House Passes Pro-Life Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions After 20 Weeks
Reported by Steven Ertelt May 13, 2015, Washington, DC
Should the Senate approve the bill, President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2016 in an attempt to wrest control of the White House and approve a pro-life president who will sign it into law.
During the debate today on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks, Congressman Sean Duffy gave what may be one of the most passionate defenses of the pro-life position ever seen on the floor of Congress. Duffy took on the claim often made by Democrats who support abortion saying they stand for the defenseless and voiceless.
“I’ve listened to the floor debate day after day .. about how they fight for the forgotten, they fight for the defenseless, they fight for the voiceless. And they pound their chest and stomp their feet. You don’t have anyone in our society that’s more defenseless than these little babies,” he said. “And we are not taking — I believe in conception. I know my colleagues can’t agree with me on that. Can’t we come together and say we are going to stand with little babies that feel pain, that survive outside the womb? Ones that don’t have lobbyists and money? Don’t we stand with those little babies?”
“If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don’t talk to me about cruelty in our bill — when you look at little babies being dismembered, feeling excruciating pain, if we can’t stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution?” he added.
The vote for the bill came on the anniversary of the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who killed babies in a live-birth abortion process.
“Two years ago today, Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted of murder, conspiracy to kill and involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment,” Congressman Chris Smith said.
“Even though the news of Gosnell’s child slaughter was largely suppressed by the mainstream media, many of my colleagues may remember that Dr. Gosnell operated a large Philadelphia abortion clinic where women died and countless babies were dismembered or chemically destroyed often by having their spinal cords snipped—all gruesome procedures causing excruciating pain to the victim,” he added. “The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is needed now more than ever because there are Gosnells all over America, dismembering and decapitating pain-capable babies for profit.”
“Fresh impetus for the bill came from a huge study of nearly 5,000 babies—preemies—published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. The next day, a New York Times article titled: “Premature Babies May Survive at 22 Weeks if Treated” touted the Journal’s extraordinary findings of survival and hope,” Congressman Smith continued. “Thus the babies we seek to protect from harm today may survive if treated humanely, with expertise and compassion—not the cruelty of the abortion.”
This is the second time the House has voted for the legislation — having approved it in May 2013. The bill was then blocked by pro-abortion Democrats who controlled the U.S. Senate. During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.
Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.
Americans strongly support legislation that would ban late-term abortions and protect babies who are capable of feeling intense pain during an abortion.
The vast majority of Americans are still very uncomfortable with abortion, according to a January Marist University poll. The survey finds support for abortion restrictions among both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” supporters. Despite the strong support, President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the pro-life bill.
According to the national survey, 84% of Americans want significant restrictions on abortion, and would limit abortions to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy. This includes almost 7 in 10 (69 percent) who identify themselves as “pro-choice” who support such abortion limits and oppose late-term abortions. The same percentage (84 percent) also says that laws can protect both the well-being of a woman and the life of the unborn. In addition, by more than 20 points (60 percent to 38 percent), Americans say abortion is morally wrong.
Other national polls also show strong support nationwide for the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and stopping late-term abortions. A poll conducted for the liberal Huffington Post find Americans support the ban on late-term abortions starting at 20-weeks of pregnancy by almost a 2-1 margin. A national poll by The Polling Company found that, after being informed that there is scientific evidence that unborn children are capable of feeling pain at least by 20 weeks, 64% would support a law banning abortion after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life was in danger. Only 30% said they would oppose such a law.
A November 2014 poll from Quinnipiac found that 60 percent of Americans support legislation limiting abortions after 20 weeks, including 56 percent of Independents and 46 percent of Democrats. The bill relies on the science of fetal pain to establish a Constitutional reason for Congress to ban abortions late in pregnancy. The science behind the concept of fetal pain is fully established and Dr. Steven Zielinski, an internal medicine physician from Oregon, is one of the leading researchers into it. He first published reports in the 1980s to validate research showing evidence for it. He has testified before Congress that an unborn child could feel pain at “eight-and-a-half weeks and possibly earlier” and that a baby before birth “under the right circumstances, is capable of crying.”
