Ban on Gender Abortions FAILS in HOUSE Today

[LadyEagle]

WASHINGTON (AP) – The House on Thursday fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women's votes.

* Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., right, the author of the bill, walks with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on May 8 in Washington.



The legislation would have made it a federal crime to perform or force a woman to undergo a sex-based abortion, a practice most common in some Asian countries where families wanting sons abort female fetuses

The bill had little chance of becoming law. The Democratic-controlled Senate would likely have ignored it, and the House brought it up under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 246-168 — 30 votes short of that majority. Twenty Democrats voted for it, while seven Republicans opposed it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-31/house-vote-gender-based-abortion/55312258/1



From TheHill dot com:

Republicans voting against the bill were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Charlie Bass (N.H.), Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Richard Hanna (N.Y.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), and Ron Paul (Texas).

Democrats voting for it were Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), John Barrow (Ga.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Garamendi (Calif.), Tim Holden (Pa.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Stephen Lynch (Mass.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Silvestre Reyes (Texas), Mike Ross (Ark.) and Heath Shuler (N.C.).

Take note, everybody. The bill was HR3541.

So, want a boy but pregnant with a girl? KILL HER! :tear:


Can we say "WAR ON WOMEN?"

 

[webdog]

The resident Ron Paul supporters are awfully quiet!

 

[mandym]

There is no good reason for Ron Paul to oppose this. He now disgusts me and I will never consider voting for him again.

 

[matt wade]

I've been a supporter of Ron Paul and, yes, this makes me rethink that support. I sent an email to his campaign asking for the justification of this vote. There's not any justification that I believe I'd accept, but I still want to see what is said.

Of course, Ron Paul aside, this bill would never have made it through the Senate. Also, even if all the R's voted for it it wouldn't have had enough votes.

 

[preachinjesus]

The Democrats are so pro-abortion they will not do anything to prohibit its use, even in the most vile of cases.

Makes no sense other than to say its some kind of bloodlust.

 

[LadyEagle]

I've been a supporter of Ron Paul and, yes, this makes me rethink that support. I sent an email to his campaign asking for the justification of this vote. There's not any justification that I believe I'd accept, but I still want to see what is said.

Of course, Ron Paul aside, this bill would never have made it through the Senate. Also, even if all the R's voted for it it wouldn't have had enough votes.

This is true and obama never would have signed it. But if any of those who voted against it claim that they are "pro-life" we know the truth now, don't we? :tear:

I sent an email to his campaign asking for the justification of this vote.

Good for you, matt. :thumbs:

 

[saturneptune]

This is true and obama never would have signed it. But if any of those who voted against it claim that they are "pro-life" we know the truth now, don't we? :tear:



Good for you, matt. :thumbs:

The only thing positive about this is that it in an odd sort of way makes a vote for Mitt Romney seem more justified.

 

[saturneptune]

There is no good reason for Ron Paul to oppose this. He now disgusts me and I will never consider voting for him again.

Could you not figure this out before you expressed support for him?

 

[mandym]

Could you not figure this out before you expressed support for him?

I have never expressed support for him. I liked most of his domestic policies but he is wacked on foreign issues. I could have supported him had he won the nomination.....until now.

 

[saturneptune]

I have never expressed support for him. I liked most of his domestic policies but he is wacked on foreign issues. I could have supported him had he won the nomination.....until now.

So you half supported him? There is article after article about Paul back peddling on abortion in cases of "honest rape" from the past.

 

[mandym]

So you half supported him? There is article after article about Paul back peddling on abortion in cases of "honest rape" from the past.

I am not aware of that. And of course I do not feel the need to run around raging at everyone. I do not lump everyone into the same category <PA deleted - LE>

 

[LadyEagle]

Back on topic, please. Thanks.

Lady Eagle

 

[JonC]

So the bill would have prevented gender based abortion but would otherwise not restrict the procedure? If I understand correctly, I really don’t see the point of the bill in regards to actual abortions being performed. A woman could get an abortion because she simply does not want the child, unless she doesn’t want the child because of its gender?

 

[freeatlast]

There is no good reason for Ron Paul to oppose this. He now disgusts me and I will never consider voting for him again.

Yes actually there is if you understand Ron Paul's beliefs. He stands for the constitution and under the constitution there is no provision for the Federal government to be involved in this issue and in fact for them to get involved goes against the constitution. It is a state issue not a Federal issue from constitutional perspective. Paul does not stand against abortioin laws from a state by state standard or from a constitutional amendment for this, but he stands against the Feds making laws that violate the constitution which this law does as do most Federal laws today.
The problem is not with Paul but the fact that most Americans and in this case Christians do not even understand that the Feds regularly violate the constitution. Many times Christians are in favor of violating it when it is in their favor but they are against it when it is against them. That will never work. Once it is violated it sets a trend and Paul stands against that trend and I agree with him on that issue. This should be a state issue OR it should be brought up as an amendment to be added to the constitution but no Federal law outside the constitution should be made in this issue if you believe in followig the constitution.

 

[just-want-peace]

So the bill would have prevented gender based abortion but would otherwise not restrict the procedure? If I understand correctly, I really don’t see the point of the bill in regards to actual abortions being performed. A woman could get an abortion because she simply does not want the child, unless she doesn’t want the child because of its gender?[/QUOTE

I'm with you on this - get the same procedure, just give a different reason.
Till you made this post I had not considered that this whole "law" was, as the old bard said, "Much ado about nothing!"

 

[mandym]

Yes actually there is if you understand Ron Paul's beliefs.

No...there isn't.

 

[JonC]

I'm with you on this - get the same procedure, just give a different reason.
Till you made this post I had not considered that this whole "law" was, as the old bard said, "Much ado about nothing!"

Or much ado about political posturing.

 

[webdog]

Sickening that anyone would side with Paul on this. The appeal to the constitution over morality is quite telling.

 

[targus]

Yes actually there is if you understand Ron Paul's beliefs. He stands for the constitution and under the constitution there is no provision for the Federal government to be involved in this issue and in fact for them to get involved goes against the constitution.

I believe that from a Constitutional point of view it could be argued that abortion based on sex selection is dicrimination based on gender.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The vote is consistent with Dr. Paul's stance that the federal government should not be involved in abortion laws.

This is just smoke & mirrors. I'm not sure why people are more offended by this than regular abortions. I guess it does give certain people a chance to look down their noses.