It may have passed, but not so easily this time
This afternoon the House approved a second Continuing Resolution to keep the government running until April 8 by a vote of 271-158, with 54 Republicans and 104 Democrats voting against the measure.
Republicans voting “no” were: Akin, Amash, Bachmann, Bartlett, Barton (TX), Benishek, Burton (IN), Campbell, Chabot, Chaffetz, Duncan (SC), Flake, Fleming, Franks (AZ), Garrett, Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Gowdy, Graves (GA), Hall, Harris, Heller, Huelskamp, Huizenga (MI), Johnson (IL), Jones, Jordan, King (IA), Labrador, Lamborn, Landry, Long, Mack, McCotter, Mulvaney, Paul, Pearce, Pence, Pitts, Poe (TX), Rehberg, Rigell, Ross (FL), Schmidt, Smith (NJ), Southerland, Stearns, Stutzman, Sullivan, Tipton, Walberg, Walsh (IL), West, Wilson (SC)
Notable Democrats voting “no” were: Costello, Critz, Kaptur, McIntyre, Ryan (OH)
Many of these names constitute a Who’s Who of pro-life stalwarts in the House. I’m very proud of them, even calling one to leave a message of thanks. If you know any, or if one happens to be your congressperson, you might, too. An added bonus would be to pick one and donate a little something to his or her campaign. I did that as well.
There were many others in whom I was disappointed. They all voted to continue giving Planned Parenthood $950,000 a day for the next 3 weeks. I also touched base with with of them, expressing my dismay.
Defunding PP is smack dab in the middle of this budget battle. According to Slate:
It wasn’t close, but it was closer than the last vote. Only 6 Republicans opposed the 2-week CR, but 54 opposed it this time, making that decision based on objections over the short-term CR’s failure to defund “ObamaCare” implementation, Planned Parenthood, and public broadcasting – and over irritation, generally, at the drip-drip compromise process. The first CR passed with 335 votes, so this one lost 64 votes, coming from both sides. Republicans needed Democratic votes to push this through.
So the government’s funded through April 8, with $10 billion of spending cut so far by CRs.
It doesn’t appear likely more short-term CRs will be presented. We’re inching closer to that line in the sand. Pro-abort Nancy Pelosi says the debate is over “values… morality”:
Pelosi said that how Democrats voted on the measure was not as important as where negotiations for a long term solution would lead.
“We cut here we cut there to find a middle ground. That may not be enough,” she said, “I think this debate is on a higher ground of our values. It’s not about money. It’s about the morality of what we’re doing.”
Obviously pro-lifers and pro-aborts differ on the meaning of “morality.”
[Top photo via Politico; bottom photo via Fox News]
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.
It’s about the morality of what we’re doing.
Ms. Pelosi, the USA is swimming in debt. It’s got to be about money too.
Did I understand her correctly? Nancy will be changing her long-standing pro-choice position and voting to defund PP? Wishful thinking on my part?
If debt is the number one issue right now, let’s deal with it. Either cut social security spending tomorrow – just get rid of it – or go back to tax rates before Bush (Reagan/Clinton) that generated higher revenues.
x-gop, the social security spending is not the problem. It’s medicare, medicaid, and defense.
Hal –
In 2010, Social Security spending was $695 billion.
Medicare was $453 billion
Medicaid was $290 billion
Social Security is a problem.
Ex-GOP, Hal,
The problem is that we have killed 53 million citizens who could have been taxpayers. That many dead babies means less need for teachers, cops, fire, etc. Less jobs, less revenue. Just when we needed workers the most to stand in and pay taxes when the Boomers started retiring, we slaughtered them. In so doing, we have slit our own throats.
The mass killings of Boomers through Obamacare’s health rationing will be more than poetic justice for the generation that embraced and fueled the demographic wildfire that they could not outrun in their age and frailty.
Hopefully, my children’s generation will learn from our untimely demise.
“The problem is that we have killed 53 million citizens who could have been taxpayers”
And some of them could have been criminals and those with disabilities who would now be absorbing public monies. The argument that abortion is a demographic and revenue issue just underscores the basic philosophy of the anti-choice movement which is that women are, essentially, “breeders.” And “mass killing” through rationing. If there is no healthcare reform and healthcare costs continue to surge, you’re gonna see rationing done through the private system. Actually, this kind of rationing is done now. Just talk to anybody who had to jump through hoops to get their surgery approved.
The defunding of reproductive health services for women won’t happen. And if Boehner blinks on this, he’ll have a very fractured party. The House “freshmen” were elected to curb the deficit and create jobs. So far, their concern seems to be pushing an ideology. Those ideologues who continue to push the extreme anti-choice position might be vulnerable as independent voters are less concerned with abortion than with economic issues.
CC,
“And some of them could have been criminals and those with disabilities who would now be absorbing public monies.”
And I suppose some of them could have become vicious, cold narcissists armed with turkey basters. But I still wouldn’t tear them apart.
Get well soon.
You bring up a great point Gerard about potential taxpayers being aborted. I also agree there’s a difference between letting someone live because of what they can contribute to the world and having them aborted because they might end up being a criminal. Society doesn’t kill people based on what they might do or the problems they might cause, that would be crazy.
There actually is some merit to this idea that an absence of babies can affect the economy. I’m not an expert on economics but it seems logical that if you have a system based on everyone in the population working together to contribute to the economy; then losing a large % of that population will offset the economy.
I was watching a video that argued that abortion is partially responsible for the social security problems we face today:
It was saying that if we had not aborted so many children since 1973 we could have millions of people working and putting money into SS at any given time.
It also talked about how a lot of parents who abort their child often end up alone in nursing homes with no kids to support them and pay for their expenses, the fact that some seniors have no family to take care of them compounds the SS problem.
It points out how families spend more money then single people, so they would put more into the economy.
It’s more in-depth than this and it covers a lot more but in summary it argues that when the founders of social security devised the system they did not anticipate so many people aborting their children and the SS system was structured in a way where these children would contribute to the economy. Of course some will find all of this debatable but it looks valid to me and it just goes to show that abortion is not just a woman’s issue because it can affect society as a whole.
Hi Gerard 12:44am
The gods do indeed punish the human race by answering their prayers. Another way to say this is be very careful what you wish for….you just might get it.
i’m confused. does this buget contain defunding for pp or not?
We really need to put pressure on Speaker Boehner. He claims to be pro-life, but constantly votes for CR’s that fund the criminal syndicate PP. On Feb. 23 when the pro-life community was praising Mr. Boehner, Insurrecta Nex held a sit-in at his office, six of us were arrested, you can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Et7UfIePOo
The GOP is spineless in large part. Even Mike Pence voted to fund PP for the 2-week CR, he voted no on the 3-week CR though (thank God).