Updated: Pro Abortion-on-Demand Legislation Passes the U.S. House with Lauren Underwood Floor Speech and Bobby Piton Reaction

In response to the state of Texas protecting unborn lives, the U.S. House Democrats leadership passed their bill to codify abortion-on-demand into federal law, with House passage of H.R. 3755, the Women’s Health Protection Act.

Voting grid below from California Target Book’s of the House vote taken late Friday morning:

Source: California Target Book

The vote was nearly straight party line, with only Congressman Henry Cuellar (D, TX-28) voting no with House Republicans.

Bobby Piton

U.S. Senate candidate Bobby Piton’s Reaction

“Imagine if your child was depressed and went to see a therapist for help.

“Furthermore, that therapist decided to recommend or suggest your child commit suicide.

“Can you imagine the uproar?

“Well, the abortion industry is preying on women, who are more than likely suffering from ‘prepartum depression.’

“As many as 1 in 2 abortions is made under duress and later regretted by the woman.

“We as a society have allowed the psychopaths to kill with impunity to satisfy their blood lust, and we allow them to do it on the most vulnerable and innocent in our society; babies.

“This institutional genocide must end and we must unite against it nationwide.

“If we can’t stand for the most defenseless of human beings, we stand for nothing at all.”

Bobby Piton, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate for Illinois

.

Congresswoman Lauren Underwood’s (D, IL-14) floor speech on Friday


Comments

Updated: Pro Abortion-on-Demand Legislation Passes the U.S. House with Lauren Underwood Floor Speech and Bobby Piton Reaction — 30 Comments

  1. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Texas was attempting to devise a means to abridge an established constitutional right ?

  2. Somebody should tell the wretched Nancy that the U.S. would have been a better place in these last few decades if her mother had been “Pro-Choice” and had decided to abort her.

  3. Supposedly Manchin is against this so in the Senate this will come down to Murkowski and Collins (so far Collins has said she will vote no and last I heard there was no word about Murkowski — both are considered pro-choice). If Manchin votes with Republicans but one Republican defects to the Democratic side, Vice President Harris would tie break it.

    Although idk if/how the filibuster plays into that.

    I’m surprised you didn’t mention Liz Cheney being one of only two Republicans and one of only three House members who did not vote. I can’t imagine a yes vote would have made her vulnerable in Wyoming so either she is definitely hoping to win by getting Democrats to support her (hence why did she not vote yes — because she’s trying to ride the fence and get support from both sides) in the primary or she had some good excuse for not being there (dad is sick or something). In other words, was it a political calculation or did she have a good reason to miss the vote?

    This vote shows how a swing of a handful of people could make the difference from yes to no. In fact, a swing of a handful of votes could even flip the House from Speaker Pelosi to Speaker [Republican].

    My guess would be Murkowski will cave and vote with Democrats. She’s being challenged by people to her right and one already has the approval of Trump; Alaska has a funky ranked choice and top four candidate primary system starting next year, so she could potentially carve out a middle path and win with a cross-partisan coalition. She has already won as a write-in candidate.

    I don’t think the Senate wants to piss off SCOTUS and SCOTUS doesn’t like taking these hot button issues because they are facing a public image problem right now and they are in damage control mode. They could issue ultimatums behind the scenes saying they will make things hard for politicians if they don’t settle some culture war issues legislatively. So it would make the court not have to decide and risk looking more partisan and taking a tough culture war vote; and with a Democrat and Republican crossing over, the Senate as an institution could pretend they aren’t so fiercely partisan themselves (which could align with Murkowski’s own interests). Then some lower court could just say, “well federal law is above state law so tough crap, Texas. If you don’t like it try winning some more seats in Congress.”

    Then Texas’s bill is overthrown and SCOTUS doesn’t have to worry about it. Republicans in Texas can still say they did everything they could, and in the event things are looking bad for Republicans from the “I want to kill my baby” crowd then Republicans could attempt to play dumb by saying the point is moot because the law is struck down.

    What if all these cultural issues were actually kabuki theater to waste time and more or less both sides have secretly agreed to a status quo but they pretend to fight very hard for hot button issues knowing in the end the status quo will be preserved while burying things like government spying, red flag laws, cronyist contracts, regulatory capture, weird satellite programs, approving the building of internment camps, redefining crimes so that previously benign activity now gets you on a watch list, etc.?

    Did you guys ever think of that???

