Category Archives: Prolife

Francis Schaeffer was prophetic about culture of death that Jack Kevorkian thrive in (Series on Jack Kevorkian’s legacy of death Part 3)

June 4, 2011 – 12:04 am
photo

What Ever Happened to the Human Race?

Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.

____________________________________

 In 1979 I saw the film series “Whatever happened to the human race?” by Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop. I was so impacted by that film series that I asked my high school teacher Mr. Mark Brink to allow me to return to see that series again while I was in college. He did allow me to do that and Mr. Brink would inform his high school students, “Here is Everette Hatcher who is in college now, but he has returned to see this film series again because he knows how important it is!!!”

Mr. Brink was right about Francis Schaeffer. His predictions about the direction of the culture and the use of socialogical law were correct. Below is just more evidence of that. This article by Dr. Herb Ireland demonstrates that I am not the only one that has recognized the truth of Schaeffer’s predictions.

Abortion to Euthanasia: A Slippery Slope

 Dr. Herb Ireland

 Pastor

 Sparks Nazarene Church

 January 17, 1999 at Sparks Nazarene

 A true prophet is one who has the capacity to look into the future and accurately predict what will occur. Twenty years ago I was introduced to a number of true prophets such as essayist Malcolm Muggeridge, theologian Francis Schaeffer and physician C. Everett Koop. I became acquainted with these prophets at a seminar entitled “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” conducted in Seattle Washington.

At that time the United States Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion in all 50 states was only six years old. However, these prophets were already warning the public about the slippery slope from abortion to euthanasia. Personally, I had never really made the connection between abortion and putting to death a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease.

Today because of the actions of Jack Kevorkian we see the accuracy of these prophets’ predictions. This morning I want us to trace what happens to a society that embraces abortion and thereby devalues human life.

I. The Slippery Slope From Abortion To Euthanasia.

On January 23, 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion in all 50 states during all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason-medical, social, or otherwise.  This fateful decision pronounced that the fetus forming in the mother’s womb was not viable – capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the womb. This man-made ruling has had a devastating impact upon unborn children forming in the womb. Here are some of the consequences we face in 1999:

1. There is an abortion for every two live births.

2. This year thousands will hear boyfriends, school counselors, physicians, friends and even parents give advice that will lead to over 1,300,000 unborn children losing their lives.

3. Since 1973 Americans have aborted 36.5 million babies. This figure equals the population of Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming – 13 states in all.

Infanticide

Along with the terrible loss of life, there has been a devaluation of the sanctity of human life in American society. This devaluation of human life has given birth to increased infanticide-the killing of an infant.  For example, in the November 12th, 1973 issue of Newsweek Magazine, in the medicine section, there appeared an article titled “Shall this child die?” It was about the work of doctors Raymond Duff and A.G.M. Campbell at the Yale-New Haven Hospital of Yale University. The article reported that these doctors were permitting babies born with birth defects to die by deliberately withholding vital medical treatments: the doctors were convincing the parents of these children that they would be a financial burden; that they had “little or no hope of achieving meaningful “humanhood.” “The doctors recognized that they were breaking the law by doing away with these ‘vegetables’ as they chose to call these children, but they felt that the law should be changed to make it legal to let these children die.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States documented the case of Baby Doe and Baby Jane Doe who had complex physical handicaps and were allowed to die even though he felt their lives could have been saved.  In his book, Koop-the Memoirs of America’s Family Doctor, he declares, “From the Baby Doe saga… I hope Americans learned about the pernicious practice of infanticide, which has been growing unnoticed in hospital nurseries across the country.”

Euthanasia

The next step in the slippery slope leads us to euthanasia. Listen to the prophetic words of Malcolm Muggeridge written in 1979.  ” Of course, it would be quite wrong to think that the offensive which is being mounted on our Christian way of life will stop at abortion, and already there are the rumblings of a new, strong push in the direction of euthanasia. I have absolutely no doubt that this will be the next great controversy that will arise. The fact is that because it’s so costly in money and personnel to keep alive people about whom the medical opinion is that their lives are worthless, the temptation to get rid of the burden by killing them off will be even greater, and this disposing of them will of course be dressed up in humanitarian terms as an act of humanity and compassion. Almost all of the things that have been done in the world in the last decades have been done in the name of justice, equality, compassion, etc.”

Physician Assisted Suicide. Do you know what PAS stands for? PAS is the title for physician-assisted suicide. Advocates of PAS have succeeded in only one state: Oregon. Already at least two assisted suicides have been performed there, but the explicit goal of PAS advocates is to go national, making the Oregon experiment the American way of Life.

Progressive euthanasia is on the horizon. It looks like this:

1. Dr. Jack Kevorkian has assisted 130 people who were suffering from incurable and painful diseases to commit suicide.

2. Dr. Jack Kevorkian killed a person suffering from a painful and incurable disease and recorded it on video to spark a national debate about the merits of “mercy killing.”

3. Those languishing in long tem commas are put to death.

4. Because the drastically handicapped have little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood’ they are put to death.

5. The mentally ill are euthanized so the families don’t have to suffer any longer.

6. The old and senile are put to death in a humane way so limited money and resources can be used for others.

If you think this analysis is overblown, then you have not been reading the signs of the times! And it all started when we devaluated life before birth and now that devaluation of the sanctity of human life is seen from the preborn to the people suffering incurable diseases.

Is there an answer to this moral insanity? Yes there is and it is found in the Bible.

II Life Is Sacred Because God Created It.

Here are some of the passages that speak of the sanctity of human life.

Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Psalms 139:13-18 “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, our eyes saw my unformed body.  All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.”

Isaiah 46:3 “Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you.”

Jeremiah 1:4 “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’”

Because God created human life, it is sacred and we must do everything we can to safeguard life.

Conclusion. The Irish statesman Edmund Burke once said, “all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” I am afraid that many disciple of Jesus Christ are guilty of this indictment. But now that you know that the acceptance of abortion leads to active euthanasia, I pray you will stand to your feet and fight for the sanctity of human life from the unborn to the physically and mentally handicapped to the aged and infirm.

Let me illustrate how one “vegetable” fought back. Do you remember the Newsweek Magazine article that highlighted the two doctors who were permitting babies born with birth defects to die because they had no hope of achieving “meaningful humanhood?”

Here is a letter to the editor of Newsweek magazine by Sandra Diamond who suffers from cerebral palsy.

“I’ll wager my entire root system and as much fertilizer as it would take to fill Yale University that you have never received a letter from a vegetable before this one, but, much as I resent the term, I must confess that I fit the description of a ‘vegetable’ as defined in the article “Shall This Child Die?” (Medicine, Nov. 12)

“Due to severe brain damage incurred at birth, I am unable to dress myself, toilet myself, or write; my secretary is typing this letter. Many thousands of dollars had to be spent on my rehabilitation and education in order for me to reach my present professional status as a Counseling Psychologist. My parents were also told, 35 years ago, that there was “little or no hope of achieving meaningful ‘humanhood’” for their daughter. Have I reached ‘humanhood’? Compared with Doctors Duff and Campbell I believe I have surpassed it!

 “Instead of changing the law to make it legal to week out us ‘vegetables,’ let us change the laws so that we may receive quality medical care, education, and freedom to live as full and productive lives as our potentials allow.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Francis Schaeffer was prophetic about culture of death that Jack Kevorkian thrived in (Series on Jack Kevorkian’s legacy of death Part 2)

June 3, 2011 – 2:29 pm
photo

___________________________________________

Philosopher and Theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer has argued, “If there are no absolutes by which to judge society, then society is absolute.” Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappan NJ: Fleming H Revell Company, 1976), p. 224.

____________________________________

Al Mohler wrote the article ,”FIRST-PERSON: They indeed were prophetic,” Jan 29, 2004, and in this great article he noted:   .

“We stand today on the edge of a great abyss,” they wrote. “At this crucial moment choices are being made and thrust on us that will for many years to come affect the way people are treated. We want to try to help tip the scales on the side of those who believe that individuals are unique and special and have great dignity.”

This year marks the 25th anniversary of “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” by Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop. The anniversary serves to remind us just how unaware and unawake most evangelicals really were 25 years ago — and how prophetic the voices of Schaeffer and Koop were.

Whatever Happened to the Human Race? was both a book project and a film series, the fruit of an unusual collaboration between Francis Schaeffer, one of the truly significant figures of 20th-century evangelicalism, and C. Everett Koop, one of the nation’s most illustrious pediatric surgeons. They were an odd couple of sorts, but on the crucial issues of human dignity and the threat of what would later be called the “Culture of Death,” they were absolutely united.

Francis Schaeffer, who died in 1984, was nothing less than a 20th-century prophet. He was a genuine eccentric, given to wearing leather breeches and sporting a goatee — then quite unusual for anyone in the evangelical establishment. Then again, Schaeffer was never really a member of any establishment, and that is partly why a generation of questioning young people made their way to his Swiss study center known as L’Abri.

Big ideas were Schaeffer’s business — and the Christian worldview was his consistent framework. Long before most evangelicals even knew they had a worldview, Schaeffer was taking alternative worldviews apart and inculcating in his students a love for the architecture of Christian truth and the dignity of ideas.

Key figures on the evangelical left wrote Schaeffer off as a crank, and he returned the favor by denying that they were evangelicals at all. They complained that he did not follow their rules for scholarly publication. He pointed out that people actually read his books — and young people frustrated with cultural Christianity read his books by the thousands. They were looking for someone with ideas big enough for the age, relevant for the questions of the times, and based without compromise in Christian truth. Francis Schaeffer — knee pants and all — became a prophet for the age.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, on the other hand, is a paragon of the American establishment — a former surgeon-in-chief at the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia and later surgeon general of the United States under President Reagan. In 1974 Koop catapulted to international attention by performing the first successful surgical separation of conjoined twins. A Presbyterian layman, Koop lives in quasi-retirement in Pennsylvania. His surgical procedures remain textbook cases for medical students today.

Whatever Happened to the Human Race? awakened American evangelicals to the anti-human technologies and ideologies that then threatened human dignity. Most urgently, the project put abortion unquestionably on the front burner of evangelical concern. The tenor of the times is seen in the fact that Schaeffer and Koop had to argue to evangelicals in the late 1970s that abortion was not just a “Catholic” issue. They taught many evangelicals a new and urgently needed vocabulary about embryo ethics, euthanasia and infanticide. They knew they were running out of time.

“Each era faces its own unique blend of problems,” they argued. “Our time is no exception. Those who regard individuals as expendable raw material — to be molded, exploited, and then discarded — do battle on many fronts with those who see each person as unique and special, worthwhile, and irreplaceable.”

Every age is marked by both the “thinkable” and the “unthinkable,” they asserted — and the “thinkable” of late-20th-century Western cultures was dangerously anti-human. The lessons of the century — with the Holocaust at its center — should be sufficient to drive the point home. The problem, as illustrated by those who worked in Hitler’s death camps, was the inevitable result of a loss of conscience and moral truth. They were “people just like all of us,” Koop and Schaeffer reminded. “We seem to be in danger of forgetting our seemingly unlimited capacities for evil, once boundaries to certain behavior are removed.”

By the last quarter of the century, life and death were treated as mere matters of choice. “The schizophrenic nature of our society became further evident as it became common practice for pediatricians to provide the maximum of resuscitative and supportive care in newborn intensive-care nurseries where premature infants were under their care — while obstetricians in the same medical centers were routinely destroying enormous numbers of unborn babies who were normal and frequently of larger size. Minors who could not legally purchase liquor and cigarettes could have an abortion-on-demand and without parental consent or knowledge.”

Schaeffer and Koop pointed to other examples of moral schizophrenia. Disabled persons were given new access to facilities and services in the name of human rights, while preborn infants diagnosed with the same disabilities were often aborted — with the advice that it would be “wrong” to bring such a baby into the world.

Long before the discovery of stem cells and calls for the use of human embryos for such experimentation, Schaeffer and Koop warned of attacks upon human life at its earliest stage. “Embryos ‘created’ in the biologist’s laboratory raise special questions because they have the potential for growth and development if planted in the womb. The disposal of these live embryos is a cause for ethical and moral concern.”

They also saw the specter of infanticide and euthanasia. Infanticide, including what is now called “partial-birth abortion,” is murder, they argued. “Infanticide is being practiced right now in this country, and the saddest thing about this is that it is being carried on by the very segment of the medical profession which has always stood in the role of advocate for the lives of children.” Long before the formal acceptance of euthanasia in countries like the Netherlands, Koop and Schaeffer saw the rise of a “duty to die” argument used against the old, the very sick and the unproductive. They rejected euthanasia in the case of a “so-called vegetative existence” and warned all humanity that disaster awaited a society that lusted for a “beautiful death.”

“Abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are not only questions for women and other relatives directly involved — nor are they the prerogatives of a few people who have thought through the wider ramifications,” they declared. “They are life-and-death issues that concern the whole human race equally and should be addressed as such.”

How did this happen? This embrace of an anti-human “humanism” could only be explained by the rejection of the Christian worldview. “Judeo-Christian teaching was never perfectly applied,” they acknowledged, “but it did lay a foundation for a high view of human life in concept and practice.” Through the inculcation of biblical values, “people viewed human life as unique — to be protected and loved — because each individual is made in the image of God.”

Two great enemies of truth were blamed for this loss of biblical truth — modern secularism and theological liberalism. The secularists insist on the imposition of a “humanism” that defines humanity in terms of productivity, arbitrary standards of beauty and health, and an inverted system of value. Theological liberalism, denying the truthfulness of the Bible, robs the church and the society of any solid authority. The biblical concept of humanity made in the image of God is treated as poetry rather than as truth. But, “if people are not made in the image of God, the pessimistic, realistic humanist is right: The human race is indeed an abnormal wart on the smooth face of a silent and meaningless universe.”

Everything else simply follows. “In this setting, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia … are completely logical. Any person can be obliterated for what society at one moment thinks of as its own social or economic good.” Once human life and human dignity are devalued to this degree, recovery is extremely difficult — if not impossible.

The past 25 years has been a period of even more rapid technological and moral change. We now face threats to human dignity unimaginable just a quarter-century ago. We must now deal with the ethical challenges of embryo research, human cloning, the Human Genome Project and the rise of transhuman technologies. Even with many Christians aware and active on these issues, we are losing ground.

Francis Schaeffer and Everett Koop ended their book with a call for action. “If, in this last part of the twentieth century, the Christian community does not take a prolonged and vocal stand for the dignity of the individual and each person’s right to life — for the right of each person to be treated as created in the image of God, rather than as a collection of molecules with no unique value — we feel that as Christians we have failed the greatest moral test to be put before us in this century.”

In this new century, that warning is even more threatening and more urgent. The challenges of the 21st century are even greater than those faced in the century before. This should make us even more thankful for the prophetic witness of Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop — and even more determined to contend for life. Humanity still stands on the brink of that abyss.
–30–
Adapted from the Crosswalk.com weblog of R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

What Ever Happened to the Human Race?

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Jack Kevorkian dies, made no attempts to end his life early (Series on Jack Kevorkian’s legacy of death Part 1)

June 3, 2011 – 10:39 am

Report: Jack Kevorkian dies

I am starting a series today on the legacy of death that Jack Kevorkian had. He chose to lengthen his own life while ending the life of others (many were physically able to live much longer).

_________________________________

Bernie Woodall wrote the article, “Dr. Death” Jack Kevorkian dies, Reuters, June 3, 2011 and he noted: 

news-general-20110603-NEWS-US-KEVORKIAN  Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian, known as “Dr. Death” for helping more than 100 people end their lives, died early on Friday at age 83, his lawyer said.

Kevorkian died at Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan, where he had been hospitalized for about two weeks with kidney and heart problems, said Mayer Morganroth, Kevorkian’s attorney and friend.

Kevorkian, a pathologist, was focused on death and dying long before he became a defiant advocate, crossing Michigan in the rusty Volkswagen van that carried his machine to help sick people end their lives.

He launched his assisted-suicide campaign in 1990, allowing an Alzheimer’s patient to kill herself using a machine he had devised. He beat Michigan prosecutors four times before his conviction for second-degree murder in 1999.

Kevorkian was imprisoned for eight years for second-degree murder and was paroled in 2007. As a condition of his parole, he vowed not to assist in any suicides.

He was convicted after a CBS News program aired showing a video of Kevorkian administering lethal drugs to a 52-year-old man suffering from debilitating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

The Armenian American Kevorkian did not leave the public eye after his exit from prison in 2007, giving occasional lectures and in 2008 running for Congress unsuccessfully.

An HBO documentary on his life “Kevorkian” and a movie “You Don’t Know Jack” starring Al Pacino brought him back into the news last year.

In a June 2010 interview with Reuters Television, the right-to-die activist said he was afraid of death as much as anyone else and said the world had a hypocritical attitude toward voluntary euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

“Now we’ve avoided death because we don’t like death. Religion says that’s a big enemy, leave it alone. But we went beyond birth, into conception. Now we’re dabbling in that,” he said.

“If we can aid people into coming into the world, why can’t we aid them in exiting the world?”

(Reporting by Mike Miller; Editing by Greg McCune)

(This article has been modified to correct the seventh paragraph to make clear Dr. Kevorian was Armenian American, not born in Armenia)

_____________________________________

 
photo

Mark Heard in his article in March of 1997 in Christianity Today sums up Francis Schaeffer’s view of the world and how it held true 13 years after Schaeffer’s 1984 death:

some critics have recently allowed that his big picture has proven durable. The conceptual centerpiece of Schaeffer’s historical view is the triumph of relativism in the modern post-Christian world: “Modern men, in the absence of absolutes, have polluted all aspects of morality, making standards completely hedonistic and relativistic.” He would not have been surprised by the advent of “postmodern” thought, which has built countless altars to relativism across the intellectual landscape. Nor would he have been surprised by the resultant moral vacuum that characterizes much contemporary academic thinking. In a recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, anthropologist Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban agonized over the fact that her discipline’s prime directive—cultural relativism—left her with no rationale for opposing rape or racial genocide in other cultures. One can almost hear Francis Schaeffer saying, “I told you so.”

In particular, he appears to have been prescient on the issue of human life. In 1976 he observed that “in regard to the fetus, the courts have arbitrarily separated ‘aliveness’ from ‘personhood,’ and if this is so, why not arbitrarily do the same with the aged? So the steps move along, and euthanasia may well become increasingly acceptable. And if so, why not keep alive the bodies of … persons in whom the brain wave is flat to harvest from them body parts and blood?” Schaeffer’s bleak vision is now daily news. “Cadaver Jack” Kevorkian has already killed more people than Ted Bundy, but the state of Michigan cannot muster the political will to stop him. A federal court has forbidden the state of Washington to pass laws preventing doctors from killing their patients, while the University of Washington is permitted to scavenge and sell the body parts of thousands of aborted children every year.

What Ever Happened to the Human Race?

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events, Francis Schaeffer | Comments (0)

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 11)

May 2, 2011 – 2:55 pm

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:

VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567
www.amport.com

The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.,

Unjust laws exist. Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally under such a government as this think that they ought to wait until they think they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt?… Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels? p. 183

“Speaking on slavery and the unjust Fugitive Slave Law to a New England audience, Emerson on January 25, 1855, stated the following:

Now what is the effect of this evil government?
To Discredit government. When the public fails in its duty, private men take its place…When the American government and courts are false to their trust, men disobey the government, put it in the wrong; the government is forced into all manner of false and ridiculous attitudes. Men hear reason and truth from private men who have brave hearts and great minds. This is the compensation of bad government–the field it affords for illustrious men, and we have a great debt to the brave and faithful men who in the very hour and place of the evil act, made their protest for themselves and their countrymen, by word and by deed. They are justified and the law is condemned

Emerson was speaking specifically of the slavery controversy…but the majestic sweep of his rhetoric encompasses every phylum, every genus, every species of man’s inhumanity to man. It is strong rhetorical medicine; it applies in every sense to the principles at stake in the abortion conflict.” P. 184

_____________________________________________

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Abortionist Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life activist (part 10)

April 15, 2011 – 3:25 pm

Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson, a leading pro-life advocate and convert to Catholicism, died at the age of 84 on Monday a week ago in his New York home, after a long struggle with cancer.

The Hand of God-Selected Quotes from Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.,

Chapter 12 is titled To The Thanatoriums, an allusion the Walker Percy’s terrific book Thanatos.

Nathanson explains the reason for the acrimonious debate continuing still over abortion: It was decided by the courts and not through the public opinion in a public vote. Judges were legislating from the bench,

Like Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade…attempted to remove the abortion decision from politics and thus effectively radicalized the debate, discouraging compromise, political half-measures, or even edifying discussion. In particular it denied to pro-life forces the ordinary tools of politics…They were left with only two options, one largely illusory.

Politically, they could pursue a constitutional amendment banning abortion…But…in the absence of a national moral consensus on the issue, it is simply too large a step to be the first step. An America capable of passing a pro-life amendment would not need one; an America that needs one cannot possibly pass it. Emphasis mine. p. 178

Nathanson suggests another,
[A]lternative that seemed open to pro-lifers was to wage a war of conscience, to educate, advocate, and nonviolently protest the horror until the nation was moved to reconsider. Meanwhile, if the protesters, advocates, educators, and pamphleteers could not move the nation at least they might save individual mothers and children from the monster. p. 178

“Resistance to the injustice [of abortion] may take many forms. Henry David Thoreau wrote the following in his monumental treatise “Civil Disobedience”:

_____________________________________________

Free-lance columnist Rex Nelson is the president of Arkansas’ Independent Colleges and Universities. He’s also the author of the Southern Fried blog at rexnelsonsouthernfried. com.

Rex Nelson wrote in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on April 2, 2011 a great article called “Arkansas Bucket List.” The readers of his blog http://www.rexnelsonsouthernfried.com came up with a list of things you must do at least once in your life to be considered a well-rounded Arkansan. Nelson asked others to add their suggestions at his website. I am going through the list slowly.

1. Drive the Pig Trail to Fayetteville when the leaves are changing colors in the fall. (I have done that and it is very beautiful especially if the red leaves are out in big numbers.)

2. Attend the all-tomato luncheon during the Bradley County Pink Tomato Festival at Warren.  (My friend Sherwood Haisty Jr. grew up in Grady, Arkansas and his parents are from the Warren area and he has told me all about the festival.)

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Mike Pence and the Republicans should hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire.

April 13, 2011 – 11:19 pm

I must say that I agree with about everything that Mike Pence says below and I disagree with about everything that Chris Van Hollen has to say. However, I am not pleased that the Republicans do not try to get a balanced budget in 3 years instead of trying to balance it in 10 years. I must agree with the analysis that Van Hollen gives here concerning the hypocritical nature of the Republicans ploy:

It will be hugely dangerous for the Republican colleagues to play a game of chicken on the debt ceiling. You would see an economic catastrophe if the United States defaulted on its debt. Now, the budget proposal that they’re bringing forth will require increases in the debt ceiling for years and years to come. So for them to say we’re not going to support an increase in the debt ceiling on this. And then put a budget on the floor that will require it is just irresponsible.

It is my view that the Republicans should make the Democrats balance the budget now or not vote to raise the debt limit.

VAN HOLLEN: Facts, facts. AMANPOUR: Because I want to move on.

VAN HOLLEN: The facts are that not one penny of taxpayer money goes to Planned Parenthood or anybody else for abortion. And what Mike and his colleagues tried to do was use a funding bill, a spending bill, to impose changes in law that should be debated, but not as part of this…

AMANPOUR: No, I need to go forward now, because you made your position clear, sir, you made it clear. I understand where you stand on this. I understand this. What I want to know now, is you have a huge fight coming up. You have got the debt ceiling. You’ve got a potential catastrophe, if you believe Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary. What’s going to happen there? What needs to happen for you to vote yes to raise the debt ceiling, the amount America can borrow?

PENCE: Well, look, I will not support an increase in the debt ceiling without real and meaningful changes in spending in the short-term and in the long-term. We’ve got to change the way we spend the people’s money. Again, we have a $14 trillion national debt. The president sends the budget to Capitol Hill that will double the national debt in the next ten years. And simply expanding the credit card is not the right answer.

AMANPOUR: On this issue, how will that fight be fought?

VAN HOLLEN: It will be hugely dangerous for the Republican colleagues to play a game of chicken on the debt ceiling. You would see an economic catastrophe if the United States defaulted on its debt. Now, the budget proposal that they’re bringing forth will require increases in the debt ceiling for years and years to come. So for them to say we’re not going to support an increase in the debt ceiling on this. And then put a budget on the floor that will require it is just irresponsible.

AMANPOUR: One of the questions I asked David Plouffe was about who has the ideas. Congressman Ryan has put forth a budget that many people are saying is a good attempt to deal with this. When are we going to hear — and are you frustrated that there isn’t one detail on your side — although, again, David Plouffe said the president is going to put more details out this week.

VAN HOLLEN: Well, the president had a budget. And we, the Democrats in the House, are going to have an alternative budget this week as we debate it. The problem with the Ryan plan, the Republican plan is it’s totally unbalanced. That’s what the co-authors of the fiscal commission, bipartisan fiscal commission said, because what he does is he takes deep cuts, he ends Medicare. He ends the Medicare guarantee for seniors. He’s going to require seniors to go not private insurance market and they’ll have to eat all of the rising costs of health care, while they provide big tax breaks for millionaires, and the corporate special interest. That is just not the priorities of the country. And I think it’s wrong to do that.

AMANPOUR: Do you think, Congressman Pence, and this is the last question, there will be some bipartisan compromise? Because, on the big issue, it has to be bipartisan crafting.

PENCE: Well, let me say, House Republicans under Paul Ryan’s leadership have offered a vision to put America back on a pathway toward a balanced budget. It deals with issues in entitlement. It reduces the national debt. For Americans 55 or older, we’re not proposing a single change in Medicare. Chris knows that. What we want to do for Americans under the age of 55 is make sure they can participate in the same health plan that members of Congress do.

VAN HOLLEN: That is not accurate.

PENCE: This is going to be a big debate…

VAN HOLLEN: Members — no members of Congress…

PENCE: ..there’s no repeal — there’s no repeal of the Medicare guarantee.

VAN HOLLEN: Members of Congress have what is called a fair-share deal. We do not bare the entire risk of increased costs. They are asking seniors to bear risks, they are not asking themselves…

PENCE: Members of Congress have the same premium support system, Chris knows that.

AMANPOUR: We will be watching this, debating it…

VAN HOLLEN: There’s a fair share guarantee. And Mike should check the law, because they’re ask seniors to absorb the entire risk of — the higher risk of increased costs. Members of Congress do not bear that risk in the same way.

AMANPOUR: We are certainly going to bring this up with our round table. And we’ll keep talking about it, because this will be the issue ahead. Thank you both very much indeed for joining us.

VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

_________________________________

It has been 150 years since the beginning of the Civil War that started in April of 1861 at Ft Sumter.

Officers of 114th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment …

Officers of the 114th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment while away the hours during the lengthy Siege of Petersburg in 1864-65. “There’s a lot of daily life that goes on backstage behind the camps around battlefields,” Knauer says. If these men from the Army of the Potomac joined their unit at its founding, in 1861, they may have served at Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, among other major battles of the war.

Officers of the 114th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment ...

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Mike Pence is probably voting against Continuing Resolution #2 this week (Part1)

April 12, 2011 – 8:23 am

Rep. Mike Pence and Rep. Chris Van Hollen  join ABC’s “This Week” with Christaine Amapour on April 10th, 2011

I think one of the most important facts from the clip above is the statement that Rep. Pence made here:

Planned Parenthood’s clinics focus mainly on abortion. In 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 977 adoptions, 7,000 prenatal, 332,000 abortions.

With that one fact alone in mind, I was very upset that Rep. Pence voted for the Continuing Resolution. Now I am told that he will probably not vote for the continuing resolution this week because the Pence Amendment (that bans federal funding to Planned Parenthood has been removed).

Here is a portion of the transcript below from the above interview:

// AMANPOUR: And we’re joined now by Republican Congressman Mike Pence. He’s from Indiana. He’s a Tea Party favorite and who we saw earlier vowing to shut down the government if Democrats wouldn’t agree to steep budget cuts. And also we’re joined by Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. He’s dealing with some angry colleagues this morning. Congressmen, thank you both for coming. Welcome to “This Week.” You’ve been all over the air for the last 12 minutes talking about shut it down if it didn’t go right. Will you vote for this deal?

PENCE: Well, first, Christiane, let me say, I’ve been battling runaway federal spending under both political parties ever since I arrived in Congress. I, for one, want to celebrate the fact that we are now debating on Capitol Hill less spending…

AMANPOUR: Will you celebrate with your vote? PENCE: Well, less spending, instead of more spending. And what I was saying repeatedly at the rally that you just clipped and on the floor of the Congress, was that House Republicans needed to pick a fight. And I think John Boehner fought the good fight. I think he drove a hard bargain here. I want to see the details. But from what I know, it sounds like John Boehner got a good deal. Probably not good enough for me to support it, but a good deal nonetheless.

 AMANPOUR: You won’t support it? PENCE: Look, this country’s in trouble. We’ve got — we were asking for a 2 percent cut in the budget. And that ended up being too much of a cut for this administration and for liberals in Congress. AMANPOUR: But you say you won’t support it, yet Speaker Boehner did a good job. I mean, what happened, do you think he’s — he folded too early?

PENCE: Well, I said — I said John Boehner — well, look, I cannot bring myself to be critical of a basketball player that gets two on one all night. I can’t bring myself to be critical of John Boehner, who has squared off against the White House and liberals in Congress, who couldn’t accept a 2 percent budget cut, and who dug in and were willing to shut down the government to continue to send $1 million a day to the largest abortion provider in America….

AMANPOUR: So you’ve described it. But the bottom line is, I mean, you have come close and you have basically said you’re not going to support it. Right?

PENCE: Well, look, I want to see the language in the bill. I think John Boehner got a good deal, but it’s probably not good enough for me to support it. Right.

 AMANPOUR: OK. So I think you’re saying you’re not going to support it. What are you saying? Are you going to support it? VAN HOLLEN: I’m going to look, Christiane. We don’t know yet what the cuts are. In other words… AMANPOUR: How long is this going to take? VAN HOLLEN: Well, the vote will come up this week. They’ll probably put the cuts on the Internet, I hope, so that everybody can see them. AMANPOUR: Will it pass, do you think? VAN HOLLEN: I think this will pass. And I’m very determined to work with my colleagues to prevent a government shutdown, because it will have huge disruption in the economy. That’s the seesaw that we’re living with here. But, look, these guys took this to the brink, not only to do something that won’t create a job, but to impose their own right-wing policies on the country. No, we can disagree about a very controversial issue, and we do. But using this budget process to impose that position on the country, and threaten shutdown to shut down the government.

AMANPOUR: I was going to ask you that question. Why did you need to do that at this time? Why muddy the water, since you were really about money and about spending cuts? PENCE: Let me say, first off, it’s nonsense to say that Republicans were willing to shut down the government over this. Speaker John Boehner made it clear that the policy issue, including my amendment on abortion providers, had been negotiated, at the time that — I think it’s in The Washington Post this morning. What was clear here, this administration, and liberals in Congress were willing to shut the government down to continue to fund abortion providers in this country. And that’s the bottom line. Why would I fight for it? Let me explain. I’m pro life. I don’t apologize for it. I also think it’s morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund abortion providers.

AMANPOUR: But you know the federal funds don’t do that?

PENCE: Well, look, in February of this year, the Pence amendment passed on a bipartisan basis by 240 votes. It denied federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America. I’ve never advocated to reduce funding to Title X. They tried to make this about women’s health. It wasn’t about that. Let me share with you, though, this fact. Planned Parenthood’s clinics focus mainly on abortion. In 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 977 adoptions, 7,000 prenatal, 332,000 abortions.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Uncategorized | Comments (0)

Mike Huckabee endorses Republicans move to compromise on Planned Parenthood to avoid government shutdown.

April 10, 2011 – 1:39 pm

I feel strongly about getting the 364 million of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding removed since they are the #1 provider of abortions in the USA. I thought the Republicans were going to stick to their guns on getting Planned Parenthood’s funding removed but it did not happen.

Yesterday Mike Huckabee on the Huckabee Show on Fox News made this statement:

The Democrats originally wanted no cuts, then they put 4 billion on the table then 6 billion, then 33  billion before settling on 38 1/2 billion… Now to get more than first offered (by the Democrats) seems a victory to me, but not to some who want it all or nothing. Let me give you a dose of reality. Democrats control 2 of the 3 moving parts of this deal, the Senate and the White House. The Republicans only control the House. You don’t have to be a math major to understand that Republicans will not all they want. We got far more that the President and Harry Reid wanted them to have. Personally I want Planned Parenthood off the federal dole, and I challenge anyone to find a more pro-life person than me, but fight that battle in the spotlight and not attached to a bill that is not really about Planned Parenthood. The more important battle is going to be about the more bold and ambitious plan crafted by Congressman Paul Ryan which doesn’t trim a few billion, but trillions of dollars of  federal spending and then balances the budget in a decade.

Mike Huckabee had Todd Young Representative from Indiana on his show and interviewed him about this bold new program he spoke about in the statement above. Here is the clip from YouTube about this subject:

On April 5, 2011, Rep. Todd Young joined House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and other Republicans in rolling out our 2012 budget proposal. Rep. Young introduced the House plan to reform Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance and job training. The plan would save money, give states more flexibility and increase assistance to the neediest Americans.

Also on the Huckabee Show there was an exchange that really points out why Planned Parenthood should be removed completely from any public funding.

Liberal Caroline Heldman, Asst Professor at Occidental College, commented on the last-minute compromise:

I will give the Republicans the grade of an F because they made this about cultural issues and tried to do this back door assault on women under the guise of the budgetary process. I find that to be really unconscionable. Planned Parenthood it is illegal for them to spend any of their funding on abortion. They have a firewall between the 97% of their services that are family planning STI and the 3% that are abortion services.

Greg Gutfeld, host of  the Fox News Show “Red Eye,” responded:

It is interesting that no ever brings up abortion. It is like saying that you are for the movie theater but not for showing movies.What do you do at Planned Parenthood. That is what you do. That is the movie that is running at the theater. That is where people go. (To get an abortion) that is the place to go.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Mike Huckabee | Comments (0)

Mike Pence compromised!! Here is the House Roll Call on Continuing Resolution to keep government from shutdown.

April 10, 2011 – 10:55 am

(Updated: If you want something really confusing then try to figure out where to go with this now after the show “This Week” with Christiane Amapour on ABC April 10th came out. On that show Mike Pence says that he will PROBABLY NOT VOTE FOR THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION this week.)

Mike Pence on Feb 8 on Planned Parenthood

Mike Pence says it is time to pick a fight (in March)

Rep. Pence spoke on the House Floor April 7, 2011. (In this speech Mike Pence finishes by saying “If Democrats here in Washington would rather political games and shut the government down than support our troops and defend our treasury and respect our values then I say shut it down. These last few words upset me because it appears that even though Pence promises to vote to shut down the government if Democrats don’t “respect our values” he ultimately caved on that!!!)


I am a little confused by the vote of Mike Pence in favor of the continuing resolution passage when on American Family Radio Show “Today’s issue”  with Tim Wildmon he said the Republicans would stick to their position to remove all the funding for Planned Parenthood. Then the Republicans caved on that and Pence still voted for the compromise?

4-8-2011 – Statement from Pence Press Office Regarding Continuing Resolution and Pence Amendment PDF Print
Washington, D.C.— The following statement was issued by Matt Lloyd, Communications Director for U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, today regarding the Pence Amendment that would deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates: “It has been erroneously reported in the media that Congressman Pence has signaled a willingness to accept a compromise on the Pence Amendment in the negotiations over a long-term Continuing Resolution. These reports are inaccurate. Congressman Pence has made no statement concerning the ongoing negotiations and remains committed to the Pence Amendment and will continue to work with colleagues to include this measure in any final legislation.”

I got this house roll call  info below from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-253

112th Congress
House Vote #253 (Apr 9, 2011)
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment: H R 1363 Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes
Number: House Vote #253 in 2011 [primary source: house.gov]
Date: Apr 9, 2011 12:40AM
Result: Passed
Related Bill: H.R. 1363: Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
  Totals Democrats Republicans Independents All Votes
     
Needed To Win
Yea: 348 (81%)
   
140 208 0
Nay: 70 (16%)   42 28 0
Present: 0 (0%)   0 0 0
Not Voting: 14 (3%)   10 4 0
Required: Simple Majority of 418 votes (=210 votes) 

(Vacancies in Congress will affect vote totals.)

More information: Aye versus Yea Explained

Vote Details

Cartogram 

Standard Projection

Cartograms give an equal area in an image to an equal number of votes by distorting the image. Senate vote cartograms are shown with each state stretched or shrunk so that the states each take up an equal area because each state has two votes. For House votes, it is each congressional district which is stretched or shrunk.

Vote 

 District 

 Representative 
Alabama
Yea AL-1 Bonner, Jo [R]
Yea AL-2 Roby, Martha [R]
Yea AL-3 Rogers, Michael [R]
Yea AL-4 Aderholt, Robert [R]
Yea AL-5 Brooks, Mo [R]
Yea AL-6 Bachus, Spencer [R]
Yea AL-7 Sewell, Terri [D]
Alaska
Not Voting AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Arizona
Yea AZ-1 Gosar, Paul [R]
Yea AZ-2 Franks, Trent [R]
Yea AZ-3 Quayle, Ben [R]
Yea AZ-4 Pastor, Edward [D]
Yea AZ-5 Schweikert, David [R]
Yea AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Yea AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]
Not Voting AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]
Arkansas
Yea AR-1 Crawford, Eric [R]
Yea AR-2 Griffin, Tim [R]
Yea AR-3 Womack, Steve [R]
Yea AR-4 Ross, Mike [D]
California
Yea CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]
Yea CA-2 Herger, Walter [R]
Yea CA-3 Lungren, Daniel [R]
Yea CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]
Yea CA-5 Matsui, Doris [D]
Nay CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]
Nay CA-7 Miller, George [D]
Yea CA-8 Pelosi, Nancy [D]
Nay CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]
Yea CA-10 Garamendi, John [D]
Yea CA-11 McNerney, Jerry [D]
Yea CA-12 Speier, Jackie [D]
Yea CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]
Yea CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D]
Nay CA-15 Honda, Michael [D]
Yea CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
Yea CA-17 Farr, Sam [D]
Yea CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis [D]
Yea CA-19 Denham, Jeff [R]
Yea CA-20 Costa, Jim [D]
Yea CA-21 Nunes, Devin [R]
Yea CA-22 McCarthy, Kevin [R]
Yea CA-23 Capps, Lois [D]
Yea CA-24 Gallegly, Elton [R]
Yea CA-25 McKeon, Howard [R]
Yea CA-26 Dreier, David [R]
Yea CA-27 Sherman, Brad [D]
Yea CA-28 Berman, Howard [D]
Yea CA-29 Schiff, Adam [D]
Not Voting CA-30 Waxman, Henry [D]
Not Voting CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]
Nay CA-32 Chu, Judy [D]
Yea CA-33 Bass, Karen [D]
Yea CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]
Not Voting CA-35 Waters, Maxine [D]
Yea CA-37 Richardson, Laura [D]
Yea CA-38 Napolitano, Grace [D]
Yea CA-39 Sanchez, Linda [D]
Yea CA-40 Royce, Edward [R]
Yea CA-41 Lewis, Jerry [R]
Yea CA-42 Miller, Gary [R]
Yea CA-43 Baca, Joe [D]
Yea CA-44 Calvert, Ken [R]
Yea CA-45 Bono Mack, Mary [R]
Yea CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]
Yea CA-47 Sanchez, Loretta [D]
Yea CA-48 Campbell, John [R]
Yea CA-49 Issa, Darrell [R]
Yea CA-50 Bilbray, Brian [R]
Nay CA-51 Filner, Bob [D]
Yea CA-52 Hunter, Duncan [R]
Yea CA-53 Davis, Susan [D]
Colorado
Yea CO-1 DeGette, Diana [D]
Not Voting CO-2 Polis, Jared [D]
Yea CO-3 Tipton, Scott [R]
Yea CO-4 Gardner, Cory [R]
Yea CO-5 Lamborn, Doug [R]
Yea CO-6 Coffman, Mike [R]
Yea CO-7 Perlmutter, Ed [D]
Connecticut
Nay CT-1 Larson, John [D]
Yea CT-2 Courtney, Joe [D]
Yea CT-3 DeLauro, Rosa [D]
Yea CT-4 Himes, James [D]
Yea CT-5 Murphy, Christopher [D]
Delaware
Yea DE-0 Carney, John [D]
Florida
Yea FL-1 Miller, Jeff [R]
Nay FL-2 Southerland, Steve [R]
Yea FL-3 Brown, Corrine [D]
Yea FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander [R]
Yea FL-5 Nugent, Richard [R]
Yea FL-6 Stearns, Clifford [R]
Yea FL-7 Mica, John [R]
Yea FL-8 Webster, Daniel [R]
Yea FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus [R]
Yea FL-10 Young, C. W. [R]
Yea FL-11 Castor, Kathy [D]
Yea FL-12 Ross, Dennis [R]
Yea FL-13 Buchanan, Vern [R]
Nay FL-14 Mack, Connie [R]
Yea FL-15 Posey, Bill [R]
Yea FL-16 Rooney, Thomas [R]
Yea FL-17 Wilson, Frederica [D]
Yea FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R]
Yea FL-19 Deutch, Ted [D]
Yea FL-20 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D]
Yea FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Mario [R]
Yea FL-22 West, Allen [R]
Nay FL-23 Hastings, Alcee [D]
Yea FL-24 Adams, Sandy [R]
Yea FL-25 Rivera, David [R]
Georgia
Yea GA-1 Kingston, Jack [R]
Yea GA-2 Bishop, Sanford [D]
Yea GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]
Nay GA-4 Johnson, Henry [D]
Nay GA-5 Lewis, John [D]
Yea GA-6 Price, Tom [R]
Yea GA-7 Woodall, Rob [R]
Yea GA-8 Scott, Austin [R]
Nay GA-9 Graves, Tom [R]
Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]
Yea GA-11 Gingrey, John [R]
Yea GA-12 Barrow, John [D]
Yea GA-13 Scott, David [D]
Hawaii
Yea HI-1 Hanabusa, Colleen [D]
Nay HI-2 Hirono, Mazie [D]
Idaho
Nay ID-1 Labrador, Raúl [R]
Yea ID-2 Simpson, Michael [R]
Illinois
Nay IL-1 Rush, Bobby [D]
Nay IL-2 Jackson, Jesse [D]
Yea IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel [D]
Nay IL-4 Gutierrez, Luis [D]
Yea IL-5 Quigley, Mike [D]
Yea IL-6 Roskam, Peter [R]
Nay IL-7 Davis, Danny [D]
Nay IL-8 Walsh, Joe [R]
Yea IL-9 Schakowsky, Janice [D]
Yea IL-10 Dold, Bob [R]
Yea IL-11 Kinzinger, Adam [R]
Yea IL-12 Costello, Jerry [D]
Yea IL-13 Biggert, Judy [R]
Yea IL-14 Hultgren, Randy [R]
Nay IL-15 Johnson, Timothy [R]
Yea IL-16 Manzullo, Donald [R]
Yea IL-17 Schilling, Robert [R]
Yea IL-18 Schock, Aaron [R]
Yea IL-19 Shimkus, John [R]
Indiana
Yea IN-1 Visclosky, Peter [D]
Yea IN-2 Donnelly, Joe [D]
Yea IN-3 Stutzman, Marlin [R]
Yea IN-4 Rokita, Todd [R]
Yea IN-5 Burton, Dan [R]
Yea IN-6 Pence, Mike [R]
Yea IN-7 Carson, André [D]
Yea IN-8 Bucshon, Larry [R]
Yea IN-9 Young, Todd [R]
Iowa
Yea IA-1 Braley, Bruce [D]
Yea IA-2 Loebsack, David [D]
Yea IA-3 Boswell, Leonard [D]
Yea IA-4 Latham, Thomas [R]
Nay IA-5 King, Steve [R]
Kansas
Nay KS-1 Huelskamp, Tim [R]
Yea KS-2 Jenkins, Lynn [R]
Yea KS-3 Yoder, Kevin [R]
Yea KS-4 Pompeo, Mike [R]
Kentucky
Yea KY-1 Whitfield, Edward [R]
Yea KY-2 Guthrie, Brett [R]
Yea KY-3 Yarmuth, John [D]
Yea KY-4 Davis, Geoff [R]
Yea KY-5 Rogers, Harold [R]
Yea KY-6 Chandler, Ben [D]
Louisiana
Yea LA-1 Scalise, Steve [R]
Nay LA-2 Richmond, Cedric [D]
Yea LA-3 Landry, Jeff [R]
Yea LA-4 Fleming, John [R]
Yea LA-5 Alexander, Rodney [R]
Yea LA-6 Cassidy, Bill [R]
Yea LA-7 Boustany, Charles [R]
Maine
Yea ME-1 Pingree, Chellie [D]
Yea ME-2 Michaud, Michael [D]
Maryland
Nay MD-1 Harris, Andy [R]
Yea MD-2 Ruppersberger, C.A. [D]
Yea MD-3 Sarbanes, John [D]
Yea MD-4 Edwards, Donna [D]
Yea MD-5 Hoyer, Steny [D]
Yea MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe [R]
Yea MD-7 Cummings, Elijah [D]
Yea MD-8 Van Hollen, Christopher [D]
Massachusetts
Yea MA-1 Olver, John [D]
Yea MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
Nay MA-3 McGovern, James [D]
Nay MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
Yea MA-5 Tsongas, Niki [D]
Yea MA-6 Tierney, John [D]
Nay MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
Nay MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]
Yea MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]
Yea MA-10 Keating, William [D]
Michigan
Yea MI-1 Benishek, Dan [R]
Yea MI-2 Huizenga, Bill [R]
Nay MI-3 Amash, Justin [R]
Yea MI-4 Camp, David [R]
Yea MI-5 Kildee, Dale [D]
Yea MI-6 Upton, Frederick [R]
Yea MI-7 Walberg, Timothy [R]
Yea MI-8 Rogers, Michael [R]
Yea MI-9 Peters, Gary [D]
Yea MI-10 Miller, Candice [R]
Nay MI-11 McCotter, Thaddeus [R]
Yea MI-12 Levin, Sander [D]
Yea MI-13 Clarke, Hansen [D]
Yea MI-14 Conyers, John [D]
Yea MI-15 Dingell, John [D]
Minnesota
Yea MN-1 Walz, Timothy [D]
Yea MN-2 Kline, John [R]
Yea MN-3 Paulsen, Erik [R]
Yea MN-4 McCollum, Betty [D]
Nay MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D]
Nay MN-6 Bachmann, Michele [R]
Yea MN-7 Peterson, Collin [D]
Yea MN-8 Cravaack, Chip [R]
Mississippi
Yea MS-1 Nunnelee, Alan [R]
Yea MS-2 Thompson, Bennie [D]
Yea MS-3 Harper, Gregg [R]
Nay MS-4 Palazzo, Steven [R]
Missouri
Yea MO-1 Clay, William [D]
Yea MO-2 Akin, W. [R]
Yea MO-3 Carnahan, Russ [D]
Yea MO-4 Hartzler, Vicky [R]
Not Voting MO-5 Cleaver, Emanuel [D]
Yea MO-6 Graves, Samuel [R]
Nay MO-7 Long, Billy [R]
Yea MO-8 Emerson, Jo Ann [R]
Yea MO-9 Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R]
Montana
Yea MT-0 Rehberg, Dennis [R]
Nebraska
Not Voting NE-1 Fortenberry, Jeffrey [R]
Yea NE-2 Terry, Lee [R]
Yea NE-3 Smith, Adrian [R]
Nevada
Not Voting NV-1 Berkley, Shelley [D]
Yea NV-2 Heller, Dean [R]
Yea NV-3 Heck, Joe [R]
New Hampshire
Yea NH-1 Guinta, Frank [R]
Yea NH-2 Bass, Charles [R]
New Jersey
Yea NJ-1 Andrews, Robert [D]
Yea NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank [R]
Yea NJ-3 Runyan, Jon [R]
Yea NJ-4 Smith, Christopher [R]
Yea NJ-5 Garrett, Scott [R]
Nay NJ-6 Pallone, Frank [D]
Yea NJ-7 Lance, Leonard [R]
Yea NJ-8 Pascrell, William [D]
Yea NJ-9 Rothman, Steven [D]
Nay NJ-10 Payne, Donald [D]
Not Voting NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]
Nay NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]
Yea NJ-13 Sires, Albio [D]
New Mexico
Yea NM-1 Heinrich, Martin [D]
Nay NM-2 Pearce, Steven [R]
Yea NM-3 Lujan, Ben [D]
New York
Yea NY-1 Bishop, Timothy [D]
Yea NY-2 Israel, Steve [D]
Yea NY-3 King, Peter [R]
Yea NY-4 McCarthy, Carolyn [D]
Not Voting NY-5 Ackerman, Gary [D]
Nay NY-6 Meeks, Gregory [D]
Nay NY-7 Crowley, Joseph [D]
Nay NY-8 Nadler, Jerrold [D]
Nay NY-9 Weiner, Anthony [D]
Nay NY-10 Towns, Edolphus [D]
Nay NY-11 Clarke, Yvette [D]
Nay NY-12 Velazquez, Nydia [D]
Yea NY-13 Grimm, Michael [R]
Nay NY-14 Maloney, Carolyn [D]
Nay NY-15 Rangel, Charles [D]
Nay NY-16 Serrano, José [D]
Nay NY-17 Engel, Eliot [D]
Yea NY-18 Lowey, Nita [D]
Yea NY-19 Hayworth, Nan [R]
Yea NY-20 Gibson, Chris [R]
Yea NY-21 Tonko, Paul [D]
Not Voting NY-22 Hinchey, Maurice [D]
Yea NY-23 Owens, William [D]
Yea NY-24 Hanna, Richard [R]
Yea NY-25 Buerkle, Ann Marie [R]
Yea NY-27 Higgins, Brian [D]
Yea NY-28 Slaughter, Louise [D]
Yea NY-29 Reed, Tom [R]
North Carolina
Yea NC-1 Butterfield, George [D]
Yea NC-2 Ellmers, Renee [R]
Yea NC-3 Jones, Walter [R]
Yea NC-4 Price, David [D]
Yea NC-5 Foxx, Virginia [R]
Yea NC-6 Coble, Howard [R]
Yea NC-7 McIntyre, Mike [D]
Yea NC-8 Kissell, Larry [D]
Yea NC-9 Myrick, Sue [R]
Yea NC-10 McHenry, Patrick [R]
Yea NC-11 Shuler, Heath [D]
Yea NC-12 Watt, Melvin [D]
Yea NC-13 Miller, R. [D]
North Dakota
Yea ND-0 Berg, Rick [R]
Ohio
Nay OH-1 Chabot, Steven [R]
Yea OH-2 Schmidt, Jean [R]
Yea OH-3 Turner, Michael [R]
Nay OH-4 Jordan, Jim [R]
Yea OH-5 Latta, Robert [R]
Yea OH-6 Johnson, Bill [R]
Yea OH-7 Austria, Steve [R]
Yea OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]
Nay OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Nay OH-11 Fudge, Marcia [D]
Yea OH-12 Tiberi, Patrick [R]
Yea OH-13 Sutton, Betty [D]
Yea OH-14 LaTourette, Steven [R]
Yea OH-15 Stivers, Steve [R]
Yea OH-16 Renacci, Jim [R]
Nay OH-17 Ryan, Timothy [D]
Yea OH-18 Gibbs, Bob [R]
Oklahoma
Yea OK-1 Sullivan, John [R]
Yea OK-2 Boren, Dan [D]
Yea OK-3 Lucas, Frank [R]
Yea OK-4 Cole, Tom [R]
Yea OK-5 Lankford, James [R]
Oregon
Yea OR-1 Wu, David [D]
Yea OR-2 Walden, Greg [R]
Nay OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]
Yea OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D]
Yea OR-5 Schrader, Kurt [D]
Pennsylvania
Yea PA-1 Brady, Robert [D]
Yea PA-2 Fattah, Chaka [D]
Yea PA-3 Kelly, Mike [R]
Yea PA-4 Altmire, Jason [D]
Yea PA-5 Thompson, Glenn [R]
Yea PA-6 Gerlach, Jim [R]
Yea PA-7 Meehan, Patrick [R]
Yea PA-8 Fitzpatrick, Michael [R]
Yea PA-9 Shuster, William [R]
Yea PA-10 Marino, Thomas [R]
Yea PA-11 Barletta, Lou [R]
Yea PA-12 Critz, Mark [D]
Yea PA-13 Schwartz, Allyson [D]
Yea PA-14 Doyle, Michael [D]
Yea PA-15 Dent, Charles [R]
Yea PA-16 Pitts, Joseph [R]
Yea PA-17 Holden, Tim [D]
Yea PA-18 Murphy, Tim [R]
Yea PA-19 Platts, Todd [R]
Rhode Island
Yea RI-1 Cicilline, David [D]
Yea RI-2 Langevin, James [D]
South Carolina
Nay SC-1 Scott, Tim [R]
Nay SC-2 Wilson, Addison [R]
Nay SC-3 Duncan, Jeff [R]
Nay SC-4 Gowdy, Trey [R]
Nay SC-5 Mulvaney, Mick [R]
Yea SC-6 Clyburn, James [D]
South Dakota
Yea SD-0 Noem, Kristi [R]
Tennessee
Yea TN-1 Roe, Phil [R]
Yea TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Yea TN-3 Fleischmann, Chuck [R]
Yea TN-4 DesJarlais, Scott [R]
Yea TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]
Yea TN-6 Black, Diane [R]
Yea TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha [R]
Yea TN-8 Fincher, Stephen [R]
Yea TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D]
Texas
Nay TX-1 Gohmert, Louis [R]
Yea TX-2 Poe, Ted [R]
Yea TX-3 Johnson, Samuel [R]
Yea TX-4 Hall, Ralph [R]
Yea TX-5 Hensarling, Jeb [R]
Nay TX-6 Barton, Joe [R]
Yea TX-7 Culberson, John [R]
Yea TX-8 Brady, Kevin [R]
Yea TX-9 Green, Al [D]
Yea TX-10 McCaul, Michael [R]
Yea TX-11 Conaway, K. [R]
Yea TX-12 Granger, Kay [R]
Yea TX-13 Thornberry, William [R]
Not Voting TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Yea TX-15 Hinojosa, Rubén [D]
Yea TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre [D]
Yea TX-17 Flores, Bill [R]
Yea TX-18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D]
Yea TX-19 Neugebauer, Randy [R]
Yea TX-20 Gonzalez, Charles [D]
Yea TX-21 Smith, Lamar [R]
Yea TX-22 Olson, Pete [R]
Nay TX-23 Canseco, Francisco [R]
Yea TX-24 Marchant, Kenny [R]
Yea TX-25 Doggett, Lloyd [D]
Yea TX-26 Burgess, Michael [R]
Yea TX-27 Farenthold, Blake [R]
Yea TX-28 Cuellar, Henry [D]
Yea TX-29 Green, Raymond [D]
Nay TX-30 Johnson, Eddie [D]
Yea TX-31 Carter, John [R]
Yea TX-32 Sessions, Peter [R]
Utah
Yea UT-1 Bishop, Rob [R]
Yea UT-2 Matheson, Jim [D]
Nay UT-3 Chaffetz, Jason [R]
Vermont
Yea VT-0 Welch, Peter [D]
Virginia
Yea VA-1 Wittman, Rob [R]
Nay VA-2 Rigell, E. [R]
Yea VA-3 Scott, Robert [D]
Yea VA-4 Forbes, J. [R]
Yea VA-5 Hurt, Robert [R]
Yea VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert [R]
Yea VA-7 Cantor, Eric [R]
Yea VA-8 Moran, James [D]
Yea VA-9 Griffith, H. [R]
Yea VA-10 Wolf, Frank [R]
Yea VA-11 Connolly, Gerald [D]
Washington
Yea WA-1 Inslee, Jay [D]
Yea WA-2 Larsen, Rick [D]
Yea WA-3 Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R]
Yea WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R]
Yea WA-5 McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R]
Yea WA-6 Dicks, Norman [D]
Nay WA-7 McDermott, James [D]
Yea WA-8 Reichert, Dave [R]
Yea WA-9 Smith, Adam [D]
West Virginia
Yea WV-1 McKinley, David [R]
Yea WV-2 Capito, Shelley [R]
Yea WV-3 Rahall, Nick [D]
Wisconsin
Yea WI-1 Ryan, Paul [R]
Nay WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]
Yea WI-3 Kind, Ronald [D]
Not Voting WI-4 Moore, Gwen [D]
Yea WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F. [R]
Yea WI-6 Petri, Thomas [R]
Yea WI-7 Duffy, Sean [R]
Yea WI-8 Ribble, Reid [R]
Wyoming
Yea WY-0 Lummis, Cynthia [R]
By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Boehner compromised on Planned Parenthood cut to seal deal with Democrats to avoid shutdown

April 10, 2011 – 8:37 am

Congressman Steve Pearce addresses the House of Representatives on April 7, 2011, on the eve of a government shutdown. Video clip part 1

I was very disappointed to learn that the Republicans did abandon their plans to cut the 364 million that Planned Parenthood got from the federal government. I knew that Planned Parenthood was the largest provider of abortionists in America and they only had a budget of about a billion dollars.

A cut like this would cripple them in many ways. Yes, it is true that none of the 364 million goes for the actual abortions, but it goes to pay for the counselors that tell young ladies that they can solve all their problems by getting an abortion.

I am big fan of the conservative Republicans and I have included three excellent video clips from Republican Steve Pearce, Representative from New Mexico.

Below is a portion of the article “Budget battle came down to 3 men and their weaknesses,” Washington Post, April 9, 2011, by Paul Kane, Perry Bacon, Jr., and David Fahrenthold. It gives a lot of the details of the talks and it shows that the final concession that Boehner made that sealed the deal was his compromise on the Planned Parenthood cuts.

The story of Capitol Hill’s week on the brink — which brought Washington within an hour of a government shutdown — is a narrative of three men, each with a confining sense of his own limitations.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) entered budget negotiations at the head of a rambunctious Republican majority. Quietly, though, he worried that conservative lawmakers might desert him if the deal he struck didn’t meet their expectations.

President Obama had his own problem: He was trying to change his public image in midstream, from America’s top Democrat to a chief executive immune from partisan squabbling.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had watched his party lose its momentum. For all his power, his job had shrunk to defending Democrats’ past gains.

Last week, their first big public fight since Republicans took over in November played out in 3 a.m. meetings, angry press conferences and tense sessions at the White House — which hit their boiling point late Thursday night when Vice President Joe Biden lost his temper at Boehner. It ended with a late-night handshake at the Capitol and Republican cheers in a crowded basement.

The detailed story of that week — relayed Saturday by aides invested in portraying their man as the hero — shows that all three were trying to camouflage weaknesses with bluffing and public confidence. They settled only in the face of a shutdown — the one thing they feared more than giving in.

In the end, Boehner got the huge budget cut conservatives wanted. Obama got to take credit for bringing the sides together. And Reid got a chance — in a dispute over funding for women’s health groups — to rally a beleaguered Democratic base.

Outside the White House and Capitol, their long staredown had a serious cost.

For days, a city had been creakily, and expensively, preparing to shut itself down. And a country had watched in amazement: Was the U.S. government really fighting over whether to reauthorize itself?

Boehner’s problem

For Boehner, last week was a chance to prove his toughness, and conservative bona fides, to the fractious Republicans he leads.

His problem had been made clear a month ago. The House was set to vote on a stopgap budget to keep the country running, but 54 members of his caucus pressed the red button for “no.” The bill passed, but they sent Boehner a message: He didn’t have the unqualified support of all 241 House Republicans.

“If you don’t have 218, you’re not speaker,” one of Boehner’s close friends said, adding that they “cut his legs off.”

The roots of Boehner’s problem stretched back to last fall’s elections, which propelled him to power. On the campaign trail, Republicans promised that they would cut $100 billion from Obama’s budget proposal.

Now, there were 87 new freshmen in the Capitol, and many of them believed that would happen.

But it was a promise Boehner couldn’t keep. Democrats in the Senate rejected it out of hand.

As the last week began, Boehner was determined not to seem wobbly. In private meetings with Democrats, he repeated a mantra: “Nothing will be agreed to, until everything is agreed to.”

And so, nothing was.

‘This is it’

As the stalemate dragged on into Thursday night, President Obama summoned both Reid and Boehner to the White House. All week, Obama had sought to appear as Washington’s peacemaker, not as a partisan warrior on the Democratic side.

But there was a problem: Boehner wouldn’t give in and make peace.

With almost 24 hours to go until the government shut down, Obama gave Boehner an ultimatum on the speaker’s push to include abortion-related restrictions in the bill.

“John, I will give you D.C. abortion. I am not happy about it,” Obama said, according to a Democrat and Republican in the Oval Office. Boehner had been pushing to include both the restriction of government funding on abortions in the District of Columbia and a provision that would have placed limits on funds going to nonprofit groups that provide abortion services nationwide, including Planned Parenthood.

With the D.C. provision in hand, Boehner continued to push the president, aides said.

“Nope, zero,” Obama told Boehner. “Nope, zero. John, this is it.”

And that was it — for a little while. Later, White House aides said, Boehner returned to the issue. Evidently, he had pushed Biden too far.

If Republicans didn’t buckle on this provision, an angry Biden warned, “We’re going to have to take it to the American people.”

Nonetheless, they were close to agreeing to a dollar amount, or so the White House thought. By the next morning, though, White House aides said Boehner’s staff appeared to be asking for more cuts.

So Obama called Boehner. Where Biden had been threatening, Obama tried to appeal to Boehner’s sense of responsibility.

“I am the president of the United States and you are the speaker of the House. We are the two most consequential leaders in the U.S. government. We had a discussion last night and the staff negotiations don’t reflect that,” Obama told Boehner, according to White House staffers.

“The president believed Speaker Boehner was always there,” in understanding the gravity of the situation, a senior Obama aide explained. Boehner “did not want this to come to a shutdown.”

Reid’s voice

In the last days of negotiations, Reid suddenly found an issue — and a voice.


But as the Planned Parenthood issue emerged as a key sticking point, Reid took the spotlight.

“The numbers are extremely close,” Reid said Thursday morning. “If this government shuts down, and it looks like it is headed in that direction, it is going to be based on my friends in the House of Representatives, the leadership over there, focusing on ideological matters that have nothing to do with funding the government.”

Immediately, his own caucus rallied behind him. Democrats raced to the floor one after another denouncing the Republicans for threatening to shut down the government over abortion politics. Female Democratic senators held press conferences, and at one point Friday Democratic staff set up a podium off the Senate floor so that they could hold rolling press conferences attacking Republicans.

Reid also began trying to play hardball with Boehner, telling him that they wouldn’t compromise on the abortion issue and there were no more cuts to be made, according to a senior Democratic leadership aide.

On Friday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — who largely stayed out of the talks — called Reid and asked for a final favor for Boehner.

Reid said no. But he later gave in, in exchange for Boehner’s decision to drop the Planned Parenthood demand. Reid and Obama said they would allow for an additional $500 million in spending cuts.

Across town, OMB was preparing three memos to be sent to federal workers. One announced a shutdown. Another said the government would stay open. The third, anticipating a deal that came after midnight, would allow for a continuation of a few hours.

The Capitol’s own tourist-jammed hallways emptied out, leaving just milling reporters and scurrying lawmakers. After 10 p.m., with less than two hours remaining, Boehner called his fractious group of Republicans in for a meeting.

He told them there was still no final deal. But then he began to outline, in a calm voice, what a potential deal might be.

“That was the first time in weeks that they’ve told us specifics,” said Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), one of the most conservative members of the freshman class. Pearce knew what it meant: “You never reveal things in negotiations until it’s done.”

In fact, as they talked in the basement, aides to Boehner, Obama and Reid were shaking hands in the Speaker’s ornate office two floors up.

They had finally reached a deal: Boehner dropped his demand to take Planned Parenthood’s funds. In return, he got $78 billion in spending cuts — the $38 billion in cuts from last week’s deal, plus $40 billion in increases to agency budgets proposed by Obama that were never agreed to. And he got the D.C. abortion provision Obama had offered the night before.

Later, D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray expressed outrage.

“The District of Columbia’s right to govern itself has, once again, been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency,” Gray said in a statement afterward. “This is ludicrous. . . .Hypocrisy is alive and well in the United States Congress.”

Calls went out. In the basement, Boehner was handed a slip of paper.

“There’s a deal!” he said. The room cheered.

Then, they had to hustle out to vote. By arriving at his deal with only minutes remaining before a shutdown, Boehner had allowed his rebellious conservatives little time to react.

But there may be more rebellions to come.

When House members rushed in to vote for a short-term budget measure — designed to allow a few days for the final deal to be approved next week — 28 Republicans voted no.

It was another sign: They were happy that Boehner had pushed the Democrats to the brink. But some conservatives thought that maybe they could have pushed Boehner even further.

“I voted against it. But I also appreciated the fact that it got solved,” Pearce said. He said his “no” vote was a message for Boehner, “to let the speaker know that, ‘You can take a little tougher position. We’re going to be behind you.’ ”

Staff writers Ed O’Keefe, Philip Rucker and Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report.

Congressman Pearce addresses the House on the national debt and other pressing issues facing the US.


Part 3 of speech



By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)