Fiscally Conservative Or Anti-Abortion

Eric at Classical Values has several posts up on how anti-abortion Republicans greased the way for passage of the health care bill in the House. You can read them at anti-abortion RINOs? Is there such a species? and The best way to keep something out of a government program? No program! and Federal crackdown leads to new improved fake penises!.

I have a few words to add - not because I can say it any better than Eric. I can't. I just want to vent. So where to start? Well it all starts with the anti-abortion lobby. The National Right to Life Committee. Now these people keep a list. And none of them will be missed. (I like the Groucho Marx version). Well what kind of lists? Lists on how every Congress Critter votes on every abortion issue. You can see the real friendly threatening letter NRLC sent to the House Tools. So let me explain the ins and outs. There was a provision in the bill mandating Federal Funding for abortion. If this had stayed in the bill there would not have been enough votes for the Health and Economy Destruction bill to pass. So of course with NRLC prodding the anti-abortion Ds and Rs get together (they have a majority) and take the Federal Funding of Abortion feature out of the bill and it is now clean enough to pass. And guess what abortion foes? The abortion feature can be air dropped in during reconciliation. Suckers.

All because of some Congress Critters being more afraid of the anti-abortion lobby than of the fiscal conservative lobby.

All for a crime that in all my and Eric's recent discussions of the abortion question, Defeating Libertarian Logic and No Man Can? and The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds, most anti abortion folks think should have a punishment roughly equivalent to misdemeanor manslaughter for the doctor. And the woman (the initiator and accomplice) goes free. Seriously? You want to create a black market for this? I get it Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals. I suppose they are under represented and there does seem to be a certain affinity between politicians and criminals. So there is that.

The Republicans are the anti-abortion Party and that takes priority over everything else. Which says social conservatives are reverting to their Progressive roots. I have been hearing in my conversations around the 'net that Social Conservatives are the only reliable economic conservatives every time I voice a complaint about socon's real ambitions. I guess I was right. Socons are NOT reliable economic conservatives. But if you need a vote against abortion well they are 100% reliable.

Perhaps a little work on them with a LARGE size Ream and Clean™ will get them to see things in a different light.

Because I'm beyond disgusted.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 11.09.09 at 04:27 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/9019






Comments

If this had stayed in the bill there would not have been enough votes for the Health and Economy Destruction bill to pass.

You have no way of knowing alternative time lines anymore than the rest of us ...

Adriane   ·  November 10, 2009 01:01 AM

Well of course not. Let me quote you a bit from the the NRLC www site

In a story transmitted today (October 23), the Associated Press accurately reported that the House Democratic leadership currently does not intend to allow the House to vote on an amendment sponsored by Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), and supported by NRLC, which would, as the AP reported, "include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill."

The AP reported: "Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail . . . So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it. Instead, it appears they may have to take the risk of letting Stupak try to block action on the underlying bill, which he intends to do by assembling 'no' votes on a procedural measure [the "rule"] that needs to pass before debate can begin."

To get the leadership to change their minds must have taken some serious effort. My guess is that they needed the votes.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2009 04:08 AM

Or how about this one from eight days earlier.

http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release093009.html

The signers -- 25 Democrats and 158 Republicans -- urged Pelosi to allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to prohibit coverage of elective abortions by the public plan and subsidies for private plans that cover elective abortions. Seven other House Democrats have sent Pelosi similar letters in recent days, for a total of 32 Democrats.

Add those in to hold outs for other reasons and the bill was in trouble. Widely reported trouble. So much trouble that the vote was delayed several times.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2009 04:14 AM

Look it is simple. The Republicans got played because they were not willing to take a risk on a NRLC less than 100% score. Or the risk that the bill might have passed with the abortion provision in it.

And if it passes the Senate it is probable that the abortion provision will be air dropped into the final reconciliation.

Or the Senate may not vote on the measure. Ever. If we are lucky.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2009 04:20 AM

If the bill had past with the abortion provisions in them, we would be the place where we are now ... hoping it dies in the Senate, hoping people and or states will bring Constitutional challenges, or hoping there is enough tar and feathers in the US to get all the signers, or all of the above.

The bill might have passed with the abortion provisions in it because Pelosi has it loaded with enough pork to get enough people on board. She simply could have kept loading until enough signers overcame their distaste for government funded abortions ...

Adriane   ·  November 10, 2009 01:37 PM

Well sure Adriane. It might have gone down that way. But the Republican socons didn't even test to see. So we will never know.

And look at the votes. A lot of people not known for their anti-abortion creds voted against government funded abortions.

That does seem to point to the fact that maybe I have a point.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2009 02:16 PM

And Adriane,

Have a look at this:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/11/the_narrative_h.html

I dunno. Maybe I have a point.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2009 02:27 PM

The House restrictions, offered in an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), were the price that Speaker Nancy Pelosi - who supports abortion rights - paid to get a health-care bill passed, on a narrow 220-215 vote.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/homepage/20091110_Abortion_threatens_health_bill.html

I hope that makes it clearer.

M. Simon   ·  November 10, 2009 02:32 PM

Swenson negates?coalesce freak:dependably conversant Domingo

Anonymous   ·  November 11, 2009 12:44 AM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits