Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Days After Signing Executive Order

You didn't read the OP, it has been on every bill since 1996. That means it was on last year's bill.

So, the republicans that voted against the bill because of the pork where not voting against this provision, since the provision is in place and stays in place wtih continuing resolutions if the current bill does not pass.

peace to youraying:

 

Right, so saying they didn't know it was in the bill or didn't read it is not sufficient. It is always there. The bill expires which is why they needed to vote for it again. If you don't vote for the next one, the law from the previous goes away.

 

No it doesn't. If the bill fails, the provisions continue as law with continuing resolutions until a new bill is passed.

peace to youraying:

 

The purpose of this bill was to fund the budget for the remainder of this year. All votes against this bill were against the budget and the way it was written. Obama's signature on this bill is not an endorsement of any ammendment contained within. If he saw this ammendment as a threat to his purpose..... and that purpose was more important to him than having Congress approve funds to keep government running..... then he would have vetoed the bill and returned it to Congress to rework. But he had already publically annouced his executive order which essentially annouces that he has no motivation to enforce the laws against embryonic stem cell research or prosecuting the use or co-mingling of government funds, which this ammendment creates as law. (Not every executive order is publicized so much. By the time of his executive order.... no doubt the ammendments were either already attached or were coming up for a vote.......hence the timing of his executive order and sending a message to those who would have objected because of the pro-life ammendment.) Essentially, the only thing the pro-life community won.... and the Congressional Republicans who's majority supported this ammendment ....... was a law which may not be enforced but stands as a memorial to life.


You have no balance or you would understand the difference between an ammendment and a Bill. You would understand that an ammendment may have many opportunities to be attached to this or other bills, but a bill once it comes for a final vote....... usually has just one chance to pass. If you were righteous in your thinking, you would not jump to conclusions such as you have: You would not be passing judgement that a conservative vote against this bill as a purposeful vote against the pro-life ammendment. This ammendment like all others attached..... and I'm sure there were others..... required a vote to attach to this bill. It is in the vote for or against these ammendments in which your judgement should properly be placed. Chances are none of them would pass if they stood alone as a separate bill.... but as ammendments..... they become 'trade offs' between rival parties in Congress.... and get attached to bills.... and add support to the passage of a bill.

To understand how this works.... if I have something I want but I can't get enough support to pass it without your vote...... and you have something you want but need my vote to pass.... but neither of us could get what we want if we had to sponsor each his own bill. Likely each of us have issues which we're addressing which are either partisan or of special interest, or peculiar interest of our own constituency that we would never get them out of committee.... much less face a vote that didn't table. But, as an attachment.... I agree I'll vote for your ammendment and you agree you'll vote for mine... so both become attached to a bill which is likely to pass, and barring any unforeseen developements we inform of our intent to vote for passage on the bill: That way we are both assured that we each get what we want even if we're not interested in each others program.... and, most likely, we both voted for passage of the bill.

Finally, with our attachments or ammendments.... the bill comes to a vote. Most who vote for the bill are voting for the over-all package and not its individual contents. There is compromise.... a knowledge that some ammendments don't have the same agreement of the body as the over-all package which contains them. But it is by leveraging these ammendments or attachments that agreements between other wise dissenting parties are reached and a bill gets passed. Unfortunately, it is not always this transparent or equitable.... but the purpose of this post is to address your judgemental comment about the few Republicans who voted against this bill and your false equating their vote as a vote against pro-life.



A historic lesson in point and how people come to conclusions occurred under Bush I: The budget had been exceeded, partially due to the underfunding of Gulf War I. The Congress was called in for emergency session to extend the funding so the government could run out its fiscal year. Republicans had campaigned on fiscal responsibility. The Democrats in Congress balked. Without passage government would come to a halt. The bill was written but did not have enough votes to assure passage unless concessions were made and agreement crossed party lines. The Democrats held a block of votes they would not release for passing the bill unless a tax increase was attached.

Bush, when running for President, 1988, had campaigned on 'no new taxes'. But the Gulf War became a hitch of added drain and strain on the budget.... unforeseen. He was in a corner..... to get something which the people needed, he had to agree to something the Democrats required. The Republican conservatives tried to stand firm.... but some of them conceded that revenue was needed to balance the budget.

A gentleman's agreement was brokered between the WH and Congressional Democrat leaders on the hill to include a tax increase and there'd be enough enough votes from the Democrats to pass the bill. In the campaign of 1992, Bill Clinton won on Bush's failed promise 'no new taxes'. Bush had made an agreement with the Democrats to get their Congressional vote and keep the government running... and like a gentleman, he was charged and mallined for doing this in repeated debates and campaign ads..... and he took it like a man, never defending himself or complaining of the corner, or the rock and hard place which he had backed into by the developments of war during his watch.

To this day, one hears little to nothing of this side of the story. And to this day most people hold it against Bush I for breaking a promise..... which he did.... and for the courage to make the right decisions ....which he did ......and for raising taxes ......which he allowed. They don't stop to think that if they were a non-essential government employee..... without the passage of that bill, their jobs could have been temporarily suspended without pay: others might have seen delays in pay for their work: people applying for social security or involved in other program, applications, or grants..... including PELLs and student loans might have had enrollments in school delayed: social security checks might be delayed; the military might have been reporting for duty without pay..... or pay delayed until the Congress voted. Sure he could have called their bluff..... at the risk of suspension of government services...... but it (the blame) would be a matter of 'he said/she said.... with the nastiness of twisted politics surrounding matters which concern both government and the people. The deficit was anticipated by late spring or early summer..... but action on the bill to extend the funding of government was (whether or not for political purposes) delayed in committee until very late when immediate action became urgent.


In the case of this particular 2009 Omnibus bill, a budget for the remainder of the fiscal year is necessary to pass OR all functions of the federal government stop running......in theory anyway. So this bill, if not approved and passed as it did.... would have been delayed and reworked and returned for another chance to pass. This would go on and on until some agreement was reached and the bill was passed.


LeBuick, What you infer is a lie.
You either believe it yourself and are spreading it...... OR
You have bought into the manure of someone else who spins it.
Voting against the Omnibus bill is not a vote against pro-life.
Voting for or against the Omnibus bill is not like a vote electing people to office who are for abortions and have terms of 2 to 6 years in office to work their agendas. Like I said earlier.... ammendments get attached to bills and are used to leverage votes and support for bills. Bills get passed throughout the year so there's ample opportunity to attach ammendments...... the ammendments may get voted down... but it doesn't mean someone has failed in their pro-life support.


Your spin is not dependant on the truth but on YOUR politics..... and, maybe, who you're listening too. It is good to try to think 'critically' but critical thinking means going beyond the spin of someone else and examining both yourself and their arguments and all sides of the issue before making you conclusions. It requires a deep honesty in one's self and the meekness for repeated and earnest self-examination as well.

 

Excellent post, windcatcher. :flower:

 

Nope, that is why they had to pass the first extension before Government shut down. It doesn't continue.

 

You are choosing to ignore what I said which makes the rest of your post void. I will simplify it, if it is ok for them to vote against this bill even though it contained pro-life provisions because it had budget things they didn't like then you are conceding that a vote for Obama is not vote for abortion. IOW, the opposite has to also be true, you can endorse a candidate without endorsing all their positions.

Because it is ok for them to against vote pro-life legislation because of the budget things they didn't like you are admitting that we can endorse/reject part without endorsing/rejecting the whole.

No spin there, just facts. Can't have it both ways...

 

I am going to try this one more time. If the bill fails, the provisions continue as law with continuing resolutions until a new bill is passed.

The "extension" you spoke of is a "continuing resolution". The "continuing resolution" funds the government under the current budget, at the same rates and with the same provisions until the new budget bill is passed.

Therefore, the conservatives can vote against the current budget bill because of the pork, knowing the provisions concerning abortion will remain in effect with the continuing resolutions.

If you don't understand, then I cannot help you to understand because I can't state it any clearer than I have.

peace to youraying:

 

Each extension continues the law in place until a new bill is passed.

LeBuick...... when you hold a vote against the Omnibus bill by Republicans as a vote against pro-life...... it is like saying Obama's signing the Omnibus bill makes him against destroying fertilized eggs for research making him pro-life....... So either you believe both these lies...... or you do know both are false logic......


Or do you and are you meek enough to admit it?

 

But the continuing resolution is not automatic. It must be voted in again. This leaves a chance the law can expire.

 

According to the posters here, what you stand for or believe doesn't matter. It is how you vote. He signed the bill didn't he? According to the logic here, that is all that counts.

Now if Obama can sign the bill and not be pro-life then I can vote for Obama and not be pro-abortion. Again, can't have it both ways.

 

What Obama was to allow research on additional stem cell lines. Bush had restricted it to 50.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama signed an executive order Monday repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research.

Obama's move overturns an order signed by President Bush in 2001 that barred the National Institutes of Health from funding research on embryonic stem cells beyond using 60 cell lines that existed at that time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the Bush administration such research was limited not abolished. If this amendment was on every annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996 then Bush's action to use existing stem cell lines was prohibited by law. Did Bush ignore this law? Did he "find a way around it?"

 

Bush thought he WAS the law... :BangHead: :BangHead: :wavey:

 

Obama made it not a once time promise to promote open rights and funding for abortion. Obama voted not once, not twice, but in the absence of anyone willing to stand with him, spoke against protecting the born alive children of an abortion attempt, and then voted a third time against lawful protection of living breathing children. Though Obama said many things and gave many promises.... this never failed in being it his campaign speech, that he would do everything within his power to protect the choice to abort. There really was no significant difference to choose from between him and his opponent McCain except on the difference of Abortion.

But you, sir, persist in this defense so repeatedly that I care not how you voted and I see your pro-life pretense as being hypocritical and a stage from which you attack and wear down and accuse those who truely are faithful to principles upon which pro-life is based. You, sir, are a hypocrite.

God sets before us choices of life and death. I choose life. Those voting for Obama who were informed, chose death. Those who encourage and support them have sided with him. If you defend Obama and those who chose him and attack and question those who oppose abortion and stand against him on this issue..... then you have sided with the abortionist crowd. Principles and masters..... you either have principles or you don't. You cannot serve two masters. The one who you appease is the one to whom you are slave: There is a master who enslaves and there is a master who works along side and from within.

The pompous airs of clerical robes are nothing to the beautiful rags of a servant girl....... when one is an heir of Balaam and the other is the servant girl of the Centurian and brings a message of hope and salvation to a home.

Your weights are not just, sir. You're lacking in judgement. Your confession is not impressive and I've heard no testimony from you. Confession without conviction is not salvation. As to high speach.... God opened the mouth of Balaam's ass.

I find nothing in common fellowship with you...... certainly nothing which speaks of a common spirit.

Methinks God is already winnowing...... winnowing...... the chaff from the wheat...... and these discussions may be most revealing ..... because it is from the abundance in our heart that we speak.



Regarding my previous post and your answer to it:

I've read everything you've said, which is more than you have acknowledged concerning me. God knows I tried to answer your question and speak to you as completely and honestly as I know how.

If you read my post you might learn something...

If you don't read it, as you imply, it is no lost to me and no gain for you to boast about.


A person who will not examine himself, is in a pitiful way and in no position to lead others......

 

I didn't say I didn't read it, I said you went the wrong direction from the first sentence of your answer. Your answer was not relevant because it was contrary to the point I had made. I read it, it wasn't valid (in my view).

 

:thumbsup:
Amen brother amen!!!!! I am thoroughly amazed at the scope of the political hacks lurking around all social sites looking to bring division and confusion. Well I see none that have changed their minds regarding a death dealing POTUS. Yet they persist in their foolishness. May God have mercy on us as a nation that is running at light speed to it's own destruction. raying:

 

This thread started out as a celebration as to how God, by Providence, Trumped the President and his policy of death. Yet you turn that into how it was the greatness of Mr Obama for signing the bill??!!

If he read it I'm sure he was cringing at every stroke of the pen. Obama has always sided with death and we all know where God stands .

You have lost all credibility with me and until just now you had some that I had respected, all is now lost.