Thursday, May 31, 2012

Kaptur a 'no' vote on banning sex-selection abortions

Rep. Marcy Kaptur joined fellow House Democrats to vote against a bill that would ban sex-selection abortions.

In order for H.R. 3541 to pass, it needed a two-thirds majority. Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the legislation after President Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood came out in opposition. The final vote was 246-168 with 17 not voting. Rep. Bob Latta voted for the measure.

Republicans voted for the bill 226-7. Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions by a vote of 161-20.

Kaptur told Roll Call that she thought the bill was superfluous:


“I found it unnecessary,” the Ohio Democrat said. “The Hyde Amendment is the governing law of the land, and it is sufficient ... The government shouldn’t make decisions for any family regardless of what that decision is and it shouldn’t be involved in funding it unless the life of the mother is at stake, rape or incest.”

Now if she would just be consistent on those two positions - not voting in favor of "superfluous" bills and "that government shouldn't make decisions for any family," we'd be getting somewhere.

Yet she voted in favor of federal funding for a Tea Pot Museum - how much more superfluous can you get?

And she voted in favor of Obamacare which is the biggest government intrusion on individual decision-making in decades!

Sadly, she'd rather claim a 'principle' (that she doesn't adhere to otherwise) than do the right thing by voting in favor of this bill, superfluous or not.

But on top of her failed logic, she's actually wrong. The Hyde Amendment only bans the use of certain federal funds for abortions. This bill never even addresses funding. It makes it a criminal offense to perform an abortion that is sought based upon the sex of the child, among other things.

Here is the summary of the legislation, as introduced:

Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 - Imposes criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly or knowingly attempts to: (1) perform an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent; (2) use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; (3) solicit or accept funds for the performance of such an abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the United States or across a state line for the purpose of obtaining such an abortion.

Authorizes civil actions, for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages, by: (1) fathers, or maternal grandparents if the mother is an unemancipated minor, of unborn children who are the subject of an abortion performed or attempted through any of the above violations; and (2) women upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted with a knowing or attempted use of force or threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion.

Authorizes, to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this Act, injunctive relief to be obtained by the women upon whom such an abortion is performed or attempted, spouses or parents of a woman upon whom such an abortion is performed, or the Attorney General (DOJ).

Deems a violation of this Act to be prohibited discrimination under title VI (Federally Assisted Programs) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Violators of title VI lose federal funding.)

Requires a medical or mental health professional to report known or suspected violations to law enforcement authorities. Imposes criminal penalties for a failure to so report.

Prohibits a woman having such an abortion from being prosecuted or held civilly liable.

Excludes from the definition of "abortion" actions taken to terminate a pregnancy if the intent is to save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion, or remove an ectopic pregnancy.

What could be more plain? And how could she get the purpose of the bill so wrong?

Supposedly pro-life, Kaptur says it's "unnecessary." In light of this

and this:

how can she possible say the legislation is "unnecessary"?????

Kaptur is not a stupid person. I believe she just needed an excuse to vote with her party and she decided to hide behind a non-existent connection to the Hyde Amendment while, at the same time, didn't mind being hypocritical about government not making decisions for us.

Just remember this in November.


Nick (aka Bytor) said...

Luckily for me, the folks in Columbus drew me out of the 9th. Unfortunately, for Joe the Plumber, that also turned his campaign against Marcy from "extremely difficult" to "near impossible".
The 9th was already a lock for Democrats, and then they took out the few conservative areas, such as the rural townships of Southern Lorain County.
If Joe wants to run for Congress, he's going to have to move.

Mad Jack said...

What could be more plain?

The phrase 'All abortion is illegal and punishable by 25 to life in a maximum security prison', which is what the anti-freedom, anti-abortion politicos really want. They'll settle for what they might get, which is a bill like this one.


She didn't get the purpose wrong. She prevaricated. See?

This Draconian bill was crafted by a Republican - the party that claims to want smaller government and less government regulation. Unless, of course, that regulation is carefully written by a Republican who is up for reelection.

I'm no fan of Marcy Kaptur, however if it appears that my choices are to live in abject poverty and keep my freedom, I'll take freedom every single time. This bill should never have come up for a vote. Actually, the bill should never have been written.

Maggie Thurber said...

The bill is/was badly written and probably unenforcable. But that's not what Kaptur claimed. Had she claimed that, I probably wouldn't have done the post. :)

Google Analytics Alternative