Tag Archives: House

House to vote on 20-wk abortion ban ~May 13

Screenshot_2015-05-08-08-36-00On the heels of a second protest at Speaker Boehner’s office, the Weekly Standard announced this morning that the U.S. House will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act around the anniversary of the May 13, 2013, conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

A source told me midway through the 3-1/2 month process of arriving at language that satisfied all contingents, “This is the most complicated bill I’ve ever worked on.”

Farthest apart were pro-lifers who wanted the rape/incest exception removed from the bill entirely and those who wanted the reporting requirement removed from the rape/incest exception.

Ultimately the compromise reached semi-removes (for adults only) the reporting requirement, replacing it with a doctor/counseling requirement, and adds new language making the bill ultimately stronger than ever.

The new language will make committing late-term abortions with exceptions very unappealing for the slime who would commit them in the first place.

Final language isn’t available, but LifeNews.com has a decription:

According to pro-life sources who spoke with LifeNews, the rape exception language will be airtight by requiring some sort of documented medical treatment or counseling 48 hours prior to the abortion (so hopefully the mother has a further chance to weigh abortion alternatives). In addition, such treatment or counseling must be provided by physicians or counselors that are outside of the abortion industry. In cases of rape or incest of a minor, the abuse must first be reported to either social service or law enforcement.

As pro-life sources have informed LifeNews, other new provisions of the bill that strengthen in include a born-alive infant protection requirement that requires a second doctor be present and prepared to provide care to the child if he or she is born alive and that the child must receive the same level of care as would any other premature infant. The baby must then be transported and admitted to a hospital. The woman is also empowered with a right to sue if the law is not followed, and is provided with an informed consent form that notifies her of the age of her baby and the requirements under the law.

Abortionists are explicitly required to follow state mandatory reporting laws and state parental involvement laws. Finally, abortionists are required to report any late abortions done under the exceptions to the Center for Disease Control and such data will be compiled into an annual public report to ensure accountability.

Anti-abortion opponents to new fetal anesthesia legislation engage in dishonest debate

partial_birth_diagramMontana may become the first state to force abortionists to provide anesthesia to preborn babies aged 20 weeks and older who they are about to dismember.

A Republican-dominated House and Senate just sent HB 479 to the desk of Democrat pro-abortion Gov. Steve Bullock.

HB 479 is a spin on an outright 20-week abortion ban, which Montana pro-life advocates decided against, believing the governor would veto it.

The thinking, obviously, is this bill will be harder for Bullock to oppose.

A law such as this serves three purposes:

1. Educates the public about the humanity of preborn babies, juxtaposed against the atrocity of abortion

2. Gives abortion-minded mothers one last chance to reconsider – a final big tug on their maternal heartstrings

3. Provides compassionate, humanitarian pain relief if the mother nonetheless proceeds with the abortion, to a baby no one in Montana can as yet legally stop from being brutally torn limb from limb

Of course, the abortion industry opposes this bill – for all the aforementioned reasons. They lose tactical ground every time the focus is placed back on the baby, they lose money when abortion-minded mothers change their minds, and they could care less whether babies suffer while being aborted. (Who knows, they may relish the thought, sadists that they are.)

So they lie, ludicrously claiming babies don’t feel pain at 20 weeks, despite the fact babies 18-wks-old and up routinely receive anesthesia when undergoing prenatal surgery.

And by now it should come as no surprise that pro-life purists, or “immediatists” as they like to be called, oppose this bill as well.

There’s something wrong with a picture that has pro- and anti-abortion advocates working to block the same pro-life legislation.

Nevertheless, if there is a debate between pro-lifers to have on this bill, it should be an honest one, which it is currently not.

An honest debate would be on whether support of abortion restrictions or regulations is to actually sustain abortion, which is what immediatists claim.

They say that were all pro-lifers to focus single-mindedly on stopping all abortions, rather than saving babies around the edges, we would stop abortion faster, and without “compromising.”

This claim is unproven and, in fact, could be considered disproven if the failure of all statewide personhood initiatives to date is taken into consideration. (Although I want to make clear I support personhood initiatives. I basically support any and every pro-life initiative.)

Nor are they undertaking any massive effort to make abortions illegal in the U.S. Immediatist group American Right to Life gave its board 10 years to “end abortion in America” – or resign. That was in 2007. They have two years.

In fact, the only massive effort underway by immediatists is to attack incrementalist efforts and supporters.

At any rate, there is no effort without “compromise” short of enacting a worldwide ban against all abortions. This may be true, immediatists say, but then there is such a thing as “principled” compromise, vs “unprincipled” compromise – which they decide.

In other words, they decide which babies are morally acceptable to leave behind until such future unknown year when all can be saved.  And basically they have determined geographical incrementalism is principled, and all other incrementalism is unprincipled.

So, banning all abortions in Mississippi would be principled, even though this is the same as saying “and then you can kill the baby” in all 49 other states and the rest of the world, but a federal ban against abortions past the gestational age of 20 weeks would be unprincipled.

At any rate, this debate has been raging for decades.

But what is not acceptable is to misconstrue this debate, for instance as Abolish Human Abortion did yesterday, misrepresenting Father Frank Pavone’s statement supporting Montana’s bill


If I’m wrong then the only other conclusion to reach is leaders of AHA are incapable of critical thought as to the rationale for Montana’s fetal pain bill.

As pro-life advocate Tom Herring wrote in response:

AHA falsely portrays Pavone as someone who simply wants babies sedated before they are butchered. What AHA fails to see is that fighting over legislation to numb the baby’s pain makes headlines and causes clueless Americans to consider the fact that abortion is actually a form of human torture. This is common knowledge to AHA and to pro-lifers, but it is a shocking and horrifying revelation to many ignorant and otherwise disinterested voters.

This legislation is one more call, one more appeal to the conscience of a country that is marked largely by its indifference in the matter. The people are indifferent because, for one thing, nobody has told them about the excruciating pain which babies experience in abortion.

Fr. Pavone is trying to tell them about it. And you choose to mock and deride him for it. You’ve somehow managed to convince yourselves the world is upside down: Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life are the real enemy, joining pro-aborts to attack Pavone is the answer, and babies will be saved if we can make enough memes against pro-lifers.

Abby Johnson added to the obfuscation by half-quoting Fr. Pavone:


Pro-Life Action League’s Eric Scheidler generically noted:

Those who attack pro-lifers for “incrementalism” don’t seem to have looked up the word.

They pretend that, say, a law requiring fetuses to be anesthetized before being aborted is an end in itself, rather than an achievable *increment* on the way towards the ultimate goal of ending legal abortion.

Worse, they pretend that we’re somehow okay with babies being aborted, as long as they don’t feel pain (or they’re less than 20 weeks old, or their grandparents know about it, or an ultrasound is performed, etc.).

The reality is, we’re so determined to end legal abortion that we’re using *every* legal means available *right now* to save *every* unborn child we can.

12smallA final conclusion to draw is almost too horrifying to imagine.

That is that immediatists do not care that late-term babies headed for slaughter this very moment – whether or not they approve – are feeling the excruciating pain of their dismembered deaths.

They’re clearly willing to let these babies feel the torture of their murders while they wait for the day 5-10-20-50 years down the road when abortion is stopped.

GOP Leader promises vote redux on 20-week abortion ban; May 7 protest remains scheduled

House RepublicansIn a “pen-and-pad sit-down” with reporters today, Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is circling back around for a vote. According to Roll Call:

McCarthy also said he intended to bring up three measures Republicans pulled from the floor earlier this Congress: a bill banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a border security bill that was pulled amid immigration concerns, and a No Child Left Behind rewrite that was put on hold during the Department of Homeland Security funding debacle.

As most know, House Republican leadership pulled the ban from a promised vote on January 22 after supposedly pro-life Republican women complained about the rape/incest reporting requirement.

After two months had passed with no word on a rescheduled vote, I was one of eight pro-lifers who were arrested at Speaker Boehner’s office in a protest on March 25 to draw attention to the bill and the babies it would protect.

The alliance of discontented pro-lifers has grown to 11 organizations now, which are planning another protest on May 7 at Speaker Boehner’s office if the 20-week abortion ban hasn’t been voted on by that date.

To reiterate, unless the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has been passed in the House by May 7, we will be back.

Stanek Sunday funny extra: Heartbeat Bill a ticking time bomb?

Nate Beeler at Townhall.com has posted a cartoon opposing Ohio’s Heartbeat Bill, which would ban abortions after a baby’s heartbeat is detectable, as early as six weeks, and which passed the House last week.

The bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate, and pro-life Republican Governor John Kasich has expressed hesitation, citing Ohio Right to Life’s opposition based on its conjecture that the legislation “could backfire and result in a federal judge somewhere undoing restrictions on abortion enacted in recent years in Ohio and other states,” according to the Columbus Dispatch.

So what are your thoughts? Vote in the poll after the cartoon.



BREAKING: Pro-lifers announce sit-in at Speaker Boehner’s office to #FreeTheBan


On March 25 it will have been just over TWO MONTHS since Republican House leaders reneged on their promise to vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on January 22, when hundreds of thousands were participating in the March for Life.

If GOP leaders thought we might forget, they were mistaken. More than enough time has passed for them to right their wrong.

Today, I joined pro-life activists Rev. Pat Mahoney and Troy Newman in announcing a peaceful protest and sit-in at Speaker John Boehner’s office on March 25 at 11 a.m.

11047060_10206487690176768_1543167714_n (1)On that day there will be a pro-life social media effort called #FreeTheBan to compel GOP House leaders to pass this measure, which has overwhelming support among the American people across all demographics, as shown in this HuffPo poll.

Republican House leaders were roundly criticized for ineptly pulling the ban, such as in the Washington Post. 

Politico predicted re-election troubles ahead for those who blocked the ban, including Reps. Renee Ellmers, Jackie Walorski, and Charlie Dent. Even bill co-sponsor Marsha Blackburn has been identified as a potential culprit.

All pro-life activists in the Washington, D.C., area are urged to attend this important event. Those who do not wish to risk arrest are encouraged to offer support by their presence and prayers.

Sign up to join the event and show your support at our Facebook event page, where you can also learn more and get questions answered.

Pro-lifers not in the D.C. area are asked to plan to set aside time that day to cause a stir on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more at this Christian Examiner piece.

Pro-lifers are saying ENOUGH ALREADY. Pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act!

Read my previous posts on the topic:

“GOP’s Abortion Barbie causes a meltdown – of more than just the GOP”

“It has been two weeks since GOP leaders torpedoed the 20-week abortion ban, and I’m madder than ever”

Gallup: Americans want stricter abortion laws; satisfaction with current policy plummets


Per Gallup, February 9:

In 2015, 34% of Americans say they are satisfied with current U.S. abortion policies. This is the lowest percentage since Gallup first asked the question in 2001.

Gallup determined Republicans were the most dissatisfied political group, and they want stricter rather than less strict laws:

One factor contributing to the drop in satisfaction with abortion policies is significantly lower satisfaction among Republicans since 2012. From January 2001 to January 2008, after the election of Republican George W. Bush at least 39% of Republicans each year said they were satisfied with the nation’s abortion policies….

However, since 2012, with Democratic President Barack Obama in office, no more than 29% of Republicans have been satisfied with the nation’s abortion policies. And Republicans’ satisfaction is particularly low this year, at 21%, an 8% decline from a year ago.

[O]f those who are dissatisfied, twice as many prefer stricter rather than less strict laws: 24% want stricter laws, while 12% want current abortion laws to be less strict….

At the same time, no meaningful changes have occurred in Democrats’ and political independents’ views on these questions since Obama became president.

Interestingly, this poll was taken before the 20-week abortion ban debacle in the House. I expect dissatisfaction now is even higher.

Also interesting is that despite all the feminist hang-wringing, Democrats basically want the status quo, and Independents are leaning slightly toward wanting stricter laws.

How does the Democrat/feminist 2012-14 “war on women” meme fit in here? All that can be said is it certainly didn’t help them.

It has been two weeks since GOP House leaders torpedoed the 20-week abortion ban, and I’m madder than ever


Two weeks ago today Republican House leaders outdid themselves on the scale of betrayal by suddenly pulling a vote on the Pain Capable 20-week abortion ban the day before 500,000 pro-lifers to whom they’d promised that vote descended on Washington for the March for Life.

I was pretty angry that day, and, if anything, I’m angrier today. I’m not alone in wanting the political scalp of turncoat ringleader Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (pictured above with Speaker John Boehner) and whoever all her allies are found to be.

Some have been outed: Reps. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Jackie Walorski of Indiana. At least one other is now trying to disclaim responsibility.

They’re running scared from the avalanche of pro-life anger.

I’m all in on ousting every last culprit and have let my friends in D.C. know I’ll help however I can.

So I am surely one of those whose “abhorrent and childish behaviors” have “appalled” Ellmers, as she wrote in an ill-conceived response to the blowback on January 30.

In that statement, Ellmers, true to her newly revealed character, turned on GOP leadership:

I remain disappointed that the concern for the language of mandatory reporting of rape to law enforcement held by House Republican women and many men were not addressed before our leadership made the decision to pull the bill from the House floor in the eleventh hour.

While I have nothing good to say about the GOP House leadership, we now know Ellmers’ contention isn’t true. As detailed in NRO’s piece, “The quarrel that blew up the GOP abortion bill,” leaders did try to address those concerns – several times.

3c9d43aEllmers’ legislative assistant Kristi Gribble Thompson (pictured right) promised to call me “within in a couple days” when we protested Ellmers’ office 13 days ago, implying there was more to the story. I’m still waiting to hear it.

But Ellmers has since reaffirmed the inexplicable story is the story: She pulled support from the identically worded bill she voted for in 2013 due to a requirement that a mother seeking an abortion past 20 weeks file a police report, as part of the (unnecessary and repugnant) rape/incest exception.

This was to protect that mother and other girls and women from sexual perpetrators by locking them up, and it was to preclude an obvious loophole which would otherwise enable abortionists to check the box every time that their patients were rape victims without having to provide any evidence.

Furthermore, there is something off in a scenario where a rape victim would seek an abortion only after 20 weeks. Rep. Ellmers should want to know what is wrong with that picture. Is this a child who didn’t realize she was pregnant? Is this the victim of sex trafficking?

In her January 30 statement, Ellmers waxed on about “empower[ing] women with courage to face this crisis.” How does not reporting the crime do that?

Speaking of courage, Ellmers had been hiding from everyone until yesterday, when she attempted to defend herself to a group of pro-life students who dropped by her office.

But even that was accidental. I’m told by a rep from Students for Life of America that Ellmers actually thought she was walking up on a photo op and then got stuck.


unnamed (2)

In her nonapology letter, Ellmers concluded, “It’s unimaginable to me why some outside parties would seek to target strong, pro-life conservative women and men who are serving in Congress.”

Who are they, Congresswoman Ellmers? It is unimaginable to me that you might consider yourself part of that crowd.

Sunday funnies 1-25-15

Good morning, and Happy Sunday!

I was disappointed that, to my knowledge, no conservative political cartoonist addressed the 20-week abortion ban scandal in the GOP-controlled House.

That aside, here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post.

On the topic of abortion on this 42nd anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, here are two. The first is actually an illustration by Alexander Hunter of the Washington Times to accompany an op ed by Ken Blackwell, “Aborting black America”:
 by Steve Breen of Townhall.com
 On a related topic – Pope Francis’ controversial remark – by Jeff Danziger at GoComics.com
 Steve Kelley at Townhall.com provides a nice segue…
 And can’t let Deflategate go unmentioned, by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com