Why PRENDA won but lost… but won
Yesterday the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions in the U.S., garnered an overwhelming majority vote in the House, 246-168.
But PRENDA still failed. Why?
Simply, the vote procedure used (“Suspension of the Rules”) required a two-thirds majority to pass.
Why not go for majority vote?
If such an overwhelming number of congresspersons were known to support PRENDA, why didn’t Republican House leaders follow a route to passage that only required a simple majority?
To back up, PRENDA is not dead. It is still live and can be called again for a vote at any time, leaving the other side to worry whether they will see PRENDA return to the House floor for another vote yet this year.
Achieved yesterday was a clean vote. Every other procedure to pass a freestanding bill would have afforded the opposition an opportunity to submit at least one amendment. If that had happened, we would have seen a lot of pro-abortion House members vote for some counterfeit alternative – an amendment dressed up to look like a limitation on sex-selection abortions but really hollow and acceptable to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry – before they voted against the real ban.
The pro-abortion Members would then have been able to claim they voted for something condemning sex-selection abortions – the sham ban.
“Using Suspension of the Rules removed the opportunity for phony cover votes,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. “As a result, the majority was probably bigger than it would have been if a ‘multiple choice’ procedure had been used.”
Abortion proponents apply this tactic all the time. They particularly like to hide behind health exceptions to pro-life bills, which we all know only gut them.
Learning from history
The other side used this tactic repeatedly, for instance, during the decade-long fight over the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Americans were repulsed by PBA, but with fraudulent language added, pro-abortion politicians were able to say they voted for the ban, and even point to their vote, when they actualy actually voted against a clean ban.
Yesterday abortion opponents didn’t get to hide. And we learned something new. We learned President Obama thinks “choice” must include sex-selection abortions, a position 77% of Americans find abhorrent. Those who still may try to call Obama “moderate” are losing ground.
Yesterday’s vote left abortion proponents floundering to explain why they oppose female gendercide but support sex-selective abortions.
Win-Win
The inevitable passage of PRENDA has taken its first step. And the other side was lured into the debate, which will turn out to be quite unhelpful for them. On May 29, before the vote, Wesley Smith wrote at First Things:
Pro lifers are attacking the abortion license piece, by piece, by piece….
[E]xpect federal and state legislation seeking to outlaw sex selection abortion… [which] would put the pro choice side into a tight political box. If they let it go, they would be admitting that there is a reason for abortion that is so illegitimate it should be outlawed. But if they oppose, they are in the position of defending sex selection.
I predict that latter will be seen as preferable to the former. Thus, once such a law is enacted, look for PP, other pro choice groups and the ACLU to sue to legally prevent the legal prevention of sex selection abortions. That would transform ”female feticide” into the next “partial birth abortion” and materially help the pro life cause.
Support for abortion slipped greatly during the 90s when Americans learned and relearned (due to President Clinton’s two vetoes) the horrors of the partial birth abortion procedure.
Likewise, the other side will lose ground in the court of public opinion as they battle a pro-life law that will ban law sex-selective abortions.
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.
Excellent summary, Jill. Thanks!
If my math is correct, two thirds of a 435-member House is 290 votes. That means we were just 44 short. Think we can gain 44 solidly pro-life seats this November?
Kelsey or Jill or the NLRC dude, do any of you know the names of the 15 congressmen who are trying to hide their support of gendercide abortion by voting present. I would like to target them by circulating there names too. Obama infamously voted present more than any other politician I know. I wonder if his position on gendercide is still evolving too…..
Martin Heinrich (D) NM skipped the vote. Hopefully the good people of NM will hold him accountable and vote him out. 77% of the Democratic party voted against this bill and 77% of the US citizens would have voted in favor of this bill. If it weren’t for cronyism the Democratic party would have been gone a long time ago. The party of abortion is a sinking ship and it is realistic that 44 more of them could either get defeated or jump ship.
I’m looking forward better results in the November elections on account of this vote.
Kelsey -
Very little chance – Cook Political Report does a nice breakdown – and both the Dems and the GOP have a lot of very safe districts for the house breakdown. I’ve seen projections where the Dems or GOP could pick up a few seats, but the odds for a giant swing are pretty low (especially in the GOP favor because they won so many of the hotly contested seats last election – remember, both parties have a couple of hundred seats that they are VERY entrenched in – again, take a look at Cook if you want to read more on it).
Yup, nothing says “winning” like losing.
I’m surprised you’re still even talking about PRENDA. Surely there are more fruitful gimmicks to push?
“Abortion proponents apply this tactic all the time. They particularly like to hide behind health exceptions to pro-life bills, which we all know only gut them.”
Mitt Romney says:
“I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”
What does Mitt Romeny’s “pro-life pledge” mean to a pro-life activist? To me it means he is redefining what it means to be pro-life. I don’t see this as excusable or innocent or cute.
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/06/my-pro-life-pledge
Why is he able to redefine what it means to be pro-life with absolutely no opposition from the movement?
He has not cinched the Republican Ticket — YET. That’s just what pro-Romney supporters on T.V. and in the Republican party keep repeating.
It can still easily BE a brokers convention.
Ron Paul has this nations popular vote.
And, yes, he IS PRO-LIFE.
Mr. Speaker, as an Ob-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues’ revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different sex.
However, I cannot support HR 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress’s jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the states in the Roe V. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a federal issue.
I also cannot support HR 3541 because it creates yet another set of federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by states rather than Congress.
I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe V. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the states and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new federal crimes.
Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a “politically incorrect” reason for special federal punishment.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1979&Itemid=60&fb_source=message
Ron Paul is so wrong. It is a federal issue to protect the right to life of all human beings. Does he also believe that it was “up to the states” in regards to Missouri’s extermination order of the Mormons?
No. Because you have a right to live on the federal level.
You don’t have a department of murder.
That’s carried out through the states own law enforcement, aka the cops, as opposed to the national guard handling enforcement.
This ban relied on the ‘Commerce Clause” of the Constitution, meaning “in or affecting Interstate for Foreign Commerce”. Now, we all know Federal power has logarithmically expended under the Commerce Clause, from everything to the war on drugs to the EPA regulations. If you are against EPA regulations on business, the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, Obamacare ect, then you cannot be for this ban, because this ban and all those above flow from the same Powers under the Commerce Clause. If this ban is Constitutional, so are all of Congress’ other powers under the Commerce Clause.
Ron Paul is 100% right, in that a “Strict Constructionist” reading of the Constitution would forbid the Federal government from regulating abortion in any way. Even Justice Scalia has said the Constitution is silent on abortion, but THAT HE WOULD UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT A STATES RIGHT TO *ALLOW* ABORTION as a Supreme Court Justice. Antoine Scalia. Clarence Thomas has stated to the same effect as well.
So, if a pro-life group sued NJ or NY because they allow abortion, and this went before the Supreme Court, a 9-0 decision would come down stating that a State is free to allow abortion, likely with Scalia writing the Majority opinion, and the 4 liberal Justices filing concurrent opinions.
Also interesting to note – completely ignored by the Conservative media – was that Romney, even while supporting this ban, had a huge fundraiser thrown for him by the head of Teva Pharmaceuticals – the MAKERS of Plan B and other generic hormonal contraceptives.
Why didn’t the ACLU make those arguments when partial-birth abortion was before the Supreme Court? Or if they did, why did Scalia and friends reject them?
I thought you yourself stated on another thread that Plan B is not an abortifacient (and therefore shouldn’t be an issue)?
“Why didn’t the ACLU make those arguments when partial-birth abortion was before the Supreme Court?”
Because the ACLU – like the vast majority of organizations – IS in favor of Big Government. Narrowing the Commerce Clause power of Congress would be too much of a hit to their agenda. Similarly, Conservative organizations support just as much of a scope of Commerce Clause power as do Liberal, just in DIFFERENT AREAS such as regulating abortion ect.
“I thought you yourself stated on another thread that Plan B is not an abortifacient (and therefore shouldn’t be an issue)?”
Plan B is NOT an abortofacient as evidenced by overwhelming data. However, *HOW MANY* Pro-Life people actually KNOW that? If the vast majority of Pro-Life people still BELIEVE Plan B is an abortofacient, then Mitt Romney just earned millions of dollars on behalf of the Drug’s maker.
Romney is playing both sides of the coin: touting his opposition to “abortiofacients”, while having a good chuckle and huge money haul with one of their manufactures.
Ron Paul voted against this ban with flimsy reasoning to collect another “scalp” for his belt. I’m sorry, but Ron Paul would make a terrible leader, all he knows how to do is stir the pot.
Flimsy reasoning.
That’s what you call sticking to the constitution?
Mitt Romney has no scruples and no tact and you want to put him up against the great debater, aka mister personality.
10,000 dollars? To Romeny that’s nothing! This man trades on the backs of other peoples TRUST, and my God, have mercy, does he do it so well!
He already has the pro-life movement on their knees begging him for mercy or asusming he already has granted it, and he hasn’t even gained the power he’s trading us out on with our own monies!! If the devil lies better,who would be able to tell!
“10,000”–
I would bet my LIFE on the fact that Romeny has NO chance up against Obama.
As far as I can tell they are working together to untie and dismantle us altogether–well done.
We were never united to begin with and then to stand behind a traitor. Ok, yesh’um=that’s gonna stop the Obamanation.
If you want to really know who your putting your money and movement and the lives of precious millions of teensy fetuses in the hands of: read this::
http://www.massresistance.org/
They’ve been living with this peddler of lies for almost a decade and they are voting against him.
http://massresistance.org/romney/
Skip to the juicy part and scroll down to the picture of Romeny with Sal DiMasi, now serving an 8-year prison sentenc
Here is a little bit more on what Ron Paul’s take on how to end abortion:
Slavery was made illegal everywhere in the U.S. by the Thirteenth
Amendment, which took effect in December 1865.
Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as “Commander in
Chief of the Army and Navy” under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution.[3] As such, he had the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that had not declared a secession: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery everywhere in the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary 2/3 vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by December 1865.[4
I am saying this in response to the prolife profiles out of context Ron Paul quote they are claiming proves he is pro-abortion.
Ron Paul is NOT giving the individual states the right to decide whether or not abortion is to become legal. BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS SAYING. Right?? HE was saying, that the states can’t decide such a thing. Neither can the supreme court. Abortion has to be abolished via Federal Declaration, this would only be possible if it was done via an executive authority–aka a president would have to be the one to issue such a statement, and such would overturn roe vs. wade.. or something. Like
lincoln did it with slavery. then it’s up to the states to enforce
abortions the way they do any other form of manslaughter.