Pro-life Democrat voting stats on healthcare bill

Noteworthy...

dan lipinski logo.JPG

  • The only pro-life Democrat to change his vote from a yes to a no due to the failure to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment was Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), pictured left. (Lipinski is the congressman for the district in which Christ Hospital, my former employer, is located. His father, Congressman Bill Lipinski, was a co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)
  • Other pro-life Democrats who had previously threatened to change their votes from a yes to a no, agreed to an Executive Order reiterating the Senate bill's accounting scheme in exchange for their votes at the last minute. 20 of the Members who were urged to change their vote from a "yes" to "no" on pro-life grounds, but failed to do so are: Carney (PA), Costello (IL), Dahlkemper (PA), Donnelly (IN), Doyle (PA), Driehaus (OH), Ellsworth (IN), Hill (IN), Kanjorski (PA), Kaptur (OH), Kildee (MI), Langevin (RI), Mollohan (WV), Oberstar (MN), Ortiz (TX), Perriello (VA), Pomeroy (NC), Rahall (WV), Stupak (MI), and Wilson (OH)....
  • 19 pro-life Democrats voted against the Senate bill and for the motion to recommit. They are Altmire* (PA), Barrow* (GA), Berry* (AR), Boren (OK), Bright (AL), Chandler* (KY), Childers (MS), L. Davis (TN), Holden (PA), Lipinski (IL), Marshall (GA), Matheson (UT)*, McIntyre (NC), Melancon (LA)*, Peterson (MN), Ross (AR)*, Shuler (NC), Skelton (MO), and Taylor (MS). (* denotes Members with a limited or mixed pro-life voting record.)

  • Representatives Costello (IL) and Donnelly (IN) both voted for the Senate bill, but also vote for the motion to recommit.

  • Representatives Artur Davis (AL), Lynch (MA), Space (OH), and Tanner (TN) voted against the Senate bill, but also voted against the motion to recommit despite having voted for a similar amendment offered last fall.


  • Comments:

    Don't be surprised to see this Press Release soon - "The University of Notre Dame, to award Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, an Honorary Degree"

    http://www.FreeTheND88.org

    Posted by: MANHATTAN DECLARATION at March 22, 2010 2:55 AM


    Anybody in the pro-choice crowd who enjoyed having abortion be a "private" decision just lost big time. You want my money to fund your killing, then I get to be part of your decision too. You liked pretending it was a non-issue in the past, well those days are gone for good. To borrow a phrase from Barack Obama...on this issue of using my dollars to fund your baby killing I will not yield. You just invited every citizen in America into your womb and your most personal decisions. And I will be vocal and I will be ever-present till the day my dollars are no longer mandated. Don't think you can kill babies on my dollar and not have me be a part of your decision.

    Posted by: truthseeker at March 22, 2010 3:00 AM


    truthseeker:

    Can you explain how, exactly, you're going to be involved in my decision, or any woman's? I didn't see the part of the bill that said, "All abortions must be personally approved by truthseeker."

    I also don't see how this bill opens up anyone's personal decisions on healthcare (abortion included) to everyone else. It's not like every health decision is now up for popular vote.

    And does this mean that even with the executive order, you still see this bill as putting your tax dollars toward abortion?

    Posted by: Violet at March 22, 2010 3:08 AM


    It's not like every health decision is now up for popular vote.

    In a way, they are, Violet. Whatever party is in control of the WH controls HHS, which controls insurance benefits and premiums. There is nothing to keep HHS from deciding certain forms of treatment or medications are too expensive and changing covered benefits accordingly.

    Kind of funny that you mention "personal decisions on healthcare" on a night when our government voted to insert itself into each of your encounters with the health care delivery system. You obamacare supporters are a hoot!

    Posted by: Fed Up at March 22, 2010 3:52 AM


    The Executive Order to "amend" legislation is a very dangerous precedent. It tacitly inserts the president himself into an area of legislative power he is not intended to have.

    The restriction on abortion funding is nearly moot because the enormous subsidies to Planned Parenthood pay for the building, staff, all operating expenses etc. The fair market price for a surgical procedure like abortion is far higher than PP charges, so we are still paying for abortion. PP still profits from abortion because all of their expenses are basically covered. Abortion is the gravy that pays its execs $300k per year.

    Posted by: hippie at March 22, 2010 5:08 AM


    That's a very important point. Our current director of HHS has actually instructed the media not to talk to anyone who has a child or other family member who had an adverse reaction to a vaccination of any kind and has stated that adverse reactions don't happen.

    Really? That's the only type of medication in the world that no one can have an allergic reaction to? I know kids who are allergic to tylenol. I know kids who are allergic to motrin. There is no way that lady can convince me that there aren't children who are allergic to some of the ingredients in some vaccines. (Especially as we already KNOW that some kids are allergic to eggs and have bad reactions to egg based vaccines.)

    I don't like having a HHS director who actually tries to shut off the flow of information because she doesn't like what it says.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at March 22, 2010 5:34 AM


    The way you guys talk about PP makes it sound as if they do almost nothing but abortions. Only abortion services make up just 2.7% of what they do -- the other 97.3% of their services include providing prenatal care, family planning, contraceptives, testing, vasectomies, tubal ligations, and more. In fact, after listening to you guys talk about how much PP "profits" from abortions, I was pretty shocked to find out that they actually spend twice as much operating their health centers than they take in, which means they lose money on all of the services they provide, including abortions. Wherever the money comes from that pays their executives, it's not from the health centers and definitely not from abortion services.

    Also, just want to make sure you're not mixing up PP and Community Health Centers -- PP clinics are not CHCs as far as the official term is concerned. They will not receive any of the $11 billion going to CHCs.

    Posted by: Violet at March 22, 2010 6:35 AM


    Pack it up Stupak! You're done - http://www.lindaforcongress.com

    Posted by: Project Sycamore at March 22, 2010 6:50 AM


    Violet,

    Tell yourself whatever you need to. I hope and pray that you are right, actually. I hope and pray that we won't see abortion increase under this new legislation and that new CHC funding will not be funneled to dismembering babies under the guise of "reproductive health services." I hope.

    But right now, I'm am sick. Sick of the political crap that got us to this point. President Obama could have achieved many of his health care goals without sharply dividing our country. We could have addressed the issue of the uninsured and pre-existing conditions in less radical and costly ways. There are other ideas out there, but our Leader was not willing to listen.

    Now we will pay on several fronts. We will pay for the killing of babies (and again, I hope and pray that doesn't come to pass - that I am just some "pro-life nutjob"), our kids and their kids will be trying to pay of this evergrowing debt and the sacrifices my family has made over the last twenty years means nothing.

    I really don't have a problem helping out those who are down and out - in fact, we give over 10% of our income to charity (and I mean charity, not PACs or groups like PP). We feed hungry kids and provide clothing, shelter, education and health care to people throughout the world. We help in inner city schools. So my problem is not helping out. But I have a real problem with people whining about not having health insurance when they A)choose not to carry insurance, B)have cell phones, HDTV, cable and other amenities that my family has chosen to forgo in order to pay for our insurance (I know that doesn't account for all of the 30-40 million without health care) and C)I've never seen anyone denied health CARE while working as a nurse. Never.

    So, Violet, ring out your bells. "Obamacare is the law of the Land!" Pardon me if I don't join in the celebration.

    Posted by: Nerina at March 22, 2010 7:07 AM


    Bring the Revolution. Lipinski might have earned himself a pass, but the rest of these descendants of Judas must be handed their walking papers ASAP.

    And Stupak should be the first one up against the wall when the Revolution arrives.

    (Speaking metaphorically, not advocating real violence, etcetera....)

    Posted by: Naaman at March 22, 2010 7:58 AM


    The following is the text of a note I've just put out on Facebook. If anyone wants to use it to send out emailings to folks, especially people in the relevant districts, you are more than welcome to do so. If we begin campaigning now to have these people removed, and get a lot of pro-lifers behind it, I think that we can be successful.

    Supposed "Pro-Life" Democrats Who Need To Be Replaced With Real Pro-Life Legislators...Share
    Today at 8:43am | Edit Note | Delete

    ...And the one guy who we should get behind.

    Here is a list of all the Democrats who voted yes on Health Care thanks to the Executive Order:

    Carney (PA), Costello (IL), Dahlkemper (PA), Donnelly (IN), Doyle (PA), Driehaus (OH), Ellsworth (IN), Hill (IN), Kanjorski (PA), Kaptur (OH), Kildee (MI), Langevin (RI), Mollohan (WV), Oberstar (MN), Ortiz (TX), Perriello (VA), Pomeroy (NC), Rahall (WV), Stupak (MI), and Wilson (OH).

    If you know people in those districts, get in contact with them, show them this list, and get them working on campaigns to have these people out of office and replaced with genuine pro-life legislators.

    Dan Lipinski (IL) was the only Dem not to vote for the bill on pro-life grounds. Get behind him in a big way.

    Tell your friends. :)

    Posted by: Keli Hu at March 22, 2010 8:48 AM


    Violet,

    Suggesting that money goes to one area of PP but not to support their abortion wing is naive and disingenuous on a very good day.

    I have a relative who works as a nurse in an OB?GYN office that, among other things, performs abortions. As she does not assist in the abortions, she has actually convinced herself that she bears zero moral culpability in those deaths by keeping afloat the office that performs them.

    It was a bad day for pro-life yesterday, and I feel almost hung-over, so I'll just wish you a good day and leave it there.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at March 22, 2010 8:59 AM


    Naaman, fyi the legislators in the 3rd bullet point are good pro-lifers, too.

    Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at March 22, 2010 9:24 AM


    @Jill: Yes, but ... each of those pro-life Democrats was a vote to support Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Without her, this would not have happened.

    Until the Democrats end their campaign against Life, I will never vote for another Democrat. Ever.

    Posted by: Naaman at March 22, 2010 9:38 AM


    Like many pro-choice Rhode Islanders (and we are a majority), I will now be supporting Rep. Jim Langevin in his upcoming race. Interestingly, his challenge is not going to be from the Republican whose name nobody even knows. It would have been a challenge, from a pro-choice woman, in a primary. Despite the large number of Catholics in RI, we are considered one of the least religious states. Thus, Bishop Tobin's condemnation of Rep. Patrick Kennedy was met with yawns and outright hostility (especially from pro-choice non Catholics who resent that a Catholic prelate would insinuate himself in a political matter that affects all Rhode Islanders who live in a state founded on religious tolerance). Interestingly, Kennedy might be replaced with the openly gay, pro-choice mayor of Providence. The numbers also look good for a pro-choice Democrat and a pro-choice Independent (the wonderful former RI Senator Linc Chaffee) to replace the current pro-life governor.

    The anti-choice movement maintains a meme that this bill will allow federal funding of abortion. But what about federal monies that go to hospitals that perform abortions? Like the state of Massachusetts, which segregates the federal monies from state funds in order to pay for medicaid abortions, this bill will require that private health insurers do the same thing.

    And here's a couple of other questions. If a woman, on public assistance, uses her own money to pay for an abortion, is that federal funding of abortion? And if you folks strongly believe that your tax dollars shouldn't be spent for killing, then why aren't you concerned about your taxes being spent on a war which involves killing of innocent civilians and American troops?

    I think Stupak is very courageous given the kind of anger that he is receiving from both sides. He voted, as did the other pro-life Democrats, for a bill which will provide health care for woman and children and that could be said to be pro-life and an example of acting on behalf of the greater good.

    Posted by: Artemis at March 22, 2010 9:56 AM


    Jill,
    I am obviously being naive, but I don't understand this at all.

    Why oh why would Stupak after standing strong cave in to a ploy by Obama? Was he really intending on voting "yes" all along, so all of this was for show? Or was he that stupid to believe Obama?

    Why would Obama think he could get away with stating he would give an executive order to ensure public funds would not be used for abortion, only to eventually say "Sorry Bart, my bad, (snicker snicker) I am sorry, but an executive order can not be used in this situation."

    I need to go back to bed. Arggghhhh

    Posted by: Sandy at March 22, 2010 10:09 AM


    "Like many pro-choice Rhode Islanders (and we are a majority), I will now be supporting Rep. Jim Langevin in his upcoming race. Interestingly, his challenge is not going to be from the Republican whose name nobody even knows."

    I seem to remember people saying something similar about another recent political candidate. What was the name of the guy that won...? Oh, yes!

    Scott Brown.

    Posted by: Keli Hu at March 22, 2010 10:09 AM


    Artemis,
    Sounds like Massachusettes might be breaking the law and skirting the Hyde amendment. Lets see if we can fix that too.

    Posted by: truthseeker at March 22, 2010 10:12 AM


    Sandy,
    It was all a set up. Including letting the Stupak amendment pass the House originally. Notice that not ONE Dumboocrat in the Senate voted stood strong for the Stupak amendment. And if they needed their votes, then not ONE Dumbocrat in the House would have voted for the Stupak amendment. Including Lipinski.

    Posted by: truthseeker at March 22, 2010 10:16 AM


    Hi Artemis,

    You did hear of Scott Brown I presume. He beat that Kennedy clone Coakley not by being PL but by vowing to be the 41st vote against health care.

    Lots of ways to skin a cat.

    Posted by: Mary at March 22, 2010 10:18 AM


    We need to be cautious about making this a Democrat/Republican issue. The only way we can make conclusions about the comparative strength or weaknesses of pro-lifers in either party is if we had a bill that Republicans liked in all respects but the abortion provisions. In other words, how many Republicans would have stood strong if they were in the majority and they favored the same health care reform. The only Republican that fit that bill was Cao, but one legislator is not enough to draw conclusions.

    Posted by: charles at March 22, 2010 10:27 AM


    Oh and Artemis,

    Before you continue much longer with your romantic longing for liberal Democrat rule, a word of caution. Detroit. The end result of 50 years of liberal democrats.

    Posted by: Mary at March 22, 2010 10:28 AM


    charles (in charge) commented:
    We need to be cautious about making this a Democrat/Republican issue.

    Not really. The GOP is a pro-life party. The Dems are a pro-life party. Sure, there might be individuals within each party who disagree with that aspect of their party's platform ... but the platforms are generally accurate across each party.

    Furthermore, the parties' leadership is very clear on Life. A vote for a pro-life Democrat (if such a critter can be trusted at all) is still a vote for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. A vote for a pro-life Democrat is still a vote for the Obama agenda.

    No. More. Democrats.

    Posted by: Naaman at March 22, 2010 10:46 AM


    At least one person is willing to do the right thing.

    Posted by: Bill at March 22, 2010 11:20 AM


    The Republicans are hardly what I'd call a pro-life party, but, okay...

    I don't know about demonizing Planned Parenthood. I've decided that I was being obnoxious by refusing to acknowledge the good that they do and I can't understand their stance if I don't listen. I'm deeply ashamed that I wasn't listening.

    So I'm putting it in my list of Shady Groups: grous that have serious flaws but do good work, too. I'm putting Planned Parenthood alongside Focus on the Family.

    If Planned Parenthood were even neutral on abortion, I would support them: cancer screenings are a good idea and they're working to bring tests such as the HIV/AIDS test to low-income communities. That's good. No one is exactly good or evil- everyone's both.

    Posted by: Vannah at March 22, 2010 11:24 AM


    No, no no no no Vannah. Planned Parenthood is not benevolent except for their abortion stance. They also publish pornographic texts intended for teens that say ANY kind of sex is a-ok. At 14. No.

    They also claim that an HIV + individual has the "right to privacy" and as such does not have to inform partners about his status.

    They also give out condoms destined to fail (rated absolute worst by Consumer Reports) and lambast women who come to them for services.

    They DO NOT help pregnant women. I called a PP when I was pregnant with my first child for a prenatal care referal. They just kept teling me they couldn't help me, but would I like an abortion. No. They finally(begrudgingly) gave me a number to a provider who wasn't even accepting new patients. Yeah, thanks a lot.

    They claim that "only" 2% of their procedures are abortions, but that is because they pad their numbers by putting pap smears, birth control, breast exams ect. as "services" provided when someone comes in for an abortion.

    Then there are all the statutory rape cover ups...

    Posted by: Lauren at March 22, 2010 11:33 AM


    Posted by: Mary at March 22, 2010 10:18 AM

    RI leans liberal. I don't think that they will be voting for somebody who campaigns on a platform of taking away health care. Brown's victory was fueled, in large part, by the abysmal candidacy of Coakley who didn't even know who Kurt Schilling was! Massachusetts also has health care and they were concerned about having to pay for those in other less progressive states (And Brown did vote for Massachusetts health care). Anything can happen in politics; but I've been living here for 62 years and I think I know the folks of the Ocean State.

    Posted by: Artemis at March 22, 2010 11:33 AM


    Vannah,

    You need to look deeper into the history and motivation of PP. Really look. Don't just read their propaganda. My goodness, just the information they disseminate to teenagers is enough to make me lose my lunch. "Shady" organization? That's like saying Margaret Sanger was "interesting." This group is about promoting sex and cleaning up the consequences with abortion. And they want to have kids start younger and younger so they have more business. Don't be so naive. If this group was really concerned about the health of women, they would promote self-control, abstinence, and monogamy. The reason they provide HIV screening is because their propaganda (sex for anyone who wants it) leads to an increase in the incidence of the disease. We haven't even touched on the crimes they cover up or how they send condoms to disaster struck areas as some kind of aid. Give me a break.

    Posted by: Nerina at March 22, 2010 11:50 AM


    "If Planned Parenthood were even neutral on abortion, I would support them: cancer screenings are a good idea and they're working to bring tests such as the HIV/AIDS test to low-income communities. That's good. No one is exactly good or evil- everyone's both."

    Posted by: Vannah at March 22, 2010 11:24 AM

    What you are saying is akin to saying "Uncle Joe kills cats and other small animals in his basement, but he also volunteers at a food pantry each week, so he's a stand-up guy".
    Do you see?

    Oh, and PP is not a "someone". It's a business and the majority of its income comes from abortion.

    Posted by: Janet at March 22, 2010 11:57 AM


    Just watched Maafa21 this past weekend!! Gads, Vannah if you really want to know what PP is about get it, watch it. It is truth. The roots of PP are HORRIFYING and I hope and pray that everyone gets a chance to watch Maafa21. Praying it gets into the hands of our African-American brothers and sisters and they stand up and take back their neighborhoods from the evil that is abortion!

    PP can send underprivileged kids to camp every summer but it simply doesn't cancel out that they still kill unborn human children everyday!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 22, 2010 11:59 AM


    Well it seems the 'dead babies r us' folks have stumbled and bumbled onto a way to purge even the pretend pro-lifers from the democRAT party.

    The line of demarcation between the barbarians and the civilized folks is becoming more distinct with each passing day.

    Dan Lipinski is the 'last Mohican' in the democRAT party. Time will tell if he is for real or just a political opportunist.

    His moment of truth has not yet arrived where his metal will be tested. The 219 yea votes gave him political cover for now.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at March 22, 2010 12:12 PM


    one of the saddest things about this saga going on in our government is the fact that unfortunately just about everyone there has a price.
    For some the cost of their vote, morals, integrity is higher than others, but there is a price just the same. This says something about our society in general and it's so depressing.

    Posted by: 3girls at March 22, 2010 12:27 PM


    Artemis: "Like many pro-choice Rhode Islanders (and we are a majority), I will now be supporting Rep. Jim Langevin in his upcoming race."

    The same Jim Langevin who spoke at a DNC in support of destructive research? That the one?

    "Thus, Bishop Tobin's condemnation of Rep. Patrick Kennedy was met with yawns and outright hostility (especially from pro-choice non Catholics who resent that a Catholic prelate would insinuate himself in a political matter that affects all Rhode Islanders who live in a state founded on religious tolerance)."

    Don't be ridiculous. Tobin wasn't the one who started the ball rolling on that. Kennedy publicly lambasted the Catholic Church, and then Tobin RESPONDED, and now Kennedy and his allies are acting like the wounded parties. Don't make us throw up.

    Posted by: bmmg39 at March 22, 2010 12:27 PM


    Let me ask you this. How many honestly believe that if Lipinski was up to cast the deciding vote which would defeat this bill, he would have still voted NO? I think he would have gone Stupak style like the others. This was a safe NO vote for him. One thing I know for sure is that there are many times more pro-life Republicans and pro-life Democrats, so if pro-life is important to you, why vote Democrat?

    Posted by: Kyle Smith at March 22, 2010 12:54 PM


    Vannah volunteered:
    The Republicans are hardly what I'd call a pro-life party, but, okay...

    Check out the 2008 GOP platform:
    http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#5

    It's right out in the open, not hard to find:
    Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

    There's more to read, but that snippet should suffice. The GOP is a pro-life party. Yes, there are some individual Republicans who are pro-choice, but they are the exception. The general rule for the GOP is to be pro-life.

    Also, just like a pro-life Democrat is a vote for Pelosi & Reid ... even a pro-choice Republican is a vote against Pelosi & Reid. That's something for us to consider. As much as I detest pro-choice Republicans, the stakes are simply too high to elect more Democrats. The GOP is very far from perfect, but they're the only game in town right now.

    DrewM at Ace of Spades says it well:
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/299701.php
    (language warning)

    Fight. No more Democrats. Fight!

    Posted by: Naaman at March 22, 2010 1:00 PM


    Artemis: "Like many pro-choice Rhode Islanders (and we are a majority), I will now be supporting Rep. Jim Langevin in his upcoming race."

    Hi Artemis.

    I'm from RI.

    I looked Langevin in the eye and asked him a direct question, and he simply avoided a serious answer. Here's my post on that encounter.

    http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/07/congressman-langevins-fertilized-eggs/

    Let's find out where Rhode Islanders truly stand on the issue of paying for other people's abortions, as well as having a Congressman who says one thing, but then does something opposite.

    Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at March 22, 2010 2:16 PM


    The Democratic Party is pro-life?!
    You can't be serious!

    While I've been disappointed many times by the Republicans quite tolerance for abortion--witness their lack of effort to end it--they're still far more pro-life than their opponents.


    In my lifetime, the Democrats have vigorously defended a woman's "right" to choose (especially death for the child) and have expanded abortion at every opportunity available!

    That doesn't even touch their support for "safe sex", their open contempt for abstinence, and numerous other issues.

    Pro-life?!

    Good heavens! Much more of that and we can all start looking for our soylent green tablets!

    Posted by: John at March 22, 2010 11:25 PM


    The killing of the pre-born is not contraception. My family members were all cradle Democrats until the Democratic became exclusively the party of death to the pre-born. I would like to think that we would have been equally out of the loop and not supported Hitler in the 30's because he also had a group of human beings that he decided could be killed. My husband & I decided that we will, for the first time in our lives, contribute to political campaigns of candidates who are pro-life.

    Posted by: irishsmile at March 22, 2010 11:37 PM


    Jill, not sure where you got your info, but I noticed a small error... Representative Earl Pomeroy is from North Dakota (ND) not North Carolina (NC).

    Posted by: JoAnna at March 23, 2010 2:31 AM



    violet: "The way you guys talk about PP makes it sound as if they do almost nothing but abortions. Only abortion services make up just 2.7% of what they do -- the other 97.3% of their services include providing prenatal care, family planning, contraceptives, testing, vasectomies, tubal ligations, and more."

    2.7% = time spent on abortion by PP

    2.7% of hours in week = 6.22 hours.

    If a husband/boyfriend spent 6.22 hours beating the woman and the rest of the time during EACH WEEK taking her to the doctor, out to dinner, movies and in 'make-up sex', sounds like you would volunteer to be her thinking he is wonderful!/s

    Posted by: Patty at March 23, 2010 12:44 PM


    Thank you Patty for the GREAT analogy. Reminded me of something, I have a relative whose first marriage was to an abuser, sounds just like him. When he wasn't beating her, sexual abusing her, taunting her, calling her names, holding her down and refusing to let her leave their house or their bedroom, he was a "great guy". She finally after 10 years left the dog, he always acted like he could not understand why she left.

    Posted by: Prolifer L at March 23, 2010 4:43 PM


    The Executive Order to "amend" legislation is a very dangerous precedent. It tacitly inserts the president himself into an area of legislative power he is not intended to have.

    Posted by: hippie at March 22, 2010 5:08 AM

    Oh, my. This gave me a scary thought--what if it were all a ruse for just this precedent? For an executive order making law (or modifying law) that he was "forced into"? What if the point were to now allow him to make more law by executive order?

    Posted by: ycw at March 25, 2010 11:28 AM



    Post a comment:




    Remember Me?

    (you may use HTML tags for style)

    Please enter the letter "q" in the field below: