted from Erick’s column in an above comment, and said I didn’t think I’d ever see Erick say this:

…There must come a time, however, when we are willing to blow up a Republican in a general election and make an example of them for betraying our first principles.

That time is now.

This site must now commit itself to defeating Republicans in general elections, even if it means a Democrat will get elected, should those Republicans betray the first principles of our party….

And he says pro-life voters must do the same.

INC on January 23, 2015 at 4:41 PM

#BlackLivesMatter

Star Bird on January 23, 2015 at 9:20 PM

It takes a real, world class Sea-UNT to kill an unborn child.

Snowshooze on January 24, 2015 at 2:47 AM

I am with Reps. Rene Ellmers (R-N.C.) and Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) on this issue.

I agree with conservative ideologies over 80% of the time. However, I am also one of those who oppose right-wing’s position on abortion. Some of my woman friends, via personal conversation or online communication, often said that Republican’s narrative on abortion was offensive to them. A large number of independent or Republican-leaning women could feel the same way.

sohumm on January 24, 2015 at 12:59 PM

Being a mother myself, I am okay to support a 20-week abortion ban, as long as there is a good definition of “rape victim.” Over 50% Americans currently support a 20-week abortion ban. However, this is such an important and life-changing event for women, so we really shouldn’t be surprised that there could be many women who are single-issue voters.

Therefore, I hope that Republicans will be very careful on it, because it is absolutely true that a strong anti-abortion lyrics will alienate many women and young people, Also, please do not forget that the liberal mainstream media is ready to demonize Republican’s in any possible way.

sohumm on January 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM

sohumm on January 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM

This was a slam-dunk for the Republicans.

84% of Americans Would Ban Abortion after 3 Months of Pregnancy
Includes nearly 7 in 10 who identify as ‘pro-choice,’ says K of C-Marist poll

NEW HAVEN, Conn., Jan. 21, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The vast majority of Americans are still very uncomfortable with abortion, according to a new Knights of Columbus-Marist poll. The survey finds support for abortion restrictions among both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” supporters.

Eighty-four percent of Americans want significant restrictions on abortion, and would limit it to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy. This includes almost 7 in 10 (69 percent) who identify themselves as “pro-choice.”

The same percentage (84 percent) also says that laws can protect both the well-being of a woman and the life of the unborn.

In addition, by more than 20 points (60 percent to 38 percent), Americans say abortion is morally wrong….

Other key findings of the survey include:

64 percent say the nation’s abortion rate is higher than it should be. Only 7 percent thinks it is too low.

78 percent support parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion.

68 percent oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, while only 28 percent support it.

By nearly three to one, Americans see abortion as doing a woman more harm than good in the long run (59 percent to 22 percent).

–By 20 points (57 percent to 37 percent), Americans support proposed legislation that would permit medical professionals and organizations to refuse to provide abortions or refer patients for abortions.

INC on January 24, 2015 at 5:46 PM

sohumm on January 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM

If, as you say, you’re a mother, I must assume you are aware of fetal development within the womb.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development

Development at 20 Weeks

The baby weighs about 10 ounces and is a little more than 6 inches long. Your uterus should be at the level of your belly button. The baby can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon — if you haven’t already — you’ll feel your baby move, which is called “quickening.”

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=fetal+development+20+weeks&qpvt=fetal+development+20+weeks&FORM=IGRE

Babies at 20 weeks can already feel pain. You’re willing to support the dismemberment and death of these children?

It is an abomination and incredibly evil that anyone can look at these photos and still want to kill an unborn child.

It is horrific that women, who carry these little ones in their womb, are the ones who have no mercy on the children and advocate killing them.

INC on January 24, 2015 at 5:49 PM

INC on January 24, 2015 at 5:49 PM

During the past year, I have at least three woman friends who complained about Republican’s position on abortion.

1. A woman who married to a college professor said she is not as religious as those who are Repblicans; therefore, she has some serious problems with the Republicans on some social issues.

2. A mother of two said she has been supporting the Democratic Party, mainly because of its position on woman’s rights, and because of her two school-age daughters.

3. There was also a woman who said she is otherwise socially conservative, yet the Republicans’ position on abortion is very offensive to her.

None of these women are politically active, but they somehow believe that Republicans wanted to restrict women’s rights and are anti-women. Hence, I hope that the GOP can be more careful on this issue, which is incredibly important to many women.

sohumm on January 25, 2015 at 1:51 PM