Monday, November 09, 2009

Pro-Lifers Tricked

How did this happen?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to get this 1,990 page monstrosity passed, 220-215.
If just three more congressmen had voted against this thing, it would not have passed.
How did Pelosi pull this off?
By tricking gullible pro-lifers.
At the last minute, an amendment was inserted into the bill that prohibited funding for abortions.
With that amendment, she got one Republican vote and several "blue-dog" Democrat votes (democrats who are supposedly more conservative than average).
This is single-issue voting.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against voting against a candidate who is good on all the issues except the life of the unborn. I have no problem making abortion a litmus test against a politician or a bill.
What I take issue with is voting for a politician or a bill just because he, she or it is "pro-life," even if he, she or it is awful on everything else.
There is no excuse for voting for a bill that will enslave us all to the government, just because it prohibits abortion funding. In fact, if Pelosi added language to the bill that (when translated into English) would result in every Crisis Pregnancy Resource Center around the country to receive a million-dollar check and further financial incentives for not having one's baby murdered inside the womb (not that such a thing would even remotely happen), I'd still appose this bill. It's nothing but a bribe to get people who are against murder of the unborn to become accomplices in the destruction of our nation and the enslavement of our people to its government.

Ironically, even with the amendment prohibiting funds for abortion, this is still the most pro-death bill to ever pass the United States House of Representatives. As I stated in my previous post, the government will attempt to cut down its health costs, and the only way to do that is to deny expensive treatment to those who need it, especially with the elderly and the terminally ill. In other words, there will be a panel of bureaucracy determining who will live and who will die. It's not that hard to figure out; we don't need Sarah Palin's help to come to that conclusion.

4 comments:

Mary Hawkins said...

Yes, we have to protect the unborn with our votes. But we have to protect the weak, the ill, and the elderly as well. We can't sacrifice one to protect the other. People need to wake up and realize that.

Kyleigh said...

I must admit that I wasn't surprised at all that it passed. What I was surprised at was the number of democrats that voted against the bill, and that it passed by so little.
I had no idea about the pro-life amendment until now.
I definitely agree - tricked, bribed, sacrificing...
Values have sunk so low.
Just out of curiosity/for clarification - you said you're not against voting for someone who is a good candidate in on all issues except the unborn. Are you saying you would have no qualms about voting for such a person, or that you wouldn't question another person voting for that candidate?
Just curious.

James Dunn said...

Kyleigh: I said I'm not "against voting against" someone who is pro-abortion in spite of being good on the other issues, to clarify what I meant by criticizing "single issue voting." I can see how one's eyes might miss the second "against." To clarify: I don't believe anyone should vote for a candidate who is ok with abortion. For example, I opposed the candidacy of Rudy Julianni in 2007/2008. If he had been the nominee, there would have been no question for me in voting third-party.
My larger point was, it is sometimes appropriate to single-issue-vote against something (like abortion), when it would not necessarily be alright to single-issue-vote for something. For example, voting for a third-party candidate in 2008 even though McCain was(somewhat)pro-life.
On another note, it was up in the air whether Pelosi would get enough votes to pass this bill, because most of the extra democrats that gave her the majority in 2006 and 2008 are supposedly "moderates" who got elected in conservative districts (a lot of them in the South.) Many of them ended up being more scared of their constituents then of the Speaker and her machine. Pelosi had to resort to all sorts of tricks, bribes, and arm-twisting to get the votes she needed.

Kyleigh said...

I was pretty sure that was what you meant, and didn't think you could mean otherwise.
Thanks for clarifying. :)