ADVERTISEMENT

‘Pro-Life’ Senators Block Bill to Protect IVF

RayGravesGhost

Bull Gator
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
6,610
2,286
113
Pro-life means being against fertilization in today's GOP... 😲


https://www.yahoo.com/news/pro-life-senators-block-bill-210000594.html
‘Pro-Life’ Senators Block Bill to Protect IVF

Kylie Cheung
Wed, December 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM EST·4 min read


“IVF is fundamentally at odds with the ideology surrounding fetal personhood, that’s the heart of the anti-abortion movement,” Sussman said. Even as top Republicans say abortion patients won’t be criminalized for getting abortions, blocking a bill to protect IVF users flies in the face of this. Yet, Sussman points out that IVF’s broad popularity has previously resulted in an anti-abortion fetal personhood ballot measure being defeated in Mississippi in 2011. “Going against IVF activates a lot of people.”

Ultimately, a Republican Senator blocking a common-sense bill that doesn’t even specifically involve abortion is an outrage but not a surprise. Over the summer, nearly 200 House Republicans rejected a bill protecting the right to birth control. Hyde-Smith, herself, recently backed a bill to ban abortion on sovereign, Indigenous land. Fortunately, Duckworth told Axios last week that she and Murray will continue to introduce the bill until it’s successful.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Uniformed_ReRe
The party of “limited government” strikes again.

Per the claim (and you and Ray seem to be backing that up), the party of limited government failed to create more government by passing this bill. That's what limited government means.

In reality, per the articles I read, one single Senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss), voted against unanimous consent on the bills passage.

Those who want to limit federal government don't wish to create new law to make government bigger. Yes, even laws intended to protect things make government bigger. But the reality is that a single Senator voted against it. Perhaps a few more will support her efforts later but today the Republicans who did this equals one (1) Republican.

I have no issue protecting IVF fwiw. I don't believe that anyone is coming to take away your IVF anyway, however.
 
Unless you mean the irony of the people who talk the the biggest game about “limited government” intruding on the private lives of citizens.

Creating a law that banned IVF...now THAT would be hypocrisy from the party of limited government.
 
Per the claim (and you and Ray seem to be backing that up), the party of limited government failed to create more government by passing this bill. That's what limited government means.

In reality, per the articles I read, one single Senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss), voted against unanimous consent on the bills passage.

Those who want to limit federal government don't wish to create new law to make government bigger. Yes, even laws intended to protect things make government bigger. But the reality is that a single Senator voted against it. Perhaps a few more will support her efforts later but today the Republicans who did this equals one (1) Republican.

I have no issue protecting IVF fwiw. I don't believe that anyone is coming to take away your IVF anyway, however.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but doesn’t this reasoning effectively mean that the Bill of Rights made government bigger?

To me, a law that asserts the freedom to do something is making the government smaller by increasing personal freedom.

Fair point about it being only one republican blocking it, though.
 
It was only one republican because the bill was put forward on a unanimous consent vote.


https://www.axios.com/2022/12/20/republicans-block-ivf-fertility-bill-roe

The big picture: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who introduced the legislation, requested to pass it through unanimous consent — meaning the bill would have been considered passed if there were no objections — in response to concerns that abortion restrictions can apply to assisted reproductive technologies.

Driving the news: This is the second piece of legislation related to reproductive health that has been introduced by Democrats and blocked by Republicans in the aftermath of the June Dobbs decision.

 
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but doesn’t this reasoning effectively mean that the Bill of Rights made government bigger?

To me, a law that asserts the freedom to do something is making the government smaller by increasing personal freedom.

Fair point about it being only one republican blocking it, though.

Yes, the Bill of Rights absolutely made the government bigger. I do think the BoR falls within most peoples desired mandate for the federal government, of course.

I don't know much about this IVF bill. I'd probably be ok with it (haven't read a word of it). I was merely pointing out the irony (the party of limited government).

Merry Christmas brother.
 
It was only one republican because the bill was put forward on a unanimous consent vote.

Again...

But the reality is that a single Senator voted against it. Perhaps a few more will support her efforts later but today the Republicans who did this equals one (1) Republican.

I have no issue protecting IVF fwiw. I don't believe that anyone is coming to take away your IVF anyway, however.

Merry Christmas Ray.
 
'Limited government' isn't the same thing as 'no government' ie anarchy.

It should be as small as it possibly can be to fulfill the duties outlined by the very people who created it.

This includes every amendment, whether one agrees with them or not, that has been added, as they have been ratified and are now law. Even the ones that myself, or likeminded people, may not care for.

There's a LEGAL process for repealing an amendment. If one cannot meet said requirement, one should FO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nail1988
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT