210 Democrats vote against bill requiring medical care for babies born alive after abortion attempt

[The Original Tree]

He's not, he sent us Trump, and you all followed the False Prophet.
View attachment 746951

It matters not what human is at the head of a corrupt government. If he is a good man, the corrupt establishment will attack him. If he is corrupt, the corrupt establishment will protect him. God's judgment is coming to destroy human government because in the last days it will become entirely corrupt, just like it is now.
Who is in office is not going to stop it.

 

[yidnar]

This is already the law. It's why Gosnell is spending his time serving out three life sentences.

well then why didnt they of the vote in favor of the bill instead of against ? it would take no more effort to vote for rather than against whether its already law or not ..... and its a stand alone bill requiring medical aid to a baby that survives an abortion .

 

[martybegan]

It's called "infanticide" and it's very illegal. If you had any functioning brain at all, you'd know that.

Infanticide and American criminal justice (1980-2018) - PubMed

Maternal infanticide, or the murder of a child in the first year of life by its mother, is a subject both compelling and repulsive. The victim is innocent, but the perpetrator may be a victim too. In the USA, mentally ill women who commit infanticide may receive long prison sentences or even the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

With the abortion laws passed in places like California using the term "perinatal" that could be in question.

 

[pknopp]

well then why didnt they of the vote in favor of the bill instead of against ?

I am 100% against show bills like this that do nothing. I have condemned the Democrats recently for doing the same thing. They are stupid and a waste of government resources. As the link previously shows, this is ALREADY illegal.

I am Pro-life and I would have voted against it for that reason.

it would take no more effort to vote for rather than against whether its already law or not ..... and its a stand alone bill requiring medical aid to a baby that survives an abortion .

These grandstanding efforts need to stop. They won't as long as people such as yourself will defend them.

 

[yidnar]

Apparently you don't know it's already against the law to kill a baby. That's how stupid you are.

so a baby that doesnt survive an abortion isnt a baby but one that does is ?? so its all about location eh ... face it lib babies in the womb and outside of the womb ARE BOTH BABIES ! and both have a right to life !

 

[yidnar]

I am 100% against show bills like this that do nothing. I have condemned the Democrats recently for doing the same thing. They are stupid and a waste of government resources. As the link previously shows, this is ALREADY illegal.

I am Pro-life and I would have voted against it for that reason.




These grandstanding efforts need to stop. They won't as long as people such as yourself will defend them.

apparently dems have no problem voting on so called show bills .... over 200 voted on the bill ...why did dems vote on the bill ?

 

[pknopp]

apparently dems have no problem voting on so called show bills .... over 200 voted on the bill ...why did dems vote on the bill ?

They don't and as I already said and you somehow missed, I condemn them for it.

You got me though, yeah, I just wouldn't have bothered to show up for the vote and then I could explain why when asked.

 

[martybegan]

I am 100% against show bills like this that do nothing. I have condemned the Democrats recently for doing the same thing. They are stupid and a waste of government resources. As the link previously shows, this is ALREADY illegal.

I am Pro-life and I would have voted against it for that reason.




These grandstanding efforts need to stop. They won't as long as people such as yourself will defend them.

With a divided congress what you get are "show bills". It's the way the House shows what they would do if only they had the Presidency and the Senate under Repubican control.

It's part of the 2024 warm ups.

 

[yidnar]

They don't and as I already said and you somehow missed, I condemn them for it.

You got me though, yeah, I just wouldn't have bothered to show up for the vote and then I could explain why when asked.

they are sending a message to their base apparently ....

 

[1srelluc]

Which would have never have happened without the overturn of RvW.

Care to flesh that out?

 

[pknopp]

With a divided congress what you get are "show bills". It's the way the House shows what they would do if only they had the Presidency and the Senate under Repubican control.

It's part of the 2024 warm ups.

So what we will get is passing laws that are already the law? And you support that? Do you understand the confusion and mess this causes?

 

[pknopp]

they are sending a message to their base apparently ....

That they are redundant and like to waste our resources?

 

[Dragonlady]

Democrats will always defend what they consider to be their right to deny our 1st and 2nd amendments, their right to freebies and their right to kill babies. That's why they need to be weeded out of our government. MAGA

Abortion doesn't "kill babies". A "baby" is a living breathing human being. Terminating a pregnancy prevents a zygote or a fetus from becoming a baby.

One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Women don't get a choice about that, we just have to endure it. It's "God's will", But it definitely proves that God doesn't consider every zygote or fetus to be all that "precious" or vital. Even evangelical women don't believe that bullshit.

13% of all abortions are performed on "evangelical" women. Since evangelicals are only 19% of the population, it appears that even a majority of evangelicals believe in a woman's right to her own choices. The ONLY people who don't believe in a woman's right to choose whether she has a baby or not, white Republican males.
All across the nation, in states which literally had abortion on the ballot, voters overwhelmingly rejected extreme anti-abortion laws promoted by Republican men.

There are no first amendment rights to discriminate against people you don't like on the grounds of religion. I note that blood sacrifice for religious reasons is banned by law. I've never once seen a conservative complain about that being an infringement on religious rights, but that is exactly what it is. But they complain about having to provide public services to gays. That's not a religious right and it infringes on the rights of others, which is wrong.

Similarly, there is no right to gun ownership except for the need to provide defense for the nation, but you ignore the preamble to the 2nd Amendment, which was passed at a time when there was no standing army, and became redundant when the nation created a both a standing army, and National Guard and Army reserves at home.

The NRA has perverted the 2nd Amendment to create the most heavily armed and criminal nation in the first world. And they did it so they could sell more guns, not because it was in the best interests of the nation. Fools continue to applaud their efforts.

 

[hadit]

Undoubtedly there were other reasons for the 'no' vote. The above was likely included in a bill the Democrats could not support for the very reason we see here, propaganda.

What? Are you agreeing that bills should be focused on only one item at a time so unrelated things can't be snuck in to make it impossible to get what you vote for without stuff you don't want?

 

[martybegan]

So what we will get is passing laws that are already the law? And you support that? Do you understand the confusion and mess this causes?

In some places the abortion rights bills allow abortion during the "peri-natal" period, which can be interpreted to mean up to a week AFTER birth, so I can see why the Republicans passed this bill as a little meat for their base.

 

[pknopp]

In some places the abortion rights bills allow abortion during the "peri-natal" period, which can be interpreted to mean up to a week AFTER birth, so I can see why the Republice

There is no place that allows the killing of a baby after being born. The Federal law addressing this was already posted above.

 

[martybegan]

There is no place that allows the killing of a baby after being born. The Federal law addressing this was already posted above.

The laws were written in an ambiguous way, and any death of the fetus/infant during this period could be considered part of the abortion.

 

[pknopp]

The laws were written in an ambiguous way, and any death of the fetus/infant during this period could be considered part of the abortion.

No such laws were ever passed. More political circus acts.

 

[martybegan]

No such laws were ever passed. More political circus acts.

They were in CA and NY. The wording was included. They were in such a rush to pass "abortion up to the last second of pregnancy" laws they used the term perinatal without realizing it could mean up to a week after birth.

 

[pknopp]

They were in CA and NY. The wording was included. They were in such a rush to pass "abortion up to the last second of pregnancy" laws they used the term perinatal without realizing it could mean up to a week after birth.

Even IF so, the state law would not negate the Federal law which is posted above.