Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
NEUGEBAUER STATEMENT ON "BABY KILLER":
"Last night was the climax of weeks and months of debate on a health care bill that my constituents fear and do not support. In the heat and emotion of the debate, I exclaimed the phrase 'it's a baby killer' in reference to the agreement reached by the Democratic leadership. While I remain heartbroken over the passage of this bill and the tragic consequences it will have for the unborn, I deeply regret that my actions were mistakenly interpreted as a direct reference to Congressman Stupak himself.
"I have apologized to Mr. Stupak and also apologize to my colleagues for the manner in which I expressed my disappointment about the bill. The House Chamber is a place of decorum and respect. The timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate."
Oh. I see.
From TPM.
Looks like he and Phil Gramm might have the same daddy.
ReplyDeleteLapin, LOL!
ReplyDeleteTom's been out today (as I have not), and that this bill passed is making folks crazier than usual. The states are going to sue the feds is the latest.
So, the bill will kill unborn babies, but providing a way for those same babies to actually BE insured once they are born will some how kill our country...
ReplyDeleteI are cornfused...
In what way will the new system be a baby killer?
ReplyDeleteAccording to CNN:
ReplyDeleteThe first amendment, introduced by anti-abortion Democrats, bans federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create. Its consideration was considered a big win for them and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force other Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.
The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.
That's what the crazies are screaming "baby killer" about. Remember that even the Roman Catholic Church permits abortion in certain limited circumstances. A good deal of misinformation is circulating. There is no public option in the bill as it now stands, so the rules would apply only to the insurance exchanges.
I was watching CSPAN last night. Fascinating and revolting at the same time. I yelled back at the TV a lot (one time was this outburst). I even laughed a few times. Thank God it's over and we have some semblance of reasonable heath care coverage.
ReplyDeletewv=deagad. Dea (the feminine form for God?) elided with egad. My thoughts exactly.
A shame that once the babies are born their lot loses interest in them.
ReplyDeleteThere's no logic in their position.
ReplyDeleteNo compassion, either.
ReplyDeleteI doubt if the point is really to save babies. The point is to control women (and anybody else who isn't white, straight and male.
ReplyDeleteRemember that even the Roman Catholic Church permits abortion in certain limited circumstances.
ReplyDeleteMimi, is that true? It's not what I've read in the past, and it seems to be the sticking point: no how, no way. Can you provide more info as to the exceptions?
On the other point, though, why is it that those who oppose abortion can't seem to see anything else -- it is only about this one thing.
Anyway, I'm glad it passed, and I hope the johnny-one-notes don't create too much more trouble....
Tobias, in the case of ectopic pregnancies, the RCC permits the removal of the fetus. The church authorities don't call the surgery abortion, because they apply the principle of the two-fold effect. However, to me, the argument is a convenient way around what is, in effect, an abortion. The argument wasn't convincing when I first heard of it many years ago, and it is not convincing now.
ReplyDeletePlease understand that I think it is a good thing that the church doesn't insist that the woman wait until the tube ruptures to perform surgery.
Call me cynical, I agree with Mother Amelia.
ReplyDeleteMe, too, Cathy. And I did some yelling at the TV too.
ReplyDeleteI ran into my dermatologist's wife today and asked her how her husband feels about it. She said he watched the proceedings for 12 hours and spent several of them yelling at the Repugs for their stupidity, etc. So there's one Doc that's glad it passed.
Looking back on yesterday, I wonder how I made it through the whole process. I kept telling Tom, who was not as determined as I to watch, "This is historic".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou know, this is why I ask, "What would Nobunaga do?"
ReplyDeleteOda Nobunaga faced a feudal society's version of tea-baggers in the Ikko-ikki, who were a militant band of warrior-monk fanatics and their revved-up peasant followers. Most followed the Jodo sect of Buddhism, which is comparable to the sort of pop-religion practiced by conservatives here.
What would Nobunaga do? First, he gave them the chance to cut it out and stop harrassing people, killing people and basically dividing the country into their own little fiefdoms.
They wouldn't.
So, he burned down their temples - most notably Enryaku-ji on the holy mountain, Hiei - and killed every man, woman and child that ran out. It earned him the title the Demon King from the Buddhists he fought. He's still depicted negatively in much of Japanese fiction . . . but, because of him, Tokugawa had a Japan to unify.
So, we should ask ourselves, What would Nobunaga do?
Yes. I'm in a particularly nasty and unforgiving mood toward conservatives and the mindless apes they stir up.
Whooee Mark! I'm not for burning temples. I expect that we'd have a whole new crop of teabaggers, perhaps by another name, to come out of the woodwork to take the places of the present folks.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mimi. I wouldn't classify the excision of the fallopian tube as "an abortion," either. I guess that's why I didn't think of it, since such a pregnancy never (I think) can lead to a birth. That 'double effect' stuff is mighty tricky!
ReplyDeleteThat 'double effect' stuff is mighty tricky!
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. And in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it depends upon whether you view the surgery as removing the fetus or removing the fallopian tube. In any case, it's a good thing that the surgery is permitted.
Amen, Mimi. But it is just so specious a form of reasoning! After all, it isn't the fallopian tube that is the problem, but the embryo; so to have to perform the mental gymnastics to say that it is the problem, and can be removed and the loss of the embryo is just collateral and unintentional is just a kind of moral shell game. The real problem with the RC moral universe is that it deals with substance instead of process. (Much like the rigorists on the Covenant!)
ReplyDelete"Specious" is the word. I probably didn't even know the word when I was in high school, but I knew that the reasoning was not right.
ReplyDeleteTobias, this conversation that you and I are having here demonstrates the reason that I drove some of my teachers in my RCC schools to distraction. I was too persistent, and I asked too many questions. :-D
Of course I'm not serious, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteYou'd have to wipe them all out publicly and visibly, and who has time for that! :D
I'm just so angry, and I'm not certain that the tok-tok approach is going to lead to anything other than their becoming so violent that lives will be lost.