Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Republicans pushing a late term abortion ban on DC


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 92 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 17, 2012 7:05:56 AM PDT
Not only are Republicans from other states trying to force on a law the citizens of DC neither want nor voted on. They are also denying their represenative in congress from even testifying on it.

Is this democracy in action?

---

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) is pushing a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in the District of Columbia, but he has denied Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), D.C.'s only elected representative, the chance to testify on behalf of the city's residents.

Norton wrote a letter to Franks last week asking him for the opportunity to testify at a hearing for the bill in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, which Franks chairs. Franks said the Democrats were only entitled to one witness and that the subcommittee had chosen Christy Zink, a George Washington University professor with a personal late-term abortion story.

But Norton says that Franks' denial of her testimony breaks the tradition that a member of Congress can testify about a bill that affects his or her constituents, which Congress has honored since the 19th century.

"Certainly, if the bill covers one district, you would expect the representative who can express the views of the constituents in that district would be heard," Norton told The Huffington Post on Wednesday. She said D.C.'s residents are "up in arms" about the 20-week abortion ban, which has only been passed so far in five conservative states.

"This is the first bill in history that attempts to take the residents of the District of Columbia outside of the protection of the Constitution," she continued. "The right to have an abortion until viability is a mandated right under Roe v. Wade. I think it takes a lot of nerve to single out the constituents of another member's district for discriminatory treatment, and we deeply resent it."

Franks' office did not respond to requests for comment. But he told HuffPost when he introduced the bill in January that "the Constitution could not be more clear" about the fact that D.C. is fair game for any U.S. congressman.

"Those, like Representative Holmes Norton, who oppose the D.C. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on the basis that its primary sponsor is from a different state simply fail to understand a Constitutional principle that couldn't be more plain," he said. "Congress has the seminal and incontrovertible responsibility for making legislative policy in the District of Columbia. Those who pretend to question that are in fact trying to direct attention away from the true purpose of this bill, which is to help prevent unborn children beginning at the sixth month of pregnancy and beyond from being subject to the agonizing process of being aborted."

This is not the first time Congress has used D.C. as a political football in the fight against abortion rights. President Barack Obama conceded D.C. abortion funding to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) during House budget negotiations in 2011, and House Republicans pushed a federal spending bill through in December that banned D.C. from using its own money to subsidize abortion care for low-income women.

D.C. is an easy target for anti-abortion bills, Norton said, because it doesn't have any elected officials who can vote in Congress.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/trent-franks-dc-abortion-rights_n_1521667.html?ref=tw

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:20:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012 7:22:44 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:23:18 AM PDT
I am talking about representational democracy.

The DC Citizens are not having ANY voice heard on this issue and that is not American.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:25:40 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 4, 2012 12:59:01 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:27:20 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 17, 2012 7:29:40 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:33:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012 7:40:03 AM PDT
As I said this is about representational democracy and the power of DC Citizens to have a voice under the current law of the land (Roe V. Wade).

Perhaps DC Citizens are aware that only 1.5% of abortions occur after 20 weeks and are often done because of a fetal or maternal health problems so they do not want laws making it harder for these woman to work out the best options with their doctors.

---

But has their patience reached an end? It would appear so, based on Rep. Trent Franks' introduction of the "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Franks, an Arizona Republican House member, has taken on the task of telling District of Columbia women that they should no longer have the right to access an abortion after 20 weeks, even in cases of rape or health issues, or if the fetus is found to have a deformity.

http://www.alternet.org/health/154315/washington_dc%3A_staging_ground_for_ending_legal_access_to_abortion?page=2

Posted on May 17, 2012 7:35:45 AM PDT
C. Batty says:
Babies are miracles. Miracles we should use to punish women.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:43:15 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:45:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012 7:46:43 AM PDT
C. Batty says:
Last I checked, the death penalty wasn't a problem. Heck, in my state, we'll execute you even if you're innocent. We'll execute you even if there was no crime committed.

You know, like Conservatives want to do with pregnant women.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:46:57 AM PDT
So you have no problem with the District having its rights trampled because it fits your life philosophy.

I will keep that in mind.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:49:02 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:50:56 AM PDT
How about DC has the same legal right under Roe V. Wade as the rest of the country?

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:51:19 AM PDT
C. Batty says:
We do give infants those rights. We don't give rights to fetuses because they have no standing.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:52:49 AM PDT
He is okay with the citizens of the District of Columbia not having rights but now is concerned about the unborn having them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:55:14 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
If You have read the Constitution, then You would have noticed that DC is 'ruled' by the Federal Gov, and that it is not a State. If you don't want to live in a federal enclave, then you could move a mile or two outside the city limit, and enter a State with State rights.

Life is not nearly as impossible as you make it sound, unless you like rule and conquer issues.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:55:20 AM PDT
C. Batty says:
Don't all civil rights end at birth?

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 7:56:20 AM PDT
Gotcha.

You are cool with it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 8:04:53 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012 8:06:08 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
I have no problem with the US Constitution. I confirm the preceding statement.

PS: You can even use this against me, any time!

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 8:12:57 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
No, that is the beginning of rights.

This is why the Declaration of Independence is written this particular way: Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Without life, there would be no need for Liberty either.
Life first, then Liberty, then the rest can follow.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 8:25:58 AM PDT
Well, as a resident of Arizona I can tell you that we have solved crime, injustice, poverty, paper cuts, and all the sources of misery and unhappiness within our borders . . . so I'm glad this representative is moving on to solving everybody else's problems.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 8:27:42 AM PDT
Laughs...

Yup his work in Arizona is done - time to impose his will on the people of DC - what do the people of DC have to say? Who cares!

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 8:29:23 AM PDT
Believe me, Arizona's elected officials don't care even care what their constituents think. Ignoring the wishes of the residents of DC will be a piece of cake.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 8:46:24 AM PDT
So much for the idea that the Republicans only care about jobs.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012 9:01:48 AM PDT
Magna Carta says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  11
Total posts:  92
Initial post:  May 17, 2012
Latest post:  May 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions