Neither Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, Just Pro-Abortion
Chair: Senator Jack Critcher
Vice Chair: Senator Tracy Steele
Senator Percy Malone
Senator Hank Wilkins, IV
Senator Barbara Horn
Senator Randy Laverty
Senator Bill Pritchard
Senator Jack Crumbly
The above make up the Senate Health, Labor and Welfare Committee. Some are doctrinaire liberals I knew were pro-abortion, though they might only be forthright enough to say they were "pro-choice", as if that means anything absent saying what the choice is. But I thought there were a couple of pro-lifers on that list. It turns out I was wrong. No matter what they may tell you in an election campaign, it seems there was not one person in that group whose committment to protecting innocent life was even strong enough for them to show up at their committee meeting and ask for a roll-call vote so that life-loving Arkansans will at least know who the villians are. Did they care more about not embarrassing fellow committee members than standing up for the innocent unborn?
Sen Sharon Trusty's SB 871 failed on a voice vote in the Senate Public Health, Labor and Welfare committee yesterday. The bill would have required abortion clinics to put up a sign saying, "Notice: By Law, we cannot perform an abortion on you unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform an abortion on you against your will."
The impetus of the bill stems from tales of women who were pressured into abortion by low-life boyfriends and such. Testimony from one such victim, Donna Clifton: "When they asked if I wanted counseling, the question was directed to me, but my boyfriend answered 'No,' and they immediately dismissed me. They did not care what I wanted or what I felt," she said.
Clifton said she had a hysterectomy three years later and will never have another opportunity to bear a child."
This bill was a pro-life AND a pro-choice bill. But a Planned Parenthood attorney argued against the bill saying, "This will have a chilling effect, obviously, on abortion providers".
I can only conclude that not one member of this committee is pro-life. Nor are they pro-choice. If they were really "pro-choice" they would be all for a bill that helps women resist pressure to get an abortion that they don't want. Their deeds are pro-abortion, any forthcoming election year squawks to the contrary notwithstanding.
Vice Chair: Senator Tracy Steele
Senator Percy Malone
Senator Hank Wilkins, IV
Senator Barbara Horn
Senator Randy Laverty
Senator Bill Pritchard
Senator Jack Crumbly
The above make up the Senate Health, Labor and Welfare Committee. Some are doctrinaire liberals I knew were pro-abortion, though they might only be forthright enough to say they were "pro-choice", as if that means anything absent saying what the choice is. But I thought there were a couple of pro-lifers on that list. It turns out I was wrong. No matter what they may tell you in an election campaign, it seems there was not one person in that group whose committment to protecting innocent life was even strong enough for them to show up at their committee meeting and ask for a roll-call vote so that life-loving Arkansans will at least know who the villians are. Did they care more about not embarrassing fellow committee members than standing up for the innocent unborn?
Sen Sharon Trusty's SB 871 failed on a voice vote in the Senate Public Health, Labor and Welfare committee yesterday. The bill would have required abortion clinics to put up a sign saying, "Notice: By Law, we cannot perform an abortion on you unless we have your freely given and voluntary consent. It is against the law to perform an abortion on you against your will."
The impetus of the bill stems from tales of women who were pressured into abortion by low-life boyfriends and such. Testimony from one such victim, Donna Clifton: "When they asked if I wanted counseling, the question was directed to me, but my boyfriend answered 'No,' and they immediately dismissed me. They did not care what I wanted or what I felt," she said.
Clifton said she had a hysterectomy three years later and will never have another opportunity to bear a child."
This bill was a pro-life AND a pro-choice bill. But a Planned Parenthood attorney argued against the bill saying, "This will have a chilling effect, obviously, on abortion providers".
I can only conclude that not one member of this committee is pro-life. Nor are they pro-choice. If they were really "pro-choice" they would be all for a bill that helps women resist pressure to get an abortion that they don't want. Their deeds are pro-abortion, any forthcoming election year squawks to the contrary notwithstanding.
posted by Mark Moore (Moderator) at Tuesday, March 27, 2007
10 Comments:
Some may say we have another chance on a similar bill, but I am not so sure. I consdider House Bill 2768 by Rep. Sid Rosenbaum, R-Little Rock, to be toothless window dressing. It would "require" a doctor who performs abortions to inform patients that they cannot be forced to have an abortion. But Rosenbaum's bill does not require sign postings, set fines or address civil liability.
I think he is a good legislator, but I can't see where this bill is anything more than feel-good symbolism. Someone please tell me what I am missing. How will it save a single life? We are dealing with barbarians who dismember children all day long for profit. How will they be detered by a "law" with no civil or criminal penalty attached?
Not that I am in the habit of quoting Brummett but he did pick out a gem of irony this morning. It is funny to note that anti-choice people want to put up a sign that reminds women that THEY have a CHOICE. I know the irony will be lost on most but I, for one, am LMAO.
You have quite a sense of humor Rob. I'm sure it serves you well. If you would indulge me and stop LYAO for just a moment...
Pro life people are generally for choice. However, the Supreme Court took the choice away from the states (i.e. the people). The pro-death crowd (which I'm assuming includes you) generally does not support choice in that they don't want the choice rested with the states/people. Instead they want the choice to be decided by the elites.
This is a classic example of the importance of framing the terms of the debate. The way liberals frame debates are generally misleading and disingenous (not to mention clever). The pro-life / pro-death debate is no exception. The REAL irony is that those who claim to be pro-choice are the ones who don't want the people to have the choice.
Now continue LYAO
Pritchard ran the bill in committee. How can you call him pro-abortion
Maybe they should have gotten someone that had a bad experience recently and not someone who felt pressured to have an abortion TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO.
Seems like it often TAKES at least 25 years for emotional/psychological healing to take place after such trauma.
Rep. Pritchard "ran the bill"? How did he run it, into the ground? Stan Heath did better coaching the Razorbacks than Bill Pritchard did "running" this bill.
Where is the fight, where is the effort, where is the heart? It looks like a prefunctory attempt to get credit with pro-life voters without risking offending the pro-aborts by calling for a roll-call vote. I did not even know that Rep. Pritchard "ran" this bill until I read the post, I think he was low-key to no-key on it. We could have won this one or nailed the bad guys for putting it down at least. It was a good bill.
Maybe pro-lifers should support him with the same level of energy he spent defending this bill. It is way past time we demanded accountablilty over something besides a game played with a ball.
Hey Rob, you liberal socio-Communist, we are not anti-choice just because it's important to protect innocent life. We are all for women having all the choices they want....BEFORE they get pregnant. After that there is another human life involved and neither her nor her doctor have the right to decide which life is more important. Doing so would smack of rule by Hitler! Which, by the way, I hear Hillary Clinton approves of. It's you anti-life pro-abortionists that want to tell women that they aren't responsible for their actions and want to make taxpayers pay for their mistakes and "indescretions." Not surprising, though. Liberals, by their true nature, are very happy with this.
Dear gopin08,
Please remember that our friend Rob is a liberal and as such all of his arguments are based in meaningless cliches (such as anti-choice).
Don't let it get to you. It's ok to point out the fallacy of the cliche (i.e. liberal argument) but don't let it get to you emotionally.
Liberals are not interested in serious discussion. They are only interested in snarky remarks and cliches (that's all they have to offer). As an example you will notice that Rob did not respond after I pointed out to him that the real irony is that those who call themselves pro choice are actually the anti choicers (of course I don't blame him for not responding since it's impossible to intelligently argue with the truth).
As most people know, I am ALWAYS up for a good debate, however, I do insist upon debating a worthy challenger and gopin08 does not fit that description.
Serious discussion is what I live for but I do get quite a kick out of poking fun at idealogues that cannot see both sides of an argument. gop is just another in a long line of so called conservatives that likes to throw around terms he doesn't even know the meaning of. When you can produce a worthy adversary like jethro, then let me know.
Post a Comment
<< Home