  4. Correcting, we do know Manchin voted with Republicans to save the Hyde amendment earlier this year.

    This House bill will not overcome a filibuster, and cannot be part of Senate reconciliation like the Hyde amendment.

  5. D J jumps into White Ford Bronco, vows to find the real conspirators behind Correcting’s scribe.

  6. The filibuster rule will prevent this from passing the Senate unless it is abolished.

    If the GOP wants to run on a record of telling women that they can’t get an abortion even at a time when they didn’t even know they were pregnant, go for it.

    The Governor of Texas’s approval numbers have sunk from 59% to 45% in the latest polling.

  7. I’m pro-life, and while I do understand there are many reasons why it can be medically necessary, I find its use as passive birth control to be cruel.

    All the same, this law is…… just not …..honorable. Honest.

    ‘Cuz, that component you point out is just an upfront example of bad faith.

    Even worse is the “bounty” component, allowing civil suits from anyone against anyone.

    That’s just pure vigilantism.

    No where near any sort of a principled stand.

    ✌️😎

  8. Above, I was speaking to the Texas law.

    In its wake, no wonder it’s stirred up a hornet’s nest.

  9. Heart-breaking and very disappointed.

    We do need more support for women choosing life to encourage the right decisions and we need more education in low-income communities.

    We can do it.

  10. Innocent Primates should take his sorry butt out of the world. The world will be a better place without him.

    Cynthia the low IQ low “income communities” are going to take your home and rape your daughters.

    And idiots like you allowed it all to transpire.

  11. There needs to be a reasonable opportunity for women to decide if they want an abortion or bring the preganancy to term, AND there needs to be an adequate support system in place to take of those children if the mother doesn’t want them.

    Repubicans and “pro lifers” are great about trying to tell a woman what to do but fall short when it comes to taking responsibility for the welfare and upbringing of the child.

    Are you stepping forward to adopt those kids?

    Are you contributing to adoption placement agencies?

    Are you supporting public aid to the mothers and their children?

    Put your money and time where your mouths are folks!

  12. Whoopie Goldberg supposedly had 6 abortions.

    A number of comments.

    Who, what guy in his right mind would want to have sex with this idiot.

    Anyway, might any or all of the 6 babies that she aborted have grown up to be intelligent and rational and reasonable and a plus for society IN SPITE of their hateful and stupid mother?

  13. Bred, the answer to your last question is: very, very unlikely.

    I don’t mind that the gene pool would have been further polluted but for Whoopi’s many abortions.

  14. “Because Science says abortion is Murder,”There is no excuse for abortion with contraception and the morning after pill readily available and safe harbor laws that let anyone give up a child no questions asked.

    Abortion is making all of us complicit in genocide, organ harvesting, child sacrifice, and human trafficking.

    And before you make baseless assumptions you should read.

    https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2021/07/landmark-care-for-her-bill-will-provide-the-supports-a-new-mother-needs-marilyn-kopp.html?fbclid=IwAR2uQoKryv8wXZvJuXXjLmvUao9I_bZUshmQoep2Hi8WXOvgJVV-tU8GZ34

  15. As the blog’s unofficial pop culture policeman.

    In the mid 80’s Hollywood unbelievably cast Whoopi as a sexy cop in the inexcusably bad Fatal Beauty.

  16. The skunk called Tadelman, running for Sheriff is a big proabort.

  17. All Democrats, no matter professed religious beliefs, believe more dead babies are better.

    This law should be renamed the African American continuing genocide act.

  18. Just here for the comments. As usual, the cesspool here dosent disappoint.

  19. Birth control is more in the realm of dogma or precept, rather than commandment or revealed Word.

    Philosophically, I’m a moment of conception guy, as neither faith nor science can inform us of anything other than a binary state of existence for a human soul.

    On the other hand you can’t end something that isn’t.

    ‘Cuz, do think though on softening your criticisms of Republicans and pro-lifers.

    That left-leaning creed of “do we blah, blah, blah…. is a rhetorical leftist aborto-Creed.

    All of us DO much of all of the above like everyone else through taxes. Some grouse, but we pay all the same.

    Many do support charitable works directly, and through their religious congregations.

    Many also adopt and foster.

    Rabine and Sullivan as just some examples.

    ✌️😎

  20. Interesting. Well then disregard most of my last comment because that will not be how it plays out. Oops I just remember when a filibuster was something you had to keep talking for. If you weren’t talking or couldn’t get someone to fill your spot then it was over. It was more like a temporary block of a bill. But who knows? That could have changed a long time ago or maybe it was never like that. I am learning about all sorts of things that grade schools lied to me about! I should sue them for miseducation!

    So SCOTUS probably will take on the content of the law itself. I won’t even try to guess how they’ll vote. ACB, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Gorsuch are wild cards imo. Roberts rules with liberals a lot, Kavanaugh was mentored by Kennedy who was a swing vote, I hear Gorsuch doesn’t have much of a record indicating one way or another how he stands on the issue, and ACB is brand new. People just assume because she’s Catholic she would vote to overturn the law and Roe v Wade. Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer would almost certainly strike the law down based on Roe v Wade and Alito and Thomas, I’m guessing, would let the law stand (Alito seems socially conservative and Thomas does too but more importantly he is big on states’ rights/sovereignty).

    The only way it wouldn’t reach SCOTUS then would be if the Texas Supreme Court invalidated the law (which seems less probable than SCOTUS ruling on it) — and I don’t know anything about the Texas Supreme Court.

  21. I think a perceptive distortion occurs in these discussions.

    The Left continually acts to expand the State at the expense of all other actors, wishing to ignore or invalidate most other independent charitable actors, particularly those that are faith-based.

    Some will point to governmental budgets for such things as being inferior to those of our international peers in absolute terms, yet ignore the charitable tsunami of donations of time and money that ordinary Americans cheerfully engage in.

    They refuse to endorse individual action, preferring only to acknowledge the State’s.

    ✌️😎

  22. Correcting, I don’t see how the Texas law can stand.

    As ‘Cuz points out, in order for the law to remain “viable” under Roe, there still exists a narrow window of possibility to elect to abort.

    However, this narrow window runs afoul of actual medical science, which cannot always accurately inform early enough.

    Neither nature, science or the woman can be at fault or liable for this shortcoming, thus the law is defective.

    As I point out, with the civil lawsuit bounties section, you’ll have people suing who have no standing, no injury, thus defective.

    If not put down within the State, it will go to the Supremes.

    At which point the above arguments and others will deep-six it.

    ✌️😎

  23. Correcting, throw out the Texas Supreme Court and Texas courts in general, as any challenges to the Texas right-to-life law would be filed through the federal District courts of Texas, and any appeals would go to the 5th Circuit Appellate Court in New Orleans before SCOTUS hears it.

    By then, Roe vs Wade could be overturned given other cases in the upcoming SCOTUS session beginning October 4.

    As for the Filibuster, long gone are the kinds of filibusters made famous in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

    I’m on a bike ride now in Wisconsin so can’t research, but sure Wikipedia can give you when the filibusters went from talking to simply a cloture vote, which needs 60 votes to pass.

    Both Senators Joe Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema standing firm against changing Senate rules to end or modify the filibusters and that rules change only needs a simple majority to pass, and VP Kamala Harris can cast tiebreaker vote.

    Time to mount up, back to Illinois.

  24. Exactly what sort of total disconnect from reality would lead to the comment saying abortion is somehow “constitutionally protected”?

    When one starts with something so utterly ridiculously wrong nothing else said by such a person may be taken at all seriously.

    Try harder.

    There are small arguments to be made and argued about the Texas Law which Mellow Monk approaches and those will be ironed out.

    The large argument of Democrats are pedophiles, racists and murderers is unarguably true based upon their policy positions.

    Given there is an entire political party with follower adherents who believe pedophilia, racism and murder should be institutionally supported by the government of the United States, which is a historically, sociologically and anthropologically indefensible policy position, it is incumbent upon sane people to end the possibility of the insane to harm the innocents.

    It continues to be our fervent hope this violence against the innocents in our society is ended peacefully.

    However, as the violence ramps up to begin to be supported politically, financially and through attempted codification, it will be incumbent upon the capable to defend those most venerable from the predations of politicians and bureaucrats ever more vociferously.

    Tell your representatives to get with the idea of stopping the racism of eugenics, stopping the murder of innocents and stopping the sexualized victimization of children or face expulsion from political life.

    Tell them to do this now peacefully or be directly responsible for the next steps every society in history has taken to reign in power mad lunatics.

  25. Mellow Monk must be a monk for Satanism.

    Like that male witch Antifa bum in Wonder Lake.

  26. So I expect she will be standing up for gun rights next, right?

  27. Priest said: “The large argument of Democrats are pedophiles, racists and murderers is unarguably true based upon their policy positions.”

    I said: In my lifetime the person who accuses another of being a pedophile usually turns out to be a _____________

    I’ll let you fill in the blank.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *