Abortion lobby admits it needs Senate supermajority to hold ground
Well, here was an interesting article, in Politico on January 13:
Leading abortion-rights advocacy groups have quietly raised concerns with Senate Democrats over plans to reform – and potentially weaken – the ability of a minority of Senators to block action on legislation, for fear that the move could open the way to anti-abortion legislation.
Senators Tom Harkin – who has been seeking to limit filibusters since 1995 – Tom Udall, and Jeff Merkley are leading a push to limit the requirement for 60-vote supermajorities on motions to proceed and to require “talking” filibusters, rather than theoretical ones, among other “reform” measures. The plans reflect frustration at Senate dysfunction, but they could also strengthen the hand of the current Democratic majority and of a future Republican majority….
But a staffer for a major abortion rights groups said they’re raising concerns to Senate offices on the question, and specifically on what impact the requirement that Senators actually stand there and talk would have on the current informal standoff on abortion-related issues.
“Our main concern is that traditionally, out of the filibuster, an automatic 60-vote threshold has emerged on abortion issues,” said the staffer, noting that as a matter of informal Senate rules, no abortion-related bill or amendment proceeds without that supermajority support.
“After the November 2 elections, and looking at the trajectory on this issue, it’s really important that the automatic 60-vote threshold on abortion amendments is preserved,” the staffer said, anticipating “a litany of amendments undermining women’s access that are coming out of the House.”
“We’re going to need the Senate to be able to beat back attacks,” the staffer said.
Apparently, pro-aborts have seen the future, and it doesn’t look good. They aren’t willing to gamble short-term gain for long-term loss.
[HT: LifeNews.com; photo, via CQ Roll Call, is of Democrat Strom Thermond in the midst of leading the longest filibuster in history – 24 hours, 18 minutes – in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
There’s big business in killing the unborn baby, – the Democrats are afraid that their goal for zero population control will be severely wounded. Plus less abortions means less money to PP and NARAL and less offerings to their gods Baal and Moloch! A spiritual crisis in the pagan world will take place no doubt.
There’s big business in killing the unborn baby
And the pro-life lobby groups are in the poor house? The religious denominations who push a pro-life message aren’t making money off it? The men with Roman collars, Mitres, and red hats, who support the fetus over she who carries it, are still doing pretty well – despite the money that has been paid out in settlements.
This filibuster thing comes up every time the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, or at least vulnerable to filibusters. If they’re in the majority, it’s fine, and Constitutional, and fair, etc., etc., etc. If they have to worry about filibusters, on the other hand, it’s whine, whine, whine. I swear, it’s practically Pavlovian.
BTW, there are only 36 pro-life senators. So even if the “supermajority” is ended, that’s still not enough to get anti-choice legislation through. And if it does make it to the president, it will be vetoed. So good luck.
BTW, Thurmond switched over to the Republican party in 1964. Southern Democrats became Dixiecrats and Republicans because of their opposition to Civil Rights.
I count 40 pro-life Senators, but I could be wrong. That means we need to gain another ten to have a majority provided a pro-life Vice President can break the tie.
The soul of the Democratic party has been sold a long time ago – with their support for slavery, the welfare state, selling out people of color to a life of dependence, class warfare, gay rights, abortion…I just don’t know why they don’t admit they are a faction of the Communist Party USA – I mean at least the communists are honest and call the Democrats their partners! Go to the CPUSA website if you don’t believe me.
I checked again carefully the list of current Senators and we may have 41 members of the Senate who can be called “pro-life”. NARAL says there are 46 Senators who they call “anti-choice”. I wish we had that many, but I don’t believe we do.
The sad thing is, we really should have 100 Senators who are pro-life.
How can say 59 or 60 Senators support unlimited or nearly unlimited killing of our children? Don’t they have consciences?
It is insane that society supports this violence.
CC,
Try to get your history straight at least. Democrat President Lyndon Johnson had to get help from the REPUBLICANS to pass both the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. The Democrats were too busy filibustering these acts to be of much use and without the REPUBLICANS, would never have passed. BTW, the late Democrat Senator and ex-klansman Robert Byrd was one of those filibustering. Big surprise there.
So CC, name for us the Democrats who turned Republican because of opposition to civil rights. I hear this claim made time and again but I have yet to get a single name. Know of any Republicans who were ex klansmen? You won’t find any since only Democrats could be members of the KKK, which was founded as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.
Gee, as a Democrat Senator, Thurmond conducted the longest filibuster ever in opposition to the 1957 Cvili Rights Act. Yes you read that right, 1957. It was Republican President Eisenhower who tried to pass a civil rights bill but was defeated by Democrats.
In the 1970’s, Thurmond began moderating his stand on race, um, after becoming Republican. He also appointed a black man to his staff in 1971, the first such appointment by a South Carolina congressional delegation.
“Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 to April 1956 and November 1956 to January 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican. He switched so he could support Goldwater’s conservatism and because of their shared opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
“When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal”
“And so in 1964 Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, and the southern Democrats became Republicans overnight.”
“Jesse Helms An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when white Southern politicians championed racial segregation. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s”
And yes, Civil Rights Legislation was a product of bipartisanship. But it’s ironic that yesterday’s racist democrats became today’s GOP which isn’t exactly strong on African American issues. There are only two black Republican reps in Congress. The GOP is mainly white while the Democrats are far more diverse.
And good, ole Strom never publicly acknowledged his African American daughter. Shame.
“How can say 59 or 60 Senators support unlimited or nearly unlimited killing of our children? Don’t they have consciences”
They just don’t have the same beliefs that you do. And if they do, personally, oppose abortion, they don’t feel that it’s correct for them to impose that view on others who don’t. Not everybody believes that abortion is immoral. I know that’s hard for you to believe, Joe, but that’s a fact. And that’s why abortion will continue to be available in certain areas of the country and the world. Sorry.
CC,
Do you not recall that Goldwater was crushed by LBJ in a landslide in 1964? Apparently the vast majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, did not support Goldwater or his views. That includes my Republican voting mother.
Maybe Thurmond felt he could turn Republican because there was finally one who shared his views. Please name for me all the others. Filibusterers Robert(KKK)Byrd remained a Democrat. So did J. Wm.Fulbright as well as Al Gore Sr.
Richard Nixon. Oh you must mean the same Richard Nixon who as VP and eventual presidential candidate called for a strong civil rights plank at the 1960 Republican National Convention. What a far cry from the Kennedy campaign where old Joe Kennedy feared the support of black actor Sammy Davis Jr. would alienate southern Democrats. Speaking of John Kennedy, did you know that then Senators Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson opposed Eisenhower’s plan to desegregate Little Rock, AR schools with the 82nd airborne? Eisenhower sent them anyway. Then governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, a staunch segregationist, would become Bill Clinton’s early political advisor.
CC, definitions of conservative and liberal change throughout history. Its mostly in the eye of the beholder. John Kennedy was viewed as liberal in his day, by today’s standards some would consider him conservative.
CC, again, name for me the segregationist Democrats who turned Republican and continued to fight for a segregationist agenda?
LOL, Jesse Helms. Tell us the segregationist policies Jesse Helms supported as a Republican.
Civil rights the product of bipartisanship! ROFLMAO. Democrats fought it every inch of the way! By no stretch of anyone’s wildest imagination was this a bipartisan effort. Had Republicans not helped LBJ black Americans would have spent a lot more time at the back of the bus and away from the voting booth! Democrats filibustered these bills. Understand??
The Democrat Party is far more diverse? Let’s see. An Indian-American woman ran for governor of S.Carolina and won. A GOP Hispanic woman is governor of New Mexico. African-American Michael Steele headed the party. Cuban-American Marco Rubio elected senator from Florida. GOP Hispanic governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada. Oh, and didn’t Obama ask black New York governor David Paterson not to run again for governor. Paterson told him to take a hike.
Now, you were saying something about diversity CC?
Thurmond’s African-American daughter was born in 1925. One could not expect a firebrand Democrat segregationist like Thurmond to acknowledge a black daughter now could one? That certainly does not justify his actions. BTW CC, did you know the Democrats instituted segregation in the south?
“LOL, Jesse Helms. Tell us the segregationist policies Jesse Helms supported as a Republican.”
After the Civil Rights acts, there were no segregationist policies to support because they were against the law. But there were things like “affirmative action” that the new Southern Republicans stood solidly against. Once again, if Southern Republicans were the party of Civil Rights, why did they not pick up black support.
“Name for me all the others”
Obviously, you do not concur with historians who make the claim that the Southern Democrats turned Republican with the advent of the Southern Strategy – one of the authors of whom, Kevin Phillips, wrote an excellent book about the influence of the religious right in the politics of the BushII administration. Do you deny the “Southern Strategy” articulated by Nixon? Here’s an article in the WAPOwhich reports on Ken Mehlman, in 2005, who said that it was wrong.
“Speaking of John Kennedy, did you know that then Senators Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson opposed Eisenhower’s plan to desegregate Little Rock, AR schools with the 82nd airborne?”
First, are you sayng that IKE was going to use the 82nd Airborne or that Kennedy and Johnson were proposing that? But whatever. Could you back that up with some kind of sourcing other than what you heard on Alex Jones or Glenn Beck. And regarding Kennedy and Civil Rights.
“In the area of civil rights and integrration the administration assigned federal marshals to protect Freedom Ride demonstrations and used federal troops in Mississippi (1962) and a federalized National Guard in Alabama (1963) to quell disturbances resulting from enforced school desegregation”
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/john-f-kennedy#ixzz1B9VKmgjC
” Democrats fought it every inch of the way!”
Southern Democrats fought it. Do you have any source material that cites non Southern Democrats fighting it?
And regarding the “diversity” of the Republican party. Four or five minorities doth not a party make. Once again, the majority of those who identify as Republicans are not minorities. How many black Republican members of congress are there compared to black Democrats?
But please feel free to provide source documentation.
And yes, Robert Byrd had baggage. So are you proud of David Vitter? Are you proud of Larry Craig? Are you proud of Newt Gingrich who had divorce papers served to his second wife when she was in the hospital for cancer treatments? And while you speak of Robert Byrd, who was the product of a different age, let’s talk former Virginia Governor and Senator George Allen. Are you proud of the North African racial epithet he hurled at an Indian American person? Are you proud of his Klan memorablia? Are you proud of his dalliance with the CCC?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1259&bih=697&rlz=1R2ACGW_en&&sa=X&ei=JDoyTYiaI4z6sAOQu4yDBg&ved=0CBYQBSgA&q=george+allen+racist&spell=1
CC,
Having some trouble figuring out how to link? Maybe one of us poorly edjumacated folks here at the blog can help you figure out the highly advanced system of selecting text and linking to related subject.
MaryRose
I provided the links. It’s up to you to respond.
BTW, you show your lack of “edjumacation” by making broad brush statements unsubstantiated by source material. Didn’t you ever do term papers in whatever institute of higher learning you attended?
Let’s see…
CC @ 2:23pm
Southern Strategy links to “Page not found-JillStanek.com”
Republicans links to Jill’s homepage
Signed also links to Jill’s homepage
And then there are the ever-reliable sources you did successfully link
Answers.com
Google
Wikipedia
I’ll give you Washington Post without any trouble as a kindness.
And then of course you linked to my old blogpage. That one makes sense, anyway.
And regarding the Republicans who supported Civil Rights. They were gracious old school conservatives who didn’t care about what people did in the bedroom or in their doctor’s offices. They were solid Episcopalians and Congregationalists whose New England Republican descendants are still solidly pro-choice and who don’t really appreciate those “tacky” types who harass women at Planned Parenthood – supported by the children and grandchildren of those “old school Republicans” who were, truly, a class act compared to what we have now. Those old Ivy grads would be appalled at the creationist types in today’s GOP!!!
Sorry CC but I made a broader bush statement somewhere along the line? Want to clarify?
Mary Rose
I thought that I inserted the links. But one more time with no linking in the text
Southern Strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Republicans becoming Democrats
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_republicans_become_democrats_and_democrats_became_republicans
And while I did link to Wiki answers the same information is found in mainstream history texts and articles by historians. Here’s an article about the “Southern Strategy” from the NY Times (right, they lie)
BTW, the Wiki pages do provide sourcing from other documents. Something not frequently found here.
“And then of course you linked to my old blogpage. That one makes sense, anyway”
Really, how would I link to your old blogpage when I don’t even know what blogpage you had?
Civil rights the product of bipartisanship! ROFLMAO
“This is true of most major legislation. The bipartisan civil rights bill exceeded early versions by extending the Justice Department’s enforcement powers; by requiring government agencies to seek nondiscrimination in federal programs; by establishing an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission; and by other modifications”
Oh, here’s something from “Forbes” – hardly liberal
“The Republican Party became viable in the South for the first time since Reconstruction. When Southern Democrats began to switch over to the GOP, Northern liberal Democrats considered themselves better off for it”
Maybe you play the game with the links at your own place but the mods here don’t.
Thanks for the cute accusation though.
CC 6:24PM
Affirmative action, i.e. reverse discrimination has also been opposed by blacks who consider it patronizing and racist. Tell me CC, do you pick a doctor, lawyer, or accountant on the basis of their race or their qualifications? I believe Dr.King himself stressed the importance of not judging a person by their skin color, but rather their character. Oprah Winfrey said the best deterence to racism is excellence. I never said southern Republicans were the party of civil rights, I said it was because of republicans that civil rights was passed. Republican senator Everett Dirkson who was instrumental in passing this legislation was from Illinois. Why do black Americans continue to give their blind support to a party with history of the Democrats? Beats me.
Its not whether I concur with historians, who by the way continually debate and disagree with each other on history, its that I would like the names of the segregationist Democrats who became Republicans. So far you have given me only Helms and Thurmond, neither of whom supported any segregationist or racist policies as Republicans. What does the religous right and Bush II have to do with this discussion?
CC, Ike did send the 82nd airborne to Arkansas. Both Johnson and Kennedy were critical of this. Do your research. I remember the civil rights movement very well as I lived through the era. BTW, I’ve never heard of Alex Jones. Yes Kennedy sent troops when the civil rights battle began heating up. Ike was the first however to send troops to desegregate. Oh, did you know that AG Robert Kennedy had Martin Luther King Jr. wiretapped?
CC what difference does it make if they were southern or northern Democrats? They were Democrats! Apparently Democrats north or south had no issue with these filibusterers and segregationist Democrats as they continued to serve in the senate with no effort by Democrats to support opposing people in primaries.
So the fact minorities give their blind support to Democrats proves what? To me its beyond comprehension, much like I can’t understand how people admire dictators and tyrants. Ever notice the Hollywood lefties’ great admiration for the likes of Castro and Chavez?
Oh Robert Byrd had “baggage”? How do I feel about Vitter, Craig, etc.? Probably the same way you feel about FDR putting Japanese American citizens in concentration camps, Ted Kennedy leaving a woman to drown and bailing his nephew out of a rape charge, and Gerry Studds having sex with congressional pages.
Speaking of being proud, do you take pride in Democrat Ernest”Fritz”Hollings “joking” about African leaders being cannibals? How about Bill Clinton suggesting that the year before Obama won the nomination for the presidency he would have been serving him and Hillary their coffee? Do I detect a suggestion of servitude here?
Reading comprehension not your strong suit, CC? ““The Republican Party became viable in the South for the first time since Reconstruction.”
SINCE the Reconstruction. That means that this RECENT upsurge in the Republican Party in the south is a RECENT thing, since butthurt over the Civil War and racism in general (imo) is ALMOST FINALLY over. My grandmother, southern to her core (yet living in California of all places) and in my opinion HIDEOUSLY racist (but very old and on her way out…she lived through the results of these things, you understand?), has consistently voted DEMOCRAT for this reason her entire adult life. Got any more history you’d like to twist?
cc:
Due mainly to abortion politics the Democratic party as a whole…listen very carefully here–not every democrat, but mainly their leadership…has been the singlemost destructive force in American politics for the past 50 years. (Mario at 12:23–I’m with you, bro). This is certainly true since Roe v Wade, but even for another 10 or 15 years prior to that. Some will argue it has been the case even longer than that.
Republicans and others are not without their own contributions to the present deplorable state of affairs, but that being said the politics of the Democrats has gone completely off the rails.
It used to be that we could count on the dem leadership in their policies and legislation to think and act like the values of the majority of Americans really meant something to them. I am actually old enough to remember such a time; i.e Jack Kennedy. No more.
As Mary so accurately recounts the numerous transgressions of the segregationist Dems re the Civil and Voting Rights Acts among others, and add to that their raiding of social security time and time again to run it into insolvency, and not to overlook the hundreds of billions spent on their black family destroying “Great Society” programs, and then their uncompromising support of the willful and brutal destruction of innocent unborn babies–the very future of our country–and now they have their sights on undermining the sacredness of marriage and the family. It goes on and on, and it is sickening. I heard it said the other day so eloquently–the libs are believers of the one true faith of secular humanism–a creed which trumps all of the traditional Judeo-Christian values upon which our democratic republic was founded.
Of course you can rail against individual repubs that have not been exactly stellar in their personal lives–I will give you there are plenty of those. But the point, once again, is that in looking at the big picture it is the Democratic party that has completely gone mad. We would be much better off as a country if the abortion supporting dems had never been in a position to leverage their political power against defenseless unborn babies. What kind of a people are we that we kill off millions of our unborn?
Lol CC for someone trying to play intellectual, you’re sure using ignorance & stupid excuses an awful lot. I also notice that you edited out your commentary on the mods. Good grief, girl. Grow a little gumption. Own up to something, eh?
Politicians who support each generation waging biological war against the next generation are a “class act”?
Politicians who do not understand that their first job is to protect the lives and rights of all human beings are a “class act”?
Hi Jerry,
I’m sure you remember, as I do, the notorious poice chief “Bull” Connor who turned fire hoses and attack dogs on peaceful black civil rights demonstrators. Another life long Democrat.
I have often heard the “War on Poverty” referred to as The War on the Black Family by black conservatives.
And when confronted with the truth, CC turns tail and runs.
So we save all the children in the world from being aborted but then why do republicans want them to live in the streets, in poor destitute urban areas with no quality education, keep them unemployed, take away their voting rights and make them beg for food?
Save the baby so we can inflict all the pain and suffering we can imagine on them for the rest of their life…beautiful philosophy.
Newsflash: A woman’s Right To Choose is the LAW OF THE LAND.
John649,
Newsflash: Law of the Land doesn’t make it right.