Franks calls for ‘nuclear’ Senate option to pass abortion bill
An Arizona congressman called for the Senate to once again utilize the "nuclear" option and use a slight Republican majority to pass an abortion bill.
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
PHOENIX — An Arizona congressman called for the Senate to once again utilize the “nuclear” option and use a slight Republican majority to pass an abortion bill.
In an opinion piece for Fox News, U.S. Rep. Trent Franks wrote the nuclear option would help keep President Donald Trump’s promise to sign the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would block all late-term abortions with few exceptions.
“Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stunningly allowed Democrats to use arcane Senate rules to gridlock this incredibly reasonable pro-life bill just as they were determined to gridlock a pro-life justice like (Supreme Court Justice) Neil Gorsuch,” Franks wrote.
Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, was confirmed after the Senate voted to go “nuclear,” meaning it removed the 60-vote filibuster and used a simple majority instead.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell accused Democrats of forcing his hand by trying to filibuster a highly qualified nominee in Gorsuch, 49, a 10-year veteran of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver with a consistently conservative record.
McConnell vowed that the rules change would block the Gorsuch filibuster, and all future ones, a change many lawmakers lamented could lead to an even more polarized Senate, court and country.
“This will be the first, and last, partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee,” McConnell insisted after Gorsuch was confirmed.
“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet, and it cannot and will not stand.”
Franks agreed with McConnell’s decision to remove the “asinine” 60-vote rule and doing the same was the only way the abortion bill would be passed.
“To do less is to allow this insidious and unthinkable carnage to continue, and to betray the very most essential hope the Party of Lincoln represents to America and the very most helpless among us,” he wrote.
Related
Mayich attorney: ASU hockey coach replaced phone after workout, hasn’t ‘done anything right’
Donald Trump plans Oct. 14 rally in Bullhead City as Arizona votes early
Vandals target border wall contractor Fisher Industries’ Tempe office
Lochiel protest moves to tree in Mexico after border agents clear U.S. cottonwoods
Two arrested in burglary of MLB player Daniel Johnson’s Phoenix storage unit
Phoenix police seek public’s help for investigation into deadly hit-and-run
Comments
11 Comments
After, 26 weeks... one week prior to the beginning of the third trimester. That is when, for me, a healthy fetus becomes a baby.
However, "i support abortion for severe medical reasons" (-jj). Example, pregnant woman contracts Zika and does not find out until the third trimester. The baby has microcephaly, brain damage and is blind. The baby also has underdeveloped lungs and other major organs but may live a few hours or months, with medical intervention. The baby is not viable after leaving the womb.
I will not put time restrictions on this because for me it is closer to euthanasia than an abortion. I assume this is an entirely different concept than what you started with. Yet they are real life scenarios that laws have a catastrophic effect on.
Now feel free to nitpick over what if's (severe medical reasons) all you like... this is not a clear cut issue.
Returning to the initial conversation, your OP is ridiculous, ignorant, and contradictory to your actual beliefs.
"Let's make this simple...After 12 weeks...The mother has a choice...see...choice...she can choose whatever she feels is right for her...as long as she and the baby suffer the same fate."
-jj
"i support abortion for severe medical reasons"
-jj
So tell me...when do you consider a fetus...a baby worthy of not being aborted?
You may know what you wrote, but you do not know what you communicated.
Babies... no. Fetus yes. To you fetus = baby, to me baby != fetus, fetus = potential for life. It is a fundamental difference in thought... so we have reached "the impasse".