I have been predicting this for a very long time

[PsyOps]

I am not sure who it was - Barbara Boxer? - who said some time back that it wasn't a baby until -
IT LEAVES THE HOSPITAL. We've seen this before.

What horrifies me even more is that some Dems later claimed they voted on this bill to protect
"women's reproductive rights". WTF? The child IS BORN - it's no longer YOUR rights at work.
YOUR reproduction isn't the matter anymore, you've "reproduced". Once the child is born, THAT
issue is over.

It seems they view it as a back-door means to ban abortion. Abortion is the left's cornerstone issue. But, anyone with the smallest of abilities to apply logic to leftist thinking knew abortion would end up here. They want the power to say who survives and who doesn't. It's why they the government in complete control of our healthcare. They don't give a damn about creating better healthcare for all of us; they only care about the power to control who lives and dies. And this born-alive 'abortion' insanity proves it.

 

[Ken King]

It was a means to get democrats on record. And they did. It's clear that democrats are not longer ashamed to show they support infanticide. We have entered into a new phase of 'abortion'. It will only take them to have full power to make it legal.

On record for what, that they wanted to continue with debate before voting on the bill? No one, R, D, or I, is on record for what they support.

 

[PsyOps]

On record for what, that they wanted to continue with debate before voting on the bill? No one, R, D, or I, is on record for what they support.

The wording of the "BILL": "A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion."

There was a vote. Every democrat but 3 voted against it. That is a record; that they are unwilling to step out against infanticide. What other kind of debate is needed here? They're either for killing born babies or they're not. Their vote shows that are for killing babies. You're making this more complicated than it really is.

 

[Ken King]

The wording the "BILL": "A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion."

There was a vote. Every democrat but 3 voted against it. That is a record; that they are unwilling to step out against infanticide. What other kind of debate is needed here? They're either for killing born babies or they're not. Their vote shows that are for killing babies. You're making this more complicated than it really is.

The vote was whether to invoke cloture or not. As cloture was not invoked the bill could not move to a floor vote for an up or down vote. And no it isn't complicated if you know what you are talking about.

See the link - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/311?q={"search":["abortion"]}&s=1&r=6 and you will notice the one roll call vote dealt with cloture. There have been no other votes.

 

[PsyOps]

The vote was whether to invoke cloture or not. As cloture was not invoked the bill could not move to a floor vote for an up or down vote. And no it isn't complicated if you know what you are talking about.

There was still a vote by the entire body of the senate. They have made it clear where they stand on this. But, keep trying to change my mind.

Please tell me what is left to debate on this? It's quite simple... you either agree with murdering babies or you don't. I get cloture is a procedural thing, but there is nothing left to debate on it.

 

[Ken King]

There was still a vote by the entire body of the senate. They have made it clear where they stand on this. But, keep trying to change my mind.

Please tell me what is left to debate on this? It's quite simple... you either agree with murdering babies or you don't.

So facts still don't matter for you, gotcha'.

edit: Penalties could be debated. Required admission privileges could be a up for debate. Lots of stuff? Why did the 3 Republican members not vote on it?

 

[PsyOps]

So facts still don't matter for you, gotcha'.

What facts? You're either for or against killing born babies. What facts exist outside of that?

 

[Ken King]

What facts? You're either for or against killing born babies. What facts exist outside of that?

That it wasn't a pass/fail vote. That the majority leader didn't go nuclear and push it forward for an up or down vote. As it stands now no one knows the position on the merits of the content of the bill.

 

[PsyOps]

That it wasn't a pass/fail vote. That the majority leader didn't go nuclear and push it forward for an up or down vote. As it stands now no one knows the position on the merits of the content of the bill.

I didn't suggest it was a pass/fail vote. I said it was a 'put them on record of where they stand' vote. Do you really believe that if it were an actual vote on the bill the vote would have turned out any different?

 

[Ken King]

I didn't suggest it was a pass/fail vote. I said it was a 'put them on record of where they stand' vote. Do you really believe that if it were an actual vote on the bill the vote would have turned out any different?

Who knows, I know I don't, nor would I ever speculate what might be in their mind or heart.

Have you even read the bill? Are you okay with the part where if they let the child die they are only subject to a max 5 year sentence and it is only murder if they perform an overt act and actually kill it?

 

[PsyOps]

Who knows, I know I don't, nor would I ever speculate what might be in their mind or heart.

Have you even read the bill? Are you okay with the part where if they let the child die they are only subject to a max 5 year sentence and it is only murder if they perform an overt act and actually kill it?

I have, and democrats still couldn't get themselves to agree with it.

And, about that provision... refusal to provide care resulting in the death of the baby is an intentional and overt act. Kind of a gray area, leaving it open for murder charges no matter what.

And I disagree with paragraph 'c' where the mother can't be prosecuting for making the decision to terminate the life of her own child.

 

[Ken King]

I have, and democrats still couldn't get themselves to agree with it.

And, about that provision... refusal to provide care resulting in the death of the baby is an intentional and overt act. Kind of a gray area, leaving it open for murder charges no matter what.

And I disagree with paragraph 'c' where the mother can't be prosecuting for making the decision to terminate the life of her own child.

So, it seems that maybe the bill should be open for additional debate. I mean you aren't even in 100% agreement with it.

As to the gray area, are you saying that you're good with laws that are vague and open to interpretation. I wonder if that would hold up to judicial review?

 

[PsyOps]

So, it seems that maybe the bill should be open for additional debate. I mean you aren't even in 100% agreement with it.

As to the gray area, are you saying that you're good with laws that are vague and open to interpretation. I wonder if that would hold up to judicial review?

Murder is murder.

 

[awpitt]

Democrats finally prove what I have always known; that they are the party of infanticide and death of the innocent.

Senate blocks bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted abortion

Of course, leave it up to the WaPo to mislead readers saying it was the 'Senate' that blocked the bill. It was democrats that blocked the bill. Every democrat except 3 voted against the bill to protect the lives of babies, humans, people... Every republican voted for it.

Liberal democrats have shown how despicable they are in recognizing our first BORN right: LIFE!

Last I checked, the GOP has a majority in the Senate.

Yea. Yea. I know the usual excuse, they need sixty votes. Well, that's because of Senate rules. WHICH THE GOP MAJORITY CAN CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

 

[PsyOps]

Last I checked, the GOP has a majority in the Senate.

Yea. Yea. I know the usual excuse, they need sixty votes. Well, that's because of Senate rules. WHICH THE GOP MAJORITY CAN CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

So, you're with the thinking that it was the senate, that proposed the bill and blocked their own bill? Did you look at the vote? It was strictly a party-line vote. A vote on whether a born baby, a person, gets to live or die. This should be a no-brainer; but for democrats they have to mull over whether they should have the power to butcher babies. Really? What sort of barbaric people have they become?

 

[This_person]

Last I checked, the GOP has a majority in the Senate.

Yea. Yea. I know the usual excuse, they need sixty votes. Well, that's because of Senate rules. WHICH THE GOP MAJORITY CAN CHANGE AT ANY TIME.

The point of that Senate rule is to keep a small majority from having too much power.

Why "too much" you ask? Because we are not a democracy. The people are represented in the House of Representatives, and the states are supposed to represented by the Senate (they're not any more, as you surely know and understand).

There's actually no point in the Senate any more, ever since the 17th amendment. None whatsoever. Well, except to give all states an equal say so smaller population states are not overcome by larger population states, as happens routinely in the House.

But, since the Senators don't vote for what is best for their state and the United States as a whole, you are 100% correct that taking away the "super majority" to ensure only reasonable things get passed would not further harm the United States at all.

 

[This_person]

So, you're with the thinking that it was the senate, that proposed the bill and blocked their own bill? Did you look at the vote? It was strictly a party-line vote. A vote on whether a born baby, a person, gets to live or die. This should be a no-brainer; but for democrats that have to mull over whether they should have the power to butcher babies. Really? What sort of barbaric people have they become?

His point is that the Senate had a majority to pass the bill, but the Senate rules - long standing and traditional, but in the control of the Majority - could be changed to allow for the vote to go through.

 

[This_person]

So, it seems that maybe the bill should be open for additional debate. I mean you aren't even in 100% agreement with it.

As to the gray area, are you saying that you're good with laws that are vague and open to interpretation. I wonder if that would hold up to judicial review?

Is it your opinion that the reason they voted against cloture was because they wanted to continue debate? Are they still debating it?

It seems clear to me that debate on the subject was not what they were seeking. I have not heard of a massive amounts of amendments offered on the bill to make it more clear, have you?

 

[PsyOps]

His point is that the Senate had a majority to pass the bill, but the Senate rules - long standing and traditional, but in the control of the Majority - could be changed to allow for the vote to go through.

Do those rules apply to cloture? I know they can exercise the nuclear option on regular votes, but I'm not sure about cloture. That wasn't the point of the vote anyway. Republicans brought this out to get democrats on record; to show that they are truly for infanticide. While I knew this sentiment has always existed in liberals, I've been waiting for the day where it becomes full-frontal, in our face infanticide.

Let's throw this out there... This is supposedly a decision left up to the mother with the assistance of her doctor. If this remains legal, what's to stop the mother from taking the child home and later deciding to kill the baby at home? Taking this a few steps further, at what age would it constitute murder?

 

[This_person]

Do those rules apply to cloture? I know they can exercise the nuclear option on regular votes, but I'm not sure about cloture.

It's pretty much only for cloture. It's the modern filibuster - don't vote to end debate. It's much easier on the bladder than an actual filibuster.

That wasn't the point of the vote anyway. Republicans brought this out to get democrats on record; to show that they are truly for infanticide. While I knew this sentiment has always existed in liberals, I've been waiting for the day where it becomes full-frontal, in our face infanticide.

And people like Ken are clearly willing to accept the lie that the vote was not about the substance of the bill but rather the ability to continue debate. People who choose to not believe it will continue to not believe it. The way to make that point clear is to end the supermajority requirement to invoke cloture.

They will not do that, because it takes away their power when they are back in the minority.

Let's throw this out there... This is supposedly a decision left up to the mother with the assistance of her doctor. If this remains legal, what's to stop the mother from taking the child home and later deciding to kill the baby at home? Taking this a few steps further, at what age would it constitute murder?

You: [preaching]
Me: [choir]