House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary

Hatuey said:

Why not step to the plate and behind your convictions of the matter. Why not try come out in the open and overturn Roe v. Wade? Why the rhetoric?

Click to expand...

:shrug: hopefully we'll get there. but in the meantime, if we can move the football, I say, move the football.

Jerry said:

Right but Congress can overturn Roe and block SCOTUS from doing anything about it.

Click to expand...

Only way to do that is with an amendment, which would never pass.

cpwill said:

:shrug: hopefully we'll get there. but in the meantime, if we can move the football, I say, move the football.

Click to expand...

Hm. Interesting analogy. Move the football... Would you consider what the news story is discussing "moving" the football? Cause it seems to me like they fumbled it.

Hatuey said:

Hm. Interesting analogy. Move the football... Would you consider what the news story is discussing "moving" the football? Cause it seems to me like they fumbled it.

Click to expand...

So, lets see if I have you straight here, the repubs pulled a bill from consideration that you don't like in ANY shape or form, because it needed to be tweaked, and other things are more pressing at the moment, and you feign outrage at the fact that they prioritize correctly, and dishonestly chastise them for it? The word "HACK" comes to mind.

j-mac said:

So, lets see if I have you straight here, the repubs pulled a bill from consideration that you don't like in ANY shape or form, because it needed to be tweaked

Click to expand...

Nothing needed to be tweaked. They pulled it because they were worried about the next election. Read paragraph 1:

House Republicans drop controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary | Fox News

House Republicans on Wednesday dropped a bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks, abandoning legislation that at one time seemed certain to pass the chamber but fell victim to intra-party disputes over concerns that the law would alienate women voters.

Click to expand...

Why not stand up and proudly propose it if their mandate is what the American people want? Reality is about to start crashing down on the GOPs policies.

Hatuey said:

Hm. Interesting analogy. Move the football... Would you consider what the news story is discussing "moving" the football? Cause it seems to me like they fumbled it.

Click to expand...

I would concur with that. On the 5 yard line, no less. 95 yards to go, and we fumble :doh

Hatuey said:

Nothing needed to be tweaked. They pulled it because they were worried about the next election. Read paragraph 1:

House Republicans drop controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary | Fox News

Why not stand up and proudly propose it if their mandate is what the American people want? Reality is about to start crashing down on the GOPs policies.

Click to expand...

Meh, this just proves the point that conservatives make that the "centrist" Republicans believe what Democrats tell them about the electorate. Women are more likely to support restricting abortion in this manner than men.

....In the Post-ABC poll, rather than choosing between a 20-week ban and the current 24 weeks, 8 percent of women volunteered that abortion should never be legal, and 3 percent volunteered that the window should be smaller than 20 weeks. If you add them to the 60 percent of women who support the 20-week abortion ban, then 71 percent of women would seem to support the effort to increase abortion restrictions.

The Quinnipiac poll, meanwhile, shows 60 percent of women support the 20-week ban and 8 percent volunteer that it should never be legal, which again suggests that two-thirds of women could be supportive....

Click to expand...

I appreciate that legislators are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, but it would benefit both America and the Republican Party if they could spend a little less time on divisive social issues and a whole lot more time on solving the economic and financial issues of which there are many. Once the debt giant is slain, the ACA mess is cleaned up, national security issues are resolved, illegal aliens are dealt with, etc., perhaps then the American people might be more receptive to politicians getting on their high-horses and dictating personal behaviour.

Well well well...

...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.)...

Seeking to rebut growing criticism from conservatives, Ellmers said on Facebook Wednesday evening that she would vote for the bill: "I have and will continue to be a strong defender of the prolife community," she wrote....

Click to expand...

Looks like someone was two-faced to their voters.

CanadaJohn said:

I appreciate that legislators are capable of doing more than one thing at a time, but it would benefit both America and the Republican Party if they could spend a little less time on divisive social issues and a whole lot more time on solving the economic and financial issues of which there are many. Once the debt giant is slain, the ACA mess is cleaned up, national security issues are resolved, illegal aliens are dealt with, etc., perhaps then the American people might be more receptive to politicians getting on their high-horses and dictating personal behaviour.

Click to expand...

