The “Pain-Capable” Bill: blocked by both parties

January 22 was supposed to bring a vote on a federal bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Didn’t happen. Republican women who were elected with the help of pro-life donors decided to block the bill, demanding that a provision be removed that would have required a rape survivor seeking a late-term abortion to report the rape to law enforcement. House Speaker John Boehner withdrew the bill to avoid a defeat on the floor. (Consolation prize: a bill to block taxpayer funding of abortions. More on that another day.)

There’s plenty of angst to go around. The women who derailed the bill … their colleagues who were terribly afraid of disagreeing with these women on a “women’s issue” (tell that to the aborted males) … the people who inserted a rape-and-incest exception … the people who opposed the bill altogether because it wasn’t pro-life enough … the people who hated the bill because it would have blocked any abortions at all …

I’m with David Harsanyi, who said “Evidently, Republicans don’t feel competent enough to make a case against infanticide.” Yes, I wanted this bill to pass. It was a misshapen thing, but it should have passed. I reject the assertion that it would have made pre-20-week abortions or rape-and-incest abortions acceptable. It was Justice Blackmun and his brethren who made those abortions legal.

Remember who made late-term abortion a matter of debate in Washington in 2013? Kermit Gosnell. In the wake of his atrocities, Congress took its first crack at a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Democrats blocked it. Last week, Republicans blocked it. Different reasons, same outcome: no coherent defense of any preborn child, never mind all of them.

A reader recently reminded me of something I wrote in June of 2013. Then-Speaker Pelosi was nearly incoherent when asked about the difference between legal late-term abortion and the murder of a 23-week baby who survived an attempted abortion. (There is no difference, of course, but as an abortion advocate in good standing, Pelosi couldn’t quite say that.)  I’m beginning to think the Republican women who blocked the Pain-Capable bill couldn’t do much better. Their words would be different, certainly, but the result would be the same.

https://leavenfortheloaf.com/2013/06/14/pelosi-throws-sacred-sand-in-reporters-eyes-during-press-conference/

After the 2013 vote on the bill, I took my lumps from pro-lifers who were incensed that the bill had exceptions. Some things haven’t changed. https://leavenfortheloaf.com/2013/06/18/more-on-pain-capable-why-the-rapeincest-exception/

Women in action today: judges edge abortion advocates 3-2

Three female judges today upheld the challenged provisions of HB 2, Texas’s new law calling for commonsense regulations of abortion facilities.
Tonight, Planned Parenthood will give its “Margaret Sanger Award” to Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, for going above and beyond the call of duty to fight abortion regulations.
Three Texas judges vs: Pelosi & Sanger: that’s a pro-life win.

Dan McConchie of Americans United for Life spread the good news on his personal Twitter account today. Pass it on.

 

Pelosi throws “sacred” sand in reporters’ eyes during press conference

At a June 13 press conference. House Minority Leader (and ex-Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was asked a fairly straightforward question: “What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?” Her reply, captured by C-SPAN, almost defies belief.

This comes during consideration of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a federal bill to ban late-term abortions. Pro-life activists are not unanimous in their support of the measure, with a valid concern that such bills indirectly make abortion “okay” as long as the victim exhibits no pain response. For the moment, see the bill for what it is meant to be: the Kermit Gosnell Prevention Act. No late-term abortions should mean no “failed” late-term abortions and therefore no infanticide.

So will Pelosi support the bill? No. “It would make it a federal law that there would be no abortion in our country,” she said. That’s false, by the way. Her backup position, recorded by C-SPAN for all the world to hear, is that this is a “sacred” matter that doesn’t belong in “politics.”

Let’s go all the way back to March 22 of this year, the day before the third anniversary of Obamacare. As Speaker of the House in 2010, Pelosi was instrumental in securing the votes that ensured passage. This year, she marked the anniversary with a statement  saying in part, “Today, we mark nearly three years since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law – enacting a measure that stays true to our core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans” [emphasis added].  I’ll take the liberty of believing that Rep. Pelosi holds “core values” to be sacred. Apparently, she thinks some sacred things are worth bringing into the political realm and forming into policy.

It’s possible that Pelosi mentioned her Catholicism as shorthand for “the nature of the fetus is a religious belief for me, so I can’t make policy about it.” That’s the embarrassing outcome when a member of Congress mistakenly believes that the Constitution demands separation of faith from life. Seriously, though, if Pelosi were to recuse herself from every debate and vote that touched on a matter of Catholic belief, she’d only need to spend about ten hours a week in Washington.

“Sacred” has never looked so shabby.