Rep. Chris Smith #fundie

Rep. Chris Smith #fundie rawstory.com

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) pleaded with lawmakers Wednesday to support his anti-abortion legislation.

“Back and vote for H.R. 3, ‘The No Taxpayer Money for Abortion Act,’” he concluded.

53 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"'Someday I truly believe future generations of Americans will look back on us, especially policymakers, and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect vulnerable human life could have insisted and instead aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of their moms,' he said in a speech on the House floor."

A blastocyst is not a child. You'd be only marginally better off with the old "baby" hyperbole.

"They will note with deep sadness, some of our politicians, while they talked about human rights, never lifted a finger to protect the most persecuted minority in the world: the child in the womb."

You seem quite insane. At least you found the right job.

"“Back and vote for H.R. 3, The No Taxpayer Money for Abortion Act,’” he concluded."

I hope you had a more compelling argument than what's shown here.

What happened to the days when those in government were expected to be great orators capable of swaying even the most staunchly opposed crowd to their side? Now all we get is some putz in a cheap suit babbling on with a half coherent argument that meanders all over hell and back without actually making any point, forwarding a compelling argument or convincing anyone of anything other than the fact that the speaker doesn't have a clue.

old comment by

Yes in the future the GOP wants, where healthcare spending is at 60% of US GDP thanks to the repeal of Obamacare, the college loan bubble has burst and millions of educated 20-somethings are working at McDonalds, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are pandemic (see previous point), the regulation of dangerous industries and hazardous working conditions is left up to the "free market", the elderly are thrown on the street thanks to the repeal of Medicare and Social Security, and gas is $17/gallon because funding alternative energy projects is communist, people will bury their heads in their hands and weep, only stopping to howl out to an uncaring, merciless sky:

"Why oh why didn't we listen to Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), who pleaded with us to 'protect the most persecuted minority in the world: the child in the womb'. Aaagghhhhhh!"

Fuck these idiots. I want no part of their vision of America.

old comment by Allegory for Jesus

"Someday I truly believe future generations of Americans will look back on us, especially policymakers, and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect vulnerable human life could have insisted and instead aggressively promoted death to children "

I don't know how politicians could have let these two wars happen either. Such needless bloodshed.

"“They will note with deep sadness, some of our politicians, while they talked about human rights, never lifted a finger to protect the most persecuted minority in the world:"

Yes, politicians weep endlessly about the harm they have done to the Jews. But they seemingly still don't care about blacks, Hispanics, women, Muslims, homosexuals, or "pagans" yet. One step at a time (?).

old comment by

@arctic knight

Are the GOP politicians so stupid as to not realize that there is already a law on the books preventing tax dollars from being used to fund abortions? This bill, if it is what it says it is, would be a redundant law since it is already illegal.

It’s not really stupidity as much as pure cynical political posturing. The Republicans are rather fond of trying to pass meaningless and redundant acts just so they can get the Democrats to vote against them. Then they got fresh ammo against the Dems when re-election comes up.

Of course I think the latest breed of Republican actually might be falling into that kind of stupidity. When a serious candidate for Congress can’t even understand the first freakin’ amendment, there is a big problem.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

“They will note with deep sadness, some of our politicians, while they talked about education standards, actively campaigned to regress the standards of science and education back to those of the Dark Ages.”

Fixed it for ya. It saddens me that fundies have so much more influence in America than they do in Europe. You European commenters have no idea how much I envy you all... why can't I have nice things? Why can't the United States have a good reputation internationally? Why must the most reprobate members of society have so much influence?

old comment by Zab

This is of course utter lunacy. I am certain that at least some people in future generations will have the ability to look at the whole world and the whole situation - not just see it through American conservative goggles.

Someone should tell stupid politicians like this that the problem isn't the legality and availability of abortion. People don't actually want to have abortions - they want to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Looking at statistics from places with very liberal abortion policies and good sex education, you see much lower abortion rates than any of the more conservative areas of the US. In some European countries abortions are practically free and available into late term, but since sex isn't such a taboo subject people can be educated enough to avoid the need for an abortion in the first place. Hence, much fewer abortions, even though they are very easily available.

old comment by GigaGuess

“Someday I truly believe future generations of Americans will look back on us, especially policymakers, and wonder how and why such a rich and seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect vulnerable human life could have insisted and instead aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of their moms,” he said in a speech on the House floor.
Well perhaps if you guys weren't fighting tooth and nail to strip funding to any social assistance programs, like the ones that would allow a woman to NOT have to choose between having a child, and being able to afford a home...just as a start. But that just reveals how you TRULY see the issue. It's not about the "precious unborn," it's about punishing the lowly whore who feels she can have sex without consequence.

“They will note with deep sadness, some of our politicians, while they talked about human rights, never lifted a finger to protect the most persecuted minority in the world: the child in the womb.”
Yes, the presence in the womb, and not, say, the girl who was raped by her father/uncle/whatever. Or the woman who has five kids already, and is barely making ends meet. Or the woman who knows she is genetically liable to pass on a debilitating disorder to her child. You truly believe this is just rich socialites that go out for a night on the town, after a couple martinis, take the pee test, go "LOL WHOOPS!" and go with the girls to get aborted between shoe shopping sprees, don't you?

It is far, far more complex than that.

“Back and vote for H.R. 3, The No Taxpayer Money for Abortion Act,’” he concluded.
Great, so when women start dying from botched back alley abortions, will you know your mission was successful?

old comment by Jeff Weskamp

In Congress, these types of bills are called "showboats." They are bills that have absolutely zero chance of passing (and will probably get blown out of the water in the first few minutes of debate), but are still floated so that a politician can boost his anti-gay/anti-abortion/anti-whatever credentials with his constituents back home.

I can remember two other Congressional bills that were blatant showboats. One of the bills stated that killing an abortion provider should be considered "murder with extenuating circumstances." The other one forbade state libraries (in either Mississippi or Alabama, I can't remember which) from stocking books written by gay people.

Needless to say, both bills failed.

old comment by

"exploitation of their moms"

HA! The GOP has been exploiting those "moms" in every fucking election for the last thirty-plus years. You posture and pretend that you actually give a shit about the blastocsysts and place ever-increasingly redundant and restrictive anti-abortion bills on the ballots because you know the idiot fundies will flock to the polls to vote for you on this one issue, while you shove your real agenda, which is entirely against their best interests, down their throats.

Taxpayer funding for abortion has been illegal since 1973, as you well know, keeping women in the back of the bus for their healthcare, just the way you Repulicans like it.

old comment by farpadokly

It puzzles me why such people so strongly insist that every pregnancy must be brought to full term. Because they want to increase the population? Because they want corporate workers to increase profits? Because they want cannon fodder to get maimed and killed in profit-driven wars?
It seems that, after all this talk about protecting life, the second that you're born, you're on your own, and your life is worth about as much as some corporation can squeeze out of you.
And how are their moms being exploited? I don't get it. Why not concentrate on ending the much more prevalent problem of economic exploitation? Why not concentrate on protecting the vulnerable human life of those already born? Why fill up the planet with unwanted babies?

old comment by Princess Rot

It never fails to astound me how pro-lifers will co-opt the language of social justice movements to make their moraless reproductive slavery seem like a benefit to women. Of course, this "protect the fragile flowers" nonsense is just a cover for his belief that women are souless, fickle and stupid, and will heartlessly abort men's babies for shits and gigs and go about believing they are not just ambulant heir factories if they're not properly controlled.

An individual woman choosing to have an abortion is "exploitation" but forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, health and better judgement is... not? Bullshit, sir, bullshit.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) pleaded with lawmakers Wednesday to support his anti-abortion legislation."

So that's what they're reduced to, eh? Pleading?!

So where were you miserable little pleaders between now and 1973, when Roe vs. Wade set the precedent, thus abortion becoming legal in the US, therefore becoming not just Federal, but Constitutional law, ergo the 'Pro-Life'rs' so-called 'cause' was destroyed before it started. QED.

You'd have thought that between then and now, 2011 - 38 years later - the 'Pro-Life' lobbyists, via their bum-chums the GOP, would have put unimaginable political pressure in subsequent Repubican administrations to repeal Roe vs. Wade. They've had nore than infinite chances to do so.

But no. And do you know why they haven't, Chris m'boy? Because Roe vs. Wade has been one of, if not their sole, greatest political & electoral assets in their arsenal, votes-wise. If they made abortion illegal, as per your wishes, the Repubicans/GOP know they'd never get their candidates elected again.

Abortion is legal. The Constitution ensures it'll always be legal. Suck it, Chris. Besides, this particular case:

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=33060&Page=1

completely annihilates the entire 'Pro-Life' cause.

...oh, and not just the fact that, Constitutionally, there's fuck all that you can do about Roe vs. Wade, you also share the same name as this politician:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Smith,_Baron_Smith_of_Finsbury

Not only is he Labour (that's as in Left-wing), he's also Gay. And he's Pro-Choice.

image

Ah, irony. 'Tis a cruel bitch, is she not?!

Suck it II, Chris.

>:D

old comment by Saccharissa

@Jubba the Mad:

"I also think that if you came up to my obviously pregnant wife and deliberatly punched her in the stomach, aborting our baby, I'd want you charged with murder, not just common assault."

Well, of course you would. You'd be angry, and you would have had an emotional connection to your potential baby, and felt the loss. But you've got to realize that no matter how angry you are, the aborted fetus was not a person yet. Therefore, it is not murder. (I think it would at least be considered aggravated assault.)
If someone beat my dog to death, I would be extremely angry, and would want them punished for murder. But it would not be murder, and I would have to settle for animal cruelty.

Another thing to think about: If your wife, while pregnant, did not take good enough care of herself, and caused the baby to miscarry, would you think she should be charged with negligent homicide? What if this happened before she even knew she was pregnant?

Rep. Chris Smith #fundie rawstory.com

53 comments

Confused?