This isn't "dictating personal behavior" for the pro-life portion of this nation. This is about stopping mass-murder. I would vote the country into absolute socialism if it meant getting rid of abortion. Ppeople who are poor and occasionally hungry are at least alive.

cpwill said:

This isn't "dictating personal behavior" for the pro-life portion of this nation. This is about stopping mass-murder. I would vote the country into absolute socialism if it meant getting rid of abortion. Ppeople who are poor and occasionally hungry are at least alive.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you on the issue, my point was related to timing and accomplishment of what's possible not what's fancied. There isn't a hope in hell that any bill that alters access to abortion will become law in the governing scenario currently in place. In order for that to become possible, the Republicans will have to win the White House and likely have to be in position to replace Ginsberg and perhaps Kennedy or Breyer on the Supreme Court to have the votes to survive a judicial challenge. Wasting time on this issue now can only serve to make taking the White House and improving odds on the court even a greater challenge.

Kobie said:

Only way to do that is with an amendment, which would never pass.

Click to expand...

No amendment is needed. The Constitution already gives Congress this power.

Kinda stupid (not surprising):

The failed bill, which reflected the idea that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, would have criminalized virtually all abortions for pregnancies of 20 weeks or longer. It would offer some exceptions, including for victims of rape that have already been reported to authorities.

Click to expand...

--do fetuses from rape not feel pain?

--it just ignores that the procedure could be done with fetal anesthesia and no pain?

--late term abortions are only 1.2 % of all abortions and those are almost all...if not all...medically necessary? So it's useless, 'feel-good' legislation?

And note that it says "victims of rape that have already been reported to authorities" so that those sluts cant lie & make up a rape just to get rid of it if they change their minds later. (As if a real rape victim wouldnt have done this as soon as they realized they were pregnant...tests are done automatically after rapes.)

So that one is just pandering to the ignorant who dont actually think. That way they can just feel better about the law....no "good" women will need to suffer. Just the sluts.

OrphanSlug said:

I would rather that Republicans focus on ending government funded abortions,

Click to expand...

Why? I understand it's an unpleasant and polarizing subject but society benefits from the option of abortion.

Is it a general statement that no medical procedures should be govt funded? I can see a case to be made for that but things like vaccines and other public health measures receive subsidies from the govt. Probably lots of things I'm not aware of.

From a funding standpoint...why is that bad?

Hatuey said:

Then what's the point of addressing 1% of abortions? Rhetoric? How can they possibly claim any sort of victory on the issue? Or is the get work mentality of the GOP only for the papers?

Click to expand...

Feel-good legislation for the uninformed. It 'sounds' good because most people think that those having abortions are mostly sluts who just casually change their mind about the inconveniences of pregnancy/kids from day to day. ("If she didnt want a baby she shouldnt have had sex!")

cpwill said:

This isn't "dictating personal behavior" for the pro-life portion of this nation. This is about stopping mass-murder. I would vote the country into absolute socialism if it meant getting rid of abortion. Ppeople who are poor and occasionally hungry are at least alive.

Click to expand...

Have you ever lived in a poor community? Surrounded by constant fear and predators and trying to keep your kids not only safe but from joining it? Trying to just get them to finish school and get out? I used to do education in inner city schools and parks. It's not just about occasionally being hungry.

McConnell would have never brought it to a vote.
He has too many vulnerable Senators up for reelection in 2016, 24 total.
So continue to expect the House toilet paper to end up in the Majority Leader's circular file, only this time it isn't Reid's .

cpwill said:

:doh

Dumb. Nothing is there that couldn't have been worked out, and limiting abortion past pain-capable is a popular position in the US. Force the President to veto it or Senate Democrats to filibuster it, and make them go on record as well to the left of the American populace.

Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:

I would rather that Republicans focus on ending government funded abortions,
instead of working so hard to define limits which give us these sort of problems to contend with.

Click to expand...

This is already the law--the Hyde amendment.
The GOP continues to duplicate this law due to it being anti-Government, anti-Abortion and playing to their base .

Once again we see the pro-life/anti-abortion GOPs concerned about fetuses until they're born.
Then we see Paul Ryan and his new policies aimed at cutting the social safety nets to these very babies after they are born.
Just as the GOP has now recently discovered that there is a Middle-Class .