He and his colleagues Dr. Vincent J. Collins and Thomas J. Marzen were the top researchers to point to fetal pain decades ago. Collins, before his death, was Professor of Anesthesiology at Northwestern University and the University of Illinois and author of Principles of Anesthesiology, one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain. “The functioning neurological structures necessary to suffer pain are developed early in a child’s development in the womb,” they wrote. “Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as 8 weeks, but certainly by 13 1/2 weeks of gestation. Sensory nerves, including nociceptors, reach the skin of the fetus before the 9th week of gestation. The first detectable brain activity occurs in the thalamus between the 8th and 10th weeks. The movement of electrical impulses through the neural fibers and spinal column takes place between 8 and 9 weeks gestation. By 13 1/2 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body,” they continued.
With Zielinski and his colleagues the first to provide the scientific basis for the concept of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand has provided further research to substantiate their work. One leading expert in the field of fetal pain, Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand at the University of Tennessee, stated in his expert report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, “It is my opinion that the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.”
“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.
Dr. Colleen A. Malloy, Assistant Professor, Division of Neonatology at Northwestern University in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in May 2012 said, “[w]hen we speak of infants at 22 weeks LMP [Note: this is 20 weeks post fertilization], for example, we no longer have to rely solely on inferences or ultrasound imagery, because such premature patients are kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.”
“In today’s medical arena, we resuscitate patients at this age and are able to witness their ex-utero growth and development. Medical advancement and technology have enabled us to improve our ability to care for these infants…In fact, standard of care for neonatal intensive care units requires attention to and treatment of neonatal pain,” Dr. Malloy testified. She continued, “[t]hus, the difference between fetal and neonatal pain is simply the locale in which the pain occurs. The receiver’s experience of the pain is the same. I could never imagine subjecting my tiny patients to horrific procedures such as those that involve limb detachment or cardiac injection.”
Other provisions in H.R. 36 include:
- An Informed Consent Form including the age of the child; a description of the law; an explanation that if the baby is born-alive, he or she will be given medical assistance and transported to a hospital; and information about the woman’s right to sue if these protections are not followed. Women deserve this information.
- The woman is empowered with a Civil Right of Action, so she may sue abortion providers who fail to comply with the law. Parents are also given a civil right of action if the law is not followed with regard to their minor daughter.
—
H R 36 RECORDED VOTE 13-May-2015 5:32 PM
QUESTION: On Passage, Yes is a Pro-Life Vote, No is Pro-Abortion
BILL TITLE: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
| Ayes | Noes | PRES | NV | |
| Republican | 238 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Democratic | 4 | 180 | 4 | |
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 242 | 184 | 1 | 5 |
—- AYES 242 —
| Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Babin Barr Barton Benishek Bilirakis Bishop (MI) Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Blum Bost Boustany Brady (TX) Brat Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Buck Bucshon Burgess Byrne Calvert Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Chabot Chaffetz Clawson (FL) Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Comstock Conaway Cook Costello (PA) Cramer Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Curbelo (FL) Davis, Rodney Denham DeSantis DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donovan Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Ellmers (NC) Emmer (MN) Farenthold Fincher Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fleming Flores Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Garrett Gibbs Gibson Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Granger Graves (GA) Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Griffith Grothman |
Guinta Guthrie Hardy Harper Harris Hartzler Heck (NV) Hensarling Herrera Beutler Hill Holding Hudson Huelskamp Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hunter Hurd (TX) Hurt (VA) Issa Jenkins (KS) Jenkins (WV) Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jolly Jones Jordan Joyce Katko Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger (IL) Kline Knight Labrador LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Langevin Latta Lipinski LoBiondo Long Loudermilk Love Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis MacArthur Marchant Marino Massie McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley McMorris Rodgers McSally Meadows Meehan Messer Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Mulvaney Murphy (PA) Neugebauer Newhouse Noem Nugent Nunes Olson Palazzo Palmer Paulsen Pearce Perry |
Peterson Pittenger Pitts Poe (TX) Poliquin Pompeo Posey Price, Tom Ratcliffe Reed Reichert Renacci Ribble Rice (SC) Rigell Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney (FL) Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Rouzer Royce Russell Ryan (WI) Salmon Sanford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Stefanik Stewart Stivers Stutzman Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiberi Tipton Trott Turner Upton Valadao Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Walters, Mimi Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Westmoreland Whitfield Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (IA) Young (IN) Zeldin Zinke |
—- NOES 184 —
| Adams Aguilar Ashford Bass Beatty Becerra Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Bonamici Brown (FL) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Capuano Cárdenas Carney Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu, Judy Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Conyers Cooper Costa Courtney Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Danny DeFazio DeGette Delaney DeLauro DelBene Dent DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Dold Doyle, Michael F. Duckworth Edwards Ellison Engel Eshoo Esty Farr Fattah Foster Frankel (FL) Frelinghuysen |
Fudge Gabbard Gallego Garamendi Graham Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutiérrez Hahn Hanna Hastings Heck (WA) Higgins Himes Honda Hoyer Huffman Israel Jackson Lee Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind Kirkpatrick Kuster Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lee Levin Lewis Lieu, Ted Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Luján, Ben Ray (NM) Lynch Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Matsui McCollum McDermott McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore Moulton Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal |
Nolan Norcross O’Rourke Pallone Pascrell Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peters Pingree Pocan Polis Price (NC) Quigley Rangel Rice (NY) Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schrader Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Sherman Sinema Sires Slaughter Smith (WA) Speier Swalwell (CA) Takai Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tonko Torres Tsongas Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Velázquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters, Maxine Watson Coleman Welch Wilson (FL) Yarmuth |
—- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 1 —
| Hice, Jody B. |
—- NOT VOTING 5 —
| Barletta Boyle, Brendan F. |
Brady (PA) Capps |
Hinoj |
by 
Democrats believe they’ve hit on the perfect issue to distract from the horror of Obamacare in the 2014 elections: the minimum wage.
by 
On Monday, Fox News host Sean Hannity declared it may be time for a conservative third party for those who are just “sick” of the establishment Republicans that undermine conservatives. 
What Did You Say? 
People wait to enter the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, as it begins its new term. The justices cleared the way Monday for an immediate expansion of same-sex marriage by unexpectedly and tersely turning away appeals from … more >
By Steve Deace – – Monday, October 6, 2014
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/deace-issue-threatens-unravel-both-constitution-an/#ixzz3FVEZDdLy
With the 35-year marriage between Christians and the Republican Party already on the rocks, a U.S. Supreme Court with a majority of Republican appointees just put the religious liberty of every believer in the GOP base in unprecedented peril.
The GOP was already struggling to maintain the loyalty of its conservative base, and one of its last, best talking points was the importance of judicial appointments. Now that talking point has also been blown to smithereens. The John Roberts court gave us Obamacare, the narrowest wording possible when siding in favor of Hobby Lobby, got rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, and, on Monday, opened the floodgates for an onslaught against the First Amendment.
By deciding not to intervene in the fight it started last year, (in a divisive 5-4 ruling that Justice Antonin Scalia chastised for its “jaw-dropping assertion of judicial supremacy”) the Supremes gave the green-light to a full-blown constitutional crisis, the likes of which threatens to tear the GOP apart at the seams.
There are two reasons — one constitutional and the other political — why this has the potential to be far more explosive than even Roe v. Wade:
Constitutionally speaking, redefining marriage and morality has already proven it will also include redefining free speech, religious liberty, and private property rights as we’ve known them since the dawn of the republic. Already this year, we’re seeing an unprecedented assault on these cherished traditions by the same people who promised us the new “tolerance” wouldn’t cost anybody else their rights. The examples are legion and would require a whole separate column to chronicle. They even include a military court martial for those who believe in marriage as we’ve always known it.
One of the worst examples is what’s happening now to Robert and Cynthia Gifford, a Catholic couple in New York who are facing a $13,000 fine for refusing to rent their own home to lesbians for their “wedding.”
With few exceptions, disagreement on the sanctity of life hasn’t cost someone their livelihood or their home the way disagreement on marriage and morality has already shown it will. That’s because what’s behind this movement isn’t really tolerance, but intolerantly using the coercive force of government to make you abandon your own moral conscience. Just ask the Giffords in New York.
Understand that what’s driving this movement isn’t equality, but validation. The kind of ultimate validation the “new tolerance” cannot get from the God from whom they are sadly estranged. So the “new tolerance” wants validation from the second-most powerful force on earth instead — government.
And if you will not validate them, then you will be made to care.
Politically, this issue could be the final undoing of the Reagan Coalition that transformed electoral landscape a generation ago. Prior to Roe v. Wade, Catholics rarely voted Republican, and evangelicals rarely voted at all. Catholics were mostly Democrats, and evangelicals were waiting to be raptured away. But once baby-killing was sanctioned by the judicial branch, and the other two branches of government rolled over and played dead as well, that mobilized long-at-odds Catholics and evangelicals to come together to form the Moral Majority. That’s what allowed Reagan and the Republicans to have their governing majority.
However, while that culture war resurrected the Republican Party, this one threatens to crucify it. Reagan welcomed the flock into his herd, but the elites in charge of today’s GOP have let it be known they want no part of this battle (or any other, for that matter).
To wit:
One of the key legal advisers to the anti-marriage crowd is President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general. John McCain’s 2008 national campaign manager is working with the ACLU to squash state marriage laws. The last two GOP presidential nominees, Mr. McCain and Mitt Romney, both urged Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto legislation that would’ve reaffirmed the First Amendment in her state earlier this year.
Of course, right on cue, a GOP establishment best known for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory jumps on a bandwagon just as it’s losing steam.
As Michael Medved recently noted, the latest figures from Pew Research show the so-called “gay marriage tidal wave” we’ve been told was forthcoming is barely a trickle-down-zeitgeist. Support for redefining marriage has dropped five points this year, and a majority of Americans — including 77 percent of black Protestants and 82 percent of white evangelicals — agreed with the statement “homosexual behavior is a sin.”
White evangelicals, by the way, remain the largest demographic of the GOP base. It’s quite possible John Kerry would’ve been elected president in 2004, without the marriage amendment on the ballot in the key battleground state of Ohio driving up their turnout. In that same election, the Michigan Marriage Amendment got almost 300,000 more votes than George W. Bush did. Proposition 8 defending marriage in California got more statewide votes there in 2008, a huge Democrat year, than any Republican has ever received statewide. Marriage did better than Mitt Romney in all four states they shared the same ballot in 2012. In North Carolina, 61 percent voted for marriage, just four months before the Democrats showed up in Charlotte for their national convention.
Yet here we are, the base that rescued the GOP from its post-Watergate funk, remembering all the times post-Reagan we plugged our noses, ignored the GOP establishment’s foul stench, and pulled the “R” lever on Election Day nonetheless. In our time of great need, how are we repaid?
With scorn, contempt, and abandonment. Just look at this Monday headline from The Daily Caller: “The GOP’s Plan B: Throw Social Conservatives Under the Bus.”
Who knows? Maybe all those illegal aliens the GOP establishment wants to grant amnesty to will happily take our place. And maybe I’d look good in a thong.
Ironically, the issue most Republicans would love to run away from will be a front-and-center vetting tool in the looming 2016 GOP presidential primary, which is slated to start on Nov. 5. The old talking points aren’t going to cut it, either.
We can’t “let the states decide” the issue when the courts won’t allow the states to decide the issue. And we can’t wait to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment while our religious liberty is being threatened right now. Not to mention the courts have already shown a blatant disregard for the Second Amendment and most of the Bill of Rights as it is. So I fail to see why they’d suddenly submit to this new amendment.
Most of the states that are traditionally pivotal in the early GOP primary calendar have passed marriage amendments — South Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, and Florida. My home state of Iowa historically fired three state supreme court justices who thought they could redefine marriage. Thus, everyone is going to be forced to go on the record on this issue, once and for all. And when it comes to protecting our God-given rights, that’s a pass-fail exercise.
The Christian family business owner doesn’t care that the Republican will cut their taxes when they’re too busy paying hefty fines and legal fees just for being a Christian.