McCarthy's House doing stuff

[mspart]

Well, the House session got started rough, but at least 2 bills have been passed out of the chamber.

1.   Bill to remove a majority of the IRS funding of $80 Billion that was in the Inflation Bill/Law.   Biden is against this. 

https://freebeacon.com/politics/house-republicans-vote-to-cancel-bidens-billion-dollar-irs-funding/

House Republicans, in the first act of their tenure in the majority, voted on Monday to rescind nearly $71 billion of the $80 billion that the previously Democratic-controlled Congress allocated to the IRS through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

This is largely symbolic.  Senate won't pass and Biden will surely veto if the Senate passes it.  No way to override a veto.  R's say the funding is to add IRS agents, enough to double the current payroll.   D's say this shows Rs want to allow the rick to get away with cheating on taxes.  Do you notice that the D's response does not even respond to the Rs case?   Very interesting really.

2.   House passes Born Alive Act.   This bill says that if a baby is brought out of the uterus alive, it must be kept alive by all means available to medical staff.   In other words, this is a bill to prevent a botched abortion that produces a live baby, from then after birth, killing the baby.  This seems rather straightforward.   Yet Ds are reacting hysterically and making zero sense.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/born-alive-act-pelosi-schumer-melt-down-new-bill-care-babies-born-abortion

Senior Democratic lawmakers took to Twitter shortly after the House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires doctors to provide care for infants born alive after a failed abortion, to criticize the Republicans who supported the "extreme" bill.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Vice President Kamala Harris were among those who responded.

"Today, instead of joining Democrats to condemn all political violence, [House Republicans] chose to push their extreme anti-choice agenda," Pelosi tweeted Wednesday. 

She added, "Democrats believe everyone deserves the freedom to access reproductive health services – without fear of violence, intimidation or harassment."

"Democrats will always defend reproductive freedoms against extreme Republicans who disrespect a woman’s right to choose the size and timing of her family," she said. And, "These are serious, personal decisions that must be made by women guided by faith, physician and family — not by politicians."

Schumer, who did not vote on the bill as he is a senator, responded similarly.

"The MAGA Republican-controlled House is putting on display their extreme views on women’s health with legislation that does not even have the support of the American people," he wrote.

The vice president also made her opinion known.

"House Republicans passed an extreme bill today that will further jeopardize the right to reproductive health care in our country," Harris tweeted. "This is yet another attempt by Republican legislators to control women's bodies."

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says any infant born alive following an abortion attempt or that survives the abortion is a "legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States."

A bit of hysteria that has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill.   The abortion takes place yet the baby lives.   So now we have an alive human being out of the body of the mother.   What does this have to do with controlling women's bodies?  Nothing.   It is now a matter of an alive human being being cared for and his/her body and right to live.  What this does show is the utter lack of concern for the now born baby on the part of the Ds.   This is a rational and right thinking bill that prohibits the murdering of a human being, either by direct action or neglect.   I find it amazing that Ds want the ability to murder a child after it is born.   It is now alive by all definitions and they want the baby to be murdered after surviving a horrific procedure designed to kill it.   They have always been about in utero, it is just a mass of cells.   Once out of the womb, it is a person.   Now they are trying to redefine this as an afront to women's rights etc.   I find this abhorrent.  

I do not agree with abortion in general.  I can see some reasons for it.   I think a 12-15 week time to have an abortion as being rational maybe as a matter of law.  This is pretty standard in the developed world.  But this is not a 12-15 week fetus, this is about out of the womb alive babies that they still want to be able to kill.  All but 2 democrats said NO to this bill in the vote.   Horrendous. 

Really too tough to stomach how depraved these people have become. 

Again, no doubt this is a largely symbolic move by the House Rs, because the Senate will never pass this and Biden will not sign it.   This very much shows Ds as the party of death.  Their whole rationale on abortion has changed over the years from we want the mother to kill the baby before it has really formed to wanting the mother to be able to kill the baby up to birth.   But after birth?  That has always been sacrosanct that a baby born alive should be cared for.   These D's, the whole lot of them except for 2, want the baby to be killed after it is born alive.  It doesn't matter than the medical procedure was designed to kill them, they are now out of the womb and alive and that completely changes the calculus.   Not for the Ds it doesn't. 

My point of bringing both of these to your attention is that the complaints of the Ds does not even  remotely address the intent of the bills.   They go on some rant that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.   Whatever happened to logic and reason?  A dumb question these days I know.

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

How many pregnancies does the Born Alive act address per year?

 

[mspart]

Is that really the question?   What ever happened to "even if we only save one life, it is worth it"?   The Ds almost all voted no on this as they are so myopic they see this as an affront to abortion rights.   It has nothing to do with abortion rights.  It has everything to do with an alive baby's rights.  The child is no longer " part of the mother's body" so that cannot be an argument here.  The bill does not prevent abortion, it just prevents killing a child born alive, even if it is born alive due to a botched abortion attempt.

Is life sacred or is it not?   Apparently the D's do not feel it is sacred if their vote means anything.  Kill it at 15 weeks, kill it at 40 weeks, kill it after it is born alive.  Very sick state of affairs on the D side. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

If it almost never happens and they're making a huge deal about it on 'moral' grounds, then they're you're being manipulated to intentionally keep you furious.

It's a form of control.

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

Is that really the question?   What ever happened to "even if we only save one life, it is worth it"?   The Ds almost all voted no on this as they are so myopic they see this as an affront to abortion rights.   It has nothing to do with abortion rights.  It has everything to do with an alive baby's rights.  The child is no longer " part of the mother's body" so that cannot be an argument here.  The bill does not prevent abortion, it just prevents killing a child born alive, even if it is born alive due to a botched abortion attempt.

Is life sacred or is it not?   Apparently the D's do not feel it is sacred if their vote means anything.  Kill it at 15 weeks, kill it at 40 weeks, kill it after it is born alive.  Very sick state of affairs on the D side. 

mspart

Is the question of who is responsible for the child addressed? It is not the one under going the abortion.  Perhaps the child can be flown to Desantis?

[BerniePragle]

 

As always, the economics is muddled by throwing in one of the Big Three.  Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Gun Control, although the Gay Marriage issue seems to have been relegated to the back burner.  As always, while we dicker about the Big Three, the rich keep filling their pockets unabated.  Good "work" if you can get it.

1.   Bill to remove a majority of the IRS funding of $80 Billion that was in the Inflation Bill/Law.   Biden is against this. 

• I'm confused by this.  I can't really imagine why the rich guys are worried about the IRS.  They've already paid (the politicians) to get the tax laws changed many, many times over the last 40+ years, such that they and their corporations pay little taxes now.  Must be just another distraction.  Of course, if nobody worked at the IRS, trump would have nothing to worry about.

2.   House passes Born Alive Act.   This bill says that if a baby is brought out of the uterus alive, it must be kept alive by all means available to medical staff.   In other words, this is a bill to prevent a botched abortion that produces a live baby, from then after birth, killing the baby.  This seems rather straightforward.   Yet Ds are reacting hysterically and making zero sense.

• This one's above my pay grade, and I mean that seriously.  Honestly, I'm not even able to process the information that's here.  It's simply too hideous.

If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.
- Emma Goldman

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

If it almost never happens and they're making a huge deal about it on 'moral' grounds, then they're you're being manipulated to intentionally keep you furious.

It's a form of control.

Kermit Gosnell.   Look him up.   It was happening.   This bill would not stop a monster like him but that is what this is attempting to codify and stop. 

https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/4/sen-moran-joins-colleagues-to-demand-investigation-into-deaths-of-five-babies-aborted-in-d-c

This happened in Apr 2022.   

https://lozierinstitute.org/questions-and-answers-on-born-alive-abortion-survivors/

This was updated in Jan 2023, and notes that possibly 10000 late term abortions are conducted each year, abortions where the baby could survive outside the womb.  It also notes a DC doctor on tape admitting he would not help a baby survive if born alive after an abortion procedure. 

 

This is not a form of control.   This is happening and is sickening.   The form of control is what selling folks that is not an issue worth getting one's panties in a bunch about.

In this case, it happens more than abortion supporters want to confirm.

mspart

 

[Mike Parrish]

Nice link.

Quote

We desire and seek that the benefits of modern medicine and the wealth of nations be put to the service of human life and that the scourges of abortion, physical disease, euthanasia and human exploitation will be diminished and ultimately overcome.

I'd doubt anything coming out of this org.
You're engaging in confirmation bias.

 

[mspart]

That is your opinion and you have your right to it.   But you have not really addressed this issue.   You are running on the assumption of what people have told you that there is nothing to see here, this does not happen, and even if it does, it happens so rarely that it is not of consequence.   You are being controlled in the same way you think I am being controlled.  

So is the data in that article suspect?   What is suspect in that article?

Is the item from Senator Moran suspect?   Did things happen in DC?  Are the concerns brought up in the letter to Mayor Bowser valid or not?  If not, why not?

To me it is simple.   A baby is born alive, that life should be saved and all efforts expended for it to continue.   It sounds like to me it is not as simple for you.  Again, I am not for abortion, but I am not for outright murder more.   And that is what this is; Murder.   It is so obvious, it is a wonder Ds and like minded people will not see it.  To not see it is the same as to say it is pitch black outside in the sunshine.   It is a wholesale refusal to recognize reality. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/the-facts-on-the-born-alive-debate/

In Minnesota, there were 10,177 abortions in the state in 2017 and three resulted in an infant born alive. None survived, according to the report from the state Department of Health. One infant was given “comfort care”; another was given no specific care; and the third had a low APGAR score, a measure of a newborn’s well-being.

In other words, one was allowed to die, another was not given any care to survive so, it was allowed to die, and a third had a low score and it was allowed to die.  

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

 You are running on the assumption of what people have told you

Irony.

[mspart]

Indeed.   You have only gone with what you have been told thinking that will win the day.   You have provided no facts or other evidence to back up your position.  I have.  That's irony. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

44 minutes ago, mspart said:

Indeed.   You have only gone with what you have been told thinking that will win the day.   You have provided no facts or other evidence to back up your position.  I have.  That's irony. 

mspart

You may think you have, but nearly every time you post a link it turns out to be to some highly partisan organization that's completely non-credible on its face.

The reason I didn't really respond is because of your consistent history of doing this and I just didn't feel like digging into yet another rat's nest.

 

[jross]

Mike's question" how many pregnancies does the Born Alive act address per year" is similar to my question about "how many innocent convicts will be put to death this year?"  The count is non zero but statistically it is zero.

Why was this bill treated as urgent? 

Refusing one's moral duty to save the baby disgusts me, but I have questions, and this isn't on the radar of first things first for 'we the people.'  Morally worse but also rare is when the doctor physically snuffs out the born-alive baby or the mother tosses their newborn in the dumpster.  

While I like the intent to save an innocent baby's life, much displeases me.

• Not a top priority.  The bill was put forth for political spin reasons.
• Both parties vote according to their party line rather than their personal beliefs.
• People are talking about the woman's right to choose abortion which is irrelevant in the born-alive situation.

Edited January 13, 2023 by jross

[jross]

@mspart is it possible you are arguing with what you imagine Mike believes?  Has Mike expressed a moral stance on the born-alive act.

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

You may think you have, but nearly every time you post a link it turns out to be to some highly partisan organization that's completely non-credible on its face.

The reason I didn't really respond is because of your consistent history of doing this and I just didn't feel like digging into yet another rat's nest.

 

Fair enough.  I just do a google search and take one of the top choices.   Do you consider Factcheck.org conservatively partisan?   I don't.  I cited their work.  I cited Sen Moran's website and I think that is pretty fair to suggest it is the truth.  He did in fact sign the letter to Mayor Bowser.   Are you disputing that?   I cited lozerinstitute not knowing who they are.   I know you have something against them.   But is the info I cited factually wrong?   I also cited Fox news which I suppose you discredited right away.   But I posted quotations from Pelosi, Harris, and Schuma.   They were direct quotes.   Are these quotes incorrect just because they were found on Fox's website?   They could be held liable if they quoted wrongly so I think they quoted correctly.   Freebacon site you might think is conservative biased and maybe so, but what I quoted from it is objectively true.  House voted to remove $71 million in IRS funding.  How is that not true?

I think if you look at the websites I post and the things I post from them, they are pretty clearly factual.  Whether you accept that is on you.  I can't be responsible for you nbot accepting truthful facts because of your bias.   Being correct, they are not biased as you are asserting.   Perhaps other things in those articles are biased but what I posted is not.  If I am wrong here, please let me know. 

mspart

 

[MPhillips]

15 hours ago, mspart said:

Fair enough.  I just do a google search and take one of the top choices.   

Whether you accept that is on you.  I can't be responsible for you nbot accepting truthful facts because of your bias.

Merica...

[Mike Parrish]

21 hours ago, jross said:

Mike's question" how many pregnancies does the Born Alive act address per year" is similar to my question about "how many innocent convicts will be put to death this year?"  The count is non zero but statistically it is zero.

Why was this bill treated as urgent? 

Refusing one's moral duty to save the baby disgusts me, but I have questions, and this isn't on the radar of first things first for 'we the people.'  Morally worse but also rare is when the doctor physically snuffs out the born-alive baby or the mother tosses their newborn in the dumpster.  

While I like the intent to save an innocent baby's life, much displeases me.

• Not a top priority.  The bill was put forth for political spin reasons.
• Both parties vote according to their party line rather than their personal beliefs.
• People are talking about the woman's right to choose abortion which is irrelevant in the born-alive situation.

Exactly.

[Nailbender]

I love hearing those who are getting played arrogantly claim the other side is getting played.

 

The instances of abortion that are morally acceptable to most people (health of the mother, rape, insest) are few compared to abortion used as birth control. Yet those examples are always the ones brought up by the pro kill babies crowd to show how out of control pro-lifers are.

 

Both sides play us against each other on most issues. Politicians aren't our friends and they don't care about us.