Lursa said:

Have you ever lived in a poor community? Surrounded by constant fear and predators and trying to keep your kids not only safe but from joining it? Trying to just get them to finish school and get out? I used to do education in inner city schools and parks. It's not just about occasionally being hungry.

Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:

From your own article, it appears there were real concerns with the Bill.
It was not about "offending" female GOP congress members.

Click to expand...

This bill was most certainly about "offending" female GOP Congresswomen.
As well as the rape matters you offered up.
Not to mention that it raised taxes on Small Businesses.
Charlie Dent is one of the few GOPs honest enough to laugh out loud at his own caucus .

Lursa said:

Kinda stupid (not surprising):



--do fetuses from rape not feel pain?

--it just ignores that the procedure could be done with fetal anesthesia and no pain?

--late term abortions are only 1.2 % of all abortions and those are almost all...if not all...medically necessary? So it's useless, 'feel-good' legislation?

And note that it says "victims of rape that have already been reported to authorities" so that those sluts cant lie & make up a rape just to get rid of it if they change their minds later. (As if a real rape victim wouldnt have done this as soon as they realized they were pregnant...tests are done automatically after rapes.)

So that one is just pandering to the ignorant who dont actually think. That way they can just feel better about the law....no "good" women will need to suffer. Just the sluts.

Click to expand...

Good women don't get abortions unles the pregnancy will kill them. Abortion is child abuse and child abusers are bad people.

Rape is not an excuse to abort.

Jerry said:

Good women don't get abortions unles the pregnancy will kill them. Abortion is child abuse and child abusers are bad people.

Rape is not an excuse to abort.

Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming my post. Or at least most of it. Kudos to you for being consistent on abortion in the case of rape. (no sarcasm)

Ive gone on record many times saying i would support a 20/21wk date based on earliest possible VIABILITY (based on SCIENCE) but nothing else.
Also the limit would be a soft limit for the usual reason INCLUDING elevated health risks to mother or child

the main problem with this bill was this:

"The failed bill, which reflected the idea(dont care about any "ideas") that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, would have criminalized virtually all (what does this mean) abortions for pregnancies of 20 weeks or longer. It would offer some exceptions (what exceptions), including for victims of rape that have already been reported to authorities."

any bill that is simply to restrictive in one direction or another i wont support and most of the public wont either IMO

Lursa said:

Why? I understand it's an unpleasant and polarizing subject but society benefits from the option of abortion.

Is it a general statement that no medical procedures should be govt funded? I can see a case to be made for that but things like vaccines and other public health measures receive subsidies from the govt. Probably lots of things I'm not aware of.

From a funding standpoint...why is that bad?

Click to expand...

As a Libertarian I am not for outlawing abortions outright, but I am for removal of how we seem to have circumvented the Hyde Amendment.

There seems to be a fair level of confusion and concern with what Planned Parenthood is using their well north of $1 Million per day from the government to exactly fund. There is very little accounting of what Planned Parenthood allocates that money to other than "services." Under that category ends up just about all Planned Parenthood does, and as of recent Planned Parenthood rejects the idea of being accountable to the GAO or Congress on where all that money goes.

But more to the point of this thread it is not a general statement about medical procedures funded by the government, just a point of contention on where the line should be for the abortion debate. It seems to me a good compromise between the pro-abortion group and pro-life group is to ensure government is entirely out of the mix. Put the onus on the individual to decide these things and fund their own decision to end life. There may be a certain subset of conditions where a government funded abortion to those of need is acceptable in those cases of rape, incest, etc. But we seem to be shying away from that conversation here, and I would be against more government funding of any regard (especially in the context of this topic.)

I have no choice ideologically to be against the idea that we have designed a way for an organization to perform so many abortions, seemingly on the government dime, with zero accountability as to the numbers of abortions they have achieved and how they funded all these procedures. I am not asking for HIPAA or ACA privacy laws to be broken, just some degree of reporting to ensure that Planned Parenthood is doing what they claim they are.

NIMBY said:

This bill was most certainly about "offending" female GOP Congresswomen.
As well as the rape matters you offered up.
Not to mention that it raised taxes on Small Businesses.
Charlie Dent is one of the few GOPs honest enough to laugh out loud at his own caucus .

Click to expand...

It may be your opinion, but the OP article does not really say that. It clearly states plenty of problems with the bill that appear to have no offered solutions, so support was lost.