A funny thing happened in Congress last week on their way to banning abortions after 20 weeks: it didn’t happen.
As you know, the Republican party now runs the entire show in the House of Representatives and the Senate. So, they are anxious to show the nation how they can function in a governing role. On January 22, the pro-life organizations held their annual “March for Life” and, with the thought of throwing their friends a bone on their big day, a vote was scheduled in the House of Representatives on the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (otherwise known as PCUCPA). The bill, which passed the House a few years ago, would ban abortions at 20 weeks because that’s when the fetuses supposedly feel pain.
Everyone figured a bill like that would fly through the House without any problems but then the proverbial crap hit the fan from two unexpected sources. It seems that two Republican members of Congress, Renee Ellmers (NC) and Jackie Walorski (IN), actually spoke up at a private meeting with the leadership and expressed their concerns about this bill. The two members made it clear that they are “pro-life” but they had the guts to stand up to the good ole boys who still run the show and tell them that they had serious problems with the bill.
After a few other members chimed in, the leadership got very nervous and decided to not bring the bill up for a vote on January 22nd. Instead, they passed a lame measure declaring that no federal dollars could be used to pay for abortions, something that’s been done for many, many years. Yawn.
It’s not entirely clear what objections were specifically raised about the bill, but there is conjecture that these two women who represent districts that are becoming more moderate were concerned about looking too extreme. That’s interesting, however, because my political sense tells me that voting to ban abortions after 20 weeks is not “extreme” as most polls show that most Americans would support such a measure. Most people are okay with abortions in the first trimester but as the fetus starts to look more baby-like, they understandably start to get more uncomfortable.
Of course, even if the House of Representatives passed the bill and the Senate followed suit, President Obama still would have vetoed it. So, the question for the GOP leadership was do we force our members to vote on this bill at all? On the one hand, they have pressure from the pro-life groups to do something dramatic but on the other hand, there are many members of Congress who would just rather not vote on any abortion bills at all. I mean, even if you are a right winger, why vote on a bill that will not become law and risk pissing off some of the moderates in your district? Why give my opponents the opportunity to say that the GOP is once again waging a war on women?
I guess this was the message these two women sent to the boys. And the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
January 27, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Something like 3/4ths of the Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment are now gone from Congress. Voters don’t like Dems who act like Republicans when it comes to women’s issues.
LikeLike
January 27, 2015 at 7:32 pm
Good analysis, Pat.
LikeLike
January 29, 2015 at 7:39 pm
The only things I can attribute the silence of there to, Pat is your guys don’t understand what the heck Chuckles is talking about, and, try as they might, they can’t get angry about what I said. They’re speechless.,
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 12:00 pm
I have to admit, John, that Charles does lose me at times 🙂
LikeLike
January 30, 2015 at 9:47 pm
Another great blog post Pat.
Two things here: First “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” is bogus because the fetus feels no pain, saying that a fetus feels pain is based on junk science, “We know a lot about embryology [in the field]. The way that a fetus grows and develops hasn’t changed and never will,” Dr. Anne Davis, a second-trimester abortion provider, associate professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Medical Center, and consulting medical director at Physicians for Reproductive Health, told Salon. “And what we know in terms of the brain and the nervous system in a fetus is that the part of the brain that perceives pain is not connected to the part of the body that receives pain signals until about 26 weeks from the last menstrual period, which is about 24 weeks from conception.”
Because the neural structures necessary to feel pain have not yet developed, any observable responses to stimuli at this gestational stage — like the fetal “flinching” during an amniocentesis — are reflexive, not experiential. Which is to say, the fetus at 20 weeks can’t actually feel anything at all. Which is to say, the fundamental justification for these laws is a really big, really popular lie.
Go to Salon and search for fetal pain. Also this:
Despite the passage of several “pain capable” bills, the science behind fetal pain remains a footnote in the abortion debates. This is because antichoice lawmakers marshal so-called junk science to support claims of fetal pain to justify their bills that restrict access to abortion. The term “junk science” refers to spurious pseudoscience funded or written by special-interest lobbies who intend to distort public perceptions, particularly those involving public health risks.
Probably the most prominent example of junk science involves what Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway call the “Tobacco Strategy,” which refers to the way that tobacco companies marshaled their own research “experts” (that were both bullied and bought) for judicial trials in the 1970s and 1980s that involved plaintiffs alleging serious health complications as a result of smoking cigarettes. The tobacco companies found that as long as they could present reasonably credible scientists to testify in suits alleging long-term physical harm from cigarettes, they would win lawsuits and avoid paying damages. Tobacco experts routinely testified that cancers, emphysema, heart attacks, and strokes were not prompted by cigarette smoking based on their own studies or cherry-picked data that argued against a causal link between smoking and negative health effects.
In both the case of cigarette smoking and fetal pain, the use of junk science demonstrates how credible, peer-reviewed scholarship is too often disregarded for pseudoscience that touts conservative values at the expense of empirical data. In these examples and in many more, junk science serves to manipulate public perceptions of the scientific process.
Go to scienceprogress(dot)org/2013/04/navigating-the-junk-science-of-fetal-pain/
I think pointing out that fact that these pain capable bills are based on junk science would be a top priority in a blog about abortion. Our rights are being taken away from us because of junk science, fake science. I think you are doing a disservice to your readers by not pointing that out.
Also no one was fooled by the GOP deciding to drop the bill, we all know their War on Women continues, they are just trying to distract us. How any woman can call themselves a Republican and not have their head explode is simply amazing to me.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 12:04 pm
I appreciate your input as always, Carrie. To my defense, I did not get into the “junk science” stuff because I could have written another five pages on that one. I just wanted to keep the focus on the politics at this time. Meanwhile, I”m no scientist but I do wonder sometimes how is it possible for us to say without a doubt that a 24 week fetus does not “feel” pain?
LikeLike
February 5, 2015 at 7:38 pm
Pat, I wonder the exact opposite,why we insist in believing in something that has no basis in fact. I choose to base my beliefs on reason and facts, there is no proof that a fetus feels pain at 24 weeks.
“And what we know in terms of the brain and the nervous system in a fetus is that the part of the brain that perceives pain is not connected to the part of the body that receives pain signals until about 26 weeks from the last menstrual period, which is about 24 weeks from conception.”
Ummm so you want to ban abortions past 20 weeks because the fetus “may” feel pain, still irrelevant even if they did, because again no one should be forced to carry to term a fetus that is not viable or may put their already born life in danger. …I know that is not what you are saying but it kinda of is when you are giving credence to “junk Science” about when a fetus may feel pain, and by giving credence to “junk Science” you are saying it okay to ban abortions past 20 weeks based on a just because and a perhaps…playing into the politics of the anti-choice side.
Despite public misconception, abortions performed after 20 weeks only make up about 1% of total abortions (the vast majority are within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, also called the first trimester).
Late term abortions are usually much more expensive than earlier terminations. With the prices often going up into the tens of thousands, and the lack of health insurance coverage, the cost of this procedure is a major barrier to access, particularly for low-income women.
Many late term abortions occur for wanted pregnancies.
Due to either fetal anomalies or risks to the health of the patient, a pregnancy that is otherwise wanted/planned may be terminated.
These pregnancies make up a large portion of those who have the procedure, and these are often extremely difficult experiences.
People typically find out about birth defects around 20 weeks, and those faced with this possibility must make difficult decisions as they consider the quality of life for their family.
These abortions can feel like incredible losses for people, and the stigma that surrounds the procedure, as well as the financial and geographical barriers, make it all the more painful.
So because a fetus “may” feel pain you want women to be held hostage and be forced to bring a pregnancy to term just because?
LikeLike
January 31, 2015 at 5:12 am
The junk science, Carrie, is in paragraphs 2-8. Killing businesses like tobacco and abortion roll it out to keep the money rolling in.
You’re too young to remember — ah the Jews, they’re really not like the rest of us, they don’t react to pain like us fully developed people; and even I’m too young to remember the same argument being used on the blacks.
We can keep killing people because our victims are not like us, they’re sub-human, ya know?
LikeLike
January 31, 2015 at 12:02 pm
John you always say you cannot understand what Chuck is saying, I always understand what Chuck posts about, probably because Chuck and I see the world through similar viewpoints, this is the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and Chuck is saying that many of the dems that voted for this are now gone because us voters don’t like dems who act like Republicans, you know wolves in Sheep’s clothing. When the dems voted in favor of this Amendment we saw right through them, they were fake pro-choice. Did I clear things up for you John?
The Stupak–Pitts Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2010 (AHCAA). It was submitted by Representatives Bart Stupak (Democrat of Michigan) and Joseph R. Pitts (Republican of Pennsylvania). Its stated purpose was to prohibit the use of federal funds “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.[1] It was adopted by the House but not included in the Senate version, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Many pro-choice representatives said they would oppose AHCAA with the Stupak-Pitts language and proposed to adopt PPACA. Stupak and several supporters said they would oppose PPACA without the amendment but withdrew their opposition after President Obama promised an executive order to bar such funding. Pro-life groups criticized this action, saying that the executive order would not be effective.
http://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Stupak%E2%80%93Pitts_Amendment
John: now about your comment in response to my comment, I don’t understand what you are trying to say, perhaps someone can explain what John was trying to say,maybe someone that has similar viewpoints and can decipher what John meant, and perhaps someone can explain to John what Junk Science is, because my post seemed to have gone right over his head?
Junk Science means this: untested or unproven theories when presented as scientific fact, especially in a court of law. This link will explain what Junk Science is John
http://junkscience(dot)com/what-is-junk-science/
Thanks!
LikeLike
January 31, 2015 at 12:04 pm
John you always say you cannot understand what Chuck is saying, I always understand what Chuck posts about, probably because Chuck and I see the world through similar viewpoints, this is the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and Chuck is saying that many of the dems that voted for this are now gone because us voters don’t like dems who act like Republicans, you know wolves in Sheep’s clothing. When the dems voted in favor of this Amendment we saw right through them, they were fake pro-choice. Did I clear things up for you John?
The Stupak–Pitts Amendment was a proposed amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2010 (AHCAA). It was submitted by Representatives Bart Stupak (Democrat of Michigan) and Joseph R. Pitts (Republican of Pennsylvania). Its stated purpose was to prohibit the use of federal funds “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.[1] It was adopted by the House but not included in the Senate version, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Many pro-choice representatives said they would oppose AHCAA with the Stupak-Pitts language and proposed to adopt PPACA. Stupak and several supporters said they would oppose PPACA without the amendment but withdrew their opposition after President Obama promised an executive order to bar such funding. Pro-life groups criticized this action, saying that the executive order would not be effective.
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Stupak%E2%80%93Pitts_Amendment
John: now about your comment in response to my comment, I don’t understand what you are trying to say, perhaps someone can explain what John was trying to say,maybe someone that has similar viewpoints and can decipher what John meant, and perhaps someone can explain to John what Junk Science is, because my post seemed to have gone right over his head?
Junk Science means this: untested or unproven theories when presented as scientific fact, especially in a court of law. This link will explain what Junk Science is John
unkscience(dot)com/what-is-junk-science/
Thanks!
LikeLike
February 1, 2015 at 11:07 am
But Carrie, what you and Chuckles offer is not science at all, it’s simply name-calling. Name calling disguised as science is junk science.
LikeLike
February 1, 2015 at 4:01 pm
Huh???? again you are making no sense John. You suffering from Dementia?
LikeLike
February 1, 2015 at 6:59 pm
Carrie, Mr. Dunkle’s standard ploy is to deflect truth with an irrelevant phrase.
LikeLike
February 2, 2015 at 6:23 am
“Dementia,” “irrelevant” = name calling
LikeLike
February 1, 2015 at 6:59 pm
“Nicolae Ceausescu’s experiment in forced motherhood resulted in at least 10,000 maternal deaths from illegal abortions, and the forced birth of two million unwanted children, many of whom resided in orphanages. The fate of the children who were born with birth defects, handicaps or mental disabilities was barbaric as they were warehoused and ignored at institutions like Cighid. The mortality rate there was over 50 percent.”
Two million unwanted children. Hell on earth for them.
Here’s the whole article:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/01/1360140/-Abortion-good-intentions-or-bad-and-the-road-to-hell?showAll=yes
LikeLike
February 1, 2015 at 8:15 pm
Here’s an interesting film on the compulsory pregnancy policy of Roumania:
LikeLike
February 1, 2015 at 8:56 pm
The Ceaucescus were executed by the fetuses they insisted be brought to term and who were not well raised when they were children. . .
And as only 9 women died from illegal abortions every week during the 23 years pregnancy was compulsory there, I don’t think the so-called “pro-lifers” are going to be happy even when abortion is outlawed in America– they’ll want to see them ALL die! Nine a week in America will be nowhere near enough to satisfy them…
LikeLike
February 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Thanks for sending this, Chuck. I’m about half-way through.
LikeLike
February 3, 2015 at 7:16 pm
You’ll probably not want to watch the last seven minutes, Mr. Dunkle. It’s very upsetting. Thousands of those kids have died on the streets after the orphanages were closed.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 9:16 am
I watched. Oh My God.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 12:06 pm
I don’t have the energy to watch. Can someone give me the Cliffnotes?
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 5:42 pm
I’ve understood that from the git-go, Chuck. You think a child’s life begins when she’s born, or later, when someone loves her; I think it begins at the beginning.
What you think is obviously absurd and what I think is something a little child could understand. Remember God’s words: “Unless you become like a little child you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 3:18 pm
Perhaps now you understand, Mr. Dunkle, why I insist– and why I live by the principle– that he who insists a child be born bears responsibility for its nurture?
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Sorry, see above.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 9:29 pm
You don’t care. You can’t care. Why is that?
LikeLike
February 5, 2015 at 10:59 pm
The rest is silence. . .
LikeLike