[scourge165]

On 1/12/2023 at 2:01 PM, mspart said:

2.   House passes Born Alive Act.   This bill says that if a baby is brought out of the uterus alive, it must be kept alive by all means available to medical staff

Ok...so what is the child is born with horrific birth defects and they're not going to make it? Do they intubate? Try and keep them alive as long as humanly possible?

 

My Cousin...4 kids at the time, had her 5th. About 6 months in found it it wasn't viable. There was a CHANCE it would be born alive, but it was NOT in good shape. She had the option of aborting it, she chose not to, gave birth, it was alive and they asked if they wanted to put it on a ventilator, etc...

My Cousin said no because it was just cruel. I don't recall what exactly the disorder was, but it had an organ on the outside, it had certain parts of his body only partially developed and it was in agony. But they COULD have kept it alive for a few weeks maybe.

 

Is THAT what this bill advocates? Why are they so concerned with dictating what a Doctor and a Mother choose to do? 

[Nailbender]

12 hours ago, scourge165 said:

Ok...so what is the child is born with horrific birth defects and they're not going to make it? Do they intubate? Try and keep them alive as long as humanly possible?

 

My Cousin...4 kids at the time, had her 5th. About 6 months in found it it wasn't viable. There was a CHANCE it would be born alive, but it was NOT in good shape. She had the option of aborting it, she chose not to, gave birth, it was alive and they asked if they wanted to put it on a ventilator, etc...

My Cousin said no because it was just cruel. I don't recall what exactly the disorder was, but it had an organ on the outside, it had certain parts of his body only partially developed and it was in agony. But they COULD have kept it alive for a few weeks maybe.

 

Is THAT what this bill advocates? Why are they so concerned with dictating what a Doctor and a Mother choose to do? 

I'm sorry that your cousin had to go through that. It must have been unbelievably hard for her whole family. 

I don't know exactly how this bill would handle her situation. My hope would be that it allowed her to make the horrible choice she had to make, just as she did, with her doctor, her loved ones and no interference from politicians.

My answer to your last question is this, not all doctors and mother's are as compassionate as your cousin.  People can be extremely selfish and stupid. I have a niece with disabilities, her parents could've made a decision similar to your cousins. Luckily for my niece her parents might actually be angels for the level of care they continue to give her, 19 years later. She wasn't nearly as bad off with the few details we have both shared but she is the sweetest person you could meet and she has a right to life. This is not meant to disparage your cousin, because making the choice she had to make I have a tremendous amount of respect for her too.

I want less government in my life, so these kind of questions really make me think. I still don't know how I feel about this bill but in general, I would err on the side of life.

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

I'm sorry that your cousin had to go through that. It must have been unbelievably hard for her whole family. 

I don't know exactly how this bill would handle her situation. My hope would be that it allowed her to make the horrible choice she had to make, just as she did, with her doctor, her loved ones and no interference from politicians.

My answer to your last question is this, not all doctors and mother's are as compassionate as your cousin.  People can be extremely selfish and stupid. I have a niece with disabilities, her parents could've made a decision similar to your cousins. Luckily for my niece her parents might actually be angels for the level of care they continue to give her, 19 years later. She wasn't nearly as bad off with the few details we have both shared but she is the sweetest person you could meet and she has a right to life. This is not meant to disparage your cousin, because making the choice she had to make I have a tremendous amount of respect for her too.

I want less government in my life, so these kind of questions really make me think. I still don't know how I feel about this bill but in general, I would err on the side of life.

Very well said.  Nice, uplifting story.

What I was, and am, most concerned about is the government reaching in my wallet and taking whatever they want.  Since they have done that for 45 years, I expect to get the services I have already paid for.  

[Nailbender]

26 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Very well said.  Nice, uplifting story.

What I was, and am, most concerned about is the government reaching in my wallet and taking whatever they want.  Since they have done that for 45 years, I expect to get the services I have already paid for.  

Thanks. I consider the money I send them a loss. Our federal government has promised a lot of money to a lot of people. I see no evidence to expect they will keep any of those promises or even put your interests towards the front of the line. That goes for D's and R's. 

[Mike Parrish]

Here's another take on the Born Alive bill.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Jan17-1.html

I think they make some good points.

[Nailbender]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

Here's another take on the Born Alive bill.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2023/Items/Jan17-1.html

I think they make some good points.

    That article is dripping with opinion expressed as fact to keep people pissed. I thought you didn't like that?

 

The only truth in it is that these bills are a waste of everyone's time. Just like the article. 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Parrish]

14 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

    That article is dripping with opinion expressed as fact to keep people pissed. I thought you didn't like that?

 

The only truth in it is that these bills are a waste of everyone's time. Just like the article.

EV doesn't pretend to be anything other than an opinion site.

I enjoy their take and offered it as such.

Edited January 17, 2023 by Mike Parrish