John Kerry made it back to Washington for a Senate vote yesterday. First time in about six months. I understand his desire to get back–to shore up his base.
H.R.1997, “A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder, and for other purposes.” has been called the “Laci and Connor Peterson Law.” I was curious about the vote because Kerry returned specifically for this vote, and because the network newcasts mentioned Bush was expected to sign it. Nobody said anything about how Kerry voted.
For the record, it passed 61-38. That still didn’t tell me how Kerry voted. As the not-yet-official Democratic nominee, I would have thought his stance on this would be news. All the “women’s rights” groups are adamantly opposed to it. This is the first slide on the slippery slope toward reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Why won’t the media tell us how he voted?
He voted against it. I still don’t understand why his vote isn’t mentioned. It is certainly contrary to Bush’s expected endorsement by signature. Shouldn’t he be shouting from the rooftops?
Oh, I forgot. He’s trying to now move toward the center…promising corporate income tax cuts.
He voted against it?
I just don’t understand this. I don’t agree with abortion, but it’s a topic I don’t discuss. I will say this though: I cannot follow the mantra of the pro-choice crowd. It seems to me, they only support a woman’s right to choose abortion, not to keep their baby. Hypothetical here – so, if my husband and I want a child – even had to have fertility help to conceive and some person comes along and in the process of a felony, kills our WANTED child these folks don’t see a crime here other than the original felony? Where is OUR right to WANT this baby and to see justice for someone robbing our child and ou family of his/her life?
They need a new name for their agenda. It’s not pro-choice. The ONLY choice they support is abortion and it has not a thing to do with this law in its current written form.
Comment by Shannon — March 26, 2004 @ 8:40 pm
“Pro-Choice” always sounded much better than “Pro-Abortion”, which is why they settled on that term years ago.
This is the real issue in this election. Democrats are a one-issue party. Sure, they talk about a lot of other things, but that is the single rallying point for them in any election. You won’t hear much talk about it, because they would prefer the “great unwashed masses” not be involved in the debate. The majority disapprove of abortion except in rare instances.
Several Justices made noise about retiring prior to the 2000 election. None did. During the next 5 years, however, there will be at least one vacancy. Two of them are over 80, and O’Conner has made it clear she would like to step down. This election will determine who nominates the next one, two, or three Supreme Court Justices. The Democrats know this, and don’t want Bush in the Oval Office to do it.
Comment by Bunker — March 27, 2004 @ 5:33 am
Boy, what a commercial that will make in Northern California…
Comment by Slice — March 27, 2004 @ 11:22 am
Another reason why I want Bush to win this year. Some Justices are already admitting they are looking at EU law to make decisions in our country instead of upholding our constitution. Frightening precedent. Extremely frightening.
Comment by Shannon — March 27, 2004 @ 12:05 pm