Justin Amash Votes 'Present' On Amendment to Defund Planned Parenthood

[RonPaulFanInGA]

h XXp://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/18/946760/-House-votes-to-defund-Planned-Parenthood,-Title-X


The House voted today, 240-185, to block all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, and to go one further, by defunding Title X entirely. A handful of "Dems" voted with Republicans to endanger the lives of women all over the nation.

The roll call vote hasn't been posted, but House staff provides the names of those Dems who voted with the Rs to defund: Dan Boren (OK), Jerry Costello (IL), Joe Donnelly (IN), Dan Lipinski (IL), Mike McIntyre (NC), Collin Peterson (MN), Nick Rahall (WV), Silvestre Reyes (TX), Mike Ross (AR), Heath Shuler (NC).

These Republicans voted no: Charlie Bass (NH), Judy Biggert (IL), Mary Bono Mack (CA), Charlie Dent (PA), Robert Dold (IL), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Richard Hanna (NY). Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) voted present.

[MRoCkEd]

Justin's statement:

As a pro-life conservative, I have cosponsored and supported several important bills to protect the life of the unborn, including Rep. Mike Pence’s H R 217 to defund abortion providers. Today, I voted "present" on Amendment 11 to H R 1 because, while I oppose abortion funding, the language, as drafted, violates my conservative approach to legislating.

Legislation that names a specific private organization to defund (rather than all organizations that engage in a particular activity) is improper and arguably unconstitutional. Moreover, the legislation is easily thwarted because the organization may simply change its name.

As a conservative, and as the Representative for the people of Michigan’s Third District, I cannot vote "yes" on legislation that does not take the process of legislating seriously. A responsible amendment—one that I would fully support—would defund all abortion providers. That is why I support Mike Pence’s H R 217, which cuts off all federal funds to any organization that performs an abortion—including Planned Parenthood.

[low preference guy]

Justin's statement:

Legislation that names a specific private organization to defund (rather than all organizations that engage in a particular activity) is improper and arguably unconstitutional. Moreover, the legislation is easily thwarted because the organization may simply change its name.


Who introduced that bill?

[eduardo89]

good response by justin

[tsai3904]

Who introduced that bill?

Rep. Steve Scalise [R-LA1]

[brenden.b]

Justin continues to impress me. Basically what it came down to for him is that the bill didn't follow the Constitution and it wasn't Pro-Life enough. I love it.

[Sola_Fide]

Justin is right.

I support Pence's bill too.

[erowe1]

Legislation that names a specific private organization to defund (rather than all organizations that engage in a particular activity) is improper and arguably unconstitutional.

Why does he think that?

I'd say no defunding is bad defunding.

[Jeremy]

Justin continues to impress me. Basically what it came down to for him is that the bill didn't follow the Constitution and it wasn't Pro-Life enough. I love it.

He didn't vote Present because "it wasn't Pro-Life enough". He voted Present because it's about a single organization.

[erowe1]

Justin continues to impress me. Basically what it came down to for him is that the bill didn't follow the Constitution and it wasn't Pro-Life enough. I love it.

1) How does it not follow the Constitution?
2) That not pro-life enough line doesn't really work either. It's not like voting for this would prevent him from voting for other better defunding bills as those opportunities arise.

[brenden.b]

Our Constitution follows the concept of "rule of law", meaning that when a law is passed it is supposed to cover everyone, not just individuals. A better law would have stripped all funding for any institution that performs abortion. He also mentioned another problem with this amendment. If you only name Planned Parenthood, what prevents Planned Parenthood from changing its name to receiving funding? Law is supposed to cover everyone, not just certain entities or individuals.

The bill was not pro-life enough because it doesn't cover other institutions that perform abortions. It only goes after Planned Parenthood, thus not solving the whole problem of federal-funded abortions.

[juvanya]

1) How does it not follow the Constitution?
2) That not pro-life enough line doesn't really work either. It's not like voting for this would prevent him from voting for other better defunding bills as those opportunities arise.

Bill of attainder.

[erowe1]

Our Constitution follows the concept of "rule of law", meaning that when a law is passed it is supposed to cover everyone, not just individuals.
Could you show me which part of the Constitution you're talking about? Since it's unconstitutional to fund Planned Parenthood, it's hard for me to see how it could also be unconstitutional to defund them, whether by name or not.


A better law would have stripped all funding for any institution that performs abortion.
Sure that would be a better law. He could vote for both. Supporting that better law doesn't disqualify him from also supporting this good law.

[Brian4Liberty]

Like Amash, my preference would be for more general and widespread de-funding. Of course that is just preference. Not a fan of giving favors to individual companies or industries either.

[brenden.b]

Could you show me which part of the Constitution you're talking about?

It is what is intended by General welfare mentioned several times in the Constitution. Laws must apply to the general welfare, meaning that the laws must be uniform throughout the United States. Of course, the general welfare clause is perverted to mean that the federal government can do whatever it whats, so long as it is for the "general welfare" of the country.

[erowe1]

It is what is intended by General welfare mentioned several times in the Constitution. Laws must apply to the general welfare, meaning that the laws must be uniform throughout the United States. Of course, the general welfare clause is perverted to mean that the federal government can do whatever it whats, so long as it is for the "general welfare" of the country.

Promoting the general welfare (which is mentioned only in the preamble and Article I, Section 8, I think), is a generic phrase to subsume the powers enumerated in the Constitution for the federal government. Those powers do not include funding Planned Parenthood, whether by name or not. I have a lot of difficulty seeing how it would be unconstitutional to pass a bill that says Congress will not fund Planned Parenthood, whether by name or not, since it's funding Planned Parenthood that would be unconstitutional, not refraining from funding them.

[brenden.b]

As Amash states in his defense for voting "Present", he states that there is no law directly funding Planned Parenthood by name. Yes, it is unConstitutional, period, I won't deny that, Point being, though, is defunding all federal funding for abortions would have been much more effective. ACORN was able to be refunded because the funding program still existed, even after Congress supposedly defunded ACORN for good.

As long as the funding mechanism still exists, Planned Parenthood will still have the opportunity to receive funds, as well as every other abortion clinic. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the current interpretation of the Constitution. Government officials say that they can doing anything under the "general welfare" clause, including funding Planned Parenthood and ACORN, but then turn around and use the General Welfare clause to say that individual entities cannot be defunded.

[Zatch]

Looks like Ron Paul vote yes.

[brenden.b]

Looks like Ron Paul vote yes.

He voted "Yes"

[Zatch]

He voted "Yes"

I'm starting to get worried about Justin Amash. Hope he believes everything he says and isn't just playing politics.

[brenden.b]

From Amash's Facebook...

"As a pro-life conservative, I have cosponsored and supported several important bills to protect the life of the unborn, including Rep. Mike Pence’s H R 217 to defund abortion providers. Today, I voted "present" on Amendment 11 to H R 1, because while I oppose abortion funding, the language, as drafted, violates my conservative approach to legislating.

Legislation that names a specific private organization to defund (rather than all organizations that engage in a particular activity) is improper and arguably unconstitutional. Moreover, the legislation is easily thwarted because the organization may simply change its name.

As a conservative, and as the Representative for the people of Michigan’s Third District, I cannot vote "yes" on legislation that violates the rule of law and does not take the process of legislating seriously. A responsible amendment—one that I would fully support—would defund all abortion providers. That is why I support Mike Pence’s H R 217, which cuts off all federal funds to any organization that performs an abortion—including Planned Parenthood."


Everyone is looking for a reason to doubt Amash. He clearly answers his critics and provides a well-thought reason for the way he votes. So what, he didn't vote the same as Ron. Doesn't mean we should doubt him, especially when he provides a solid defense for his vote.

[erowe1]

As Amash states in his defense for voting "Present", he states that there is no law directly funding Planned Parenthood by name. Yes, it is unConstitutional, period, I won't deny that, Point being, though, is defunding all federal funding for abortions would have been much more effective. ACORN was able to be refunded because the funding program still existed, even after Congress supposedly defunded ACORN for good.

As long as the funding mechanism still exists, Planned Parenthood will still have the opportunity to receive funds, as well as every other abortion clinic. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the current interpretation of the Constitution. Government officials say that they can doing anything under the "general welfare" clause, including funding Planned Parenthood and ACORN, but then turn around and use the General Welfare clause to say that individual entities cannot be defunded.

I grant all that. I'll be the first to admit that I think the pro-life movement gets too caught up in symbolic gestures that don't really accomplish anything over substantive changes in law, and this could well be another example of that.

But it still remains that, regardless of how much another law could have been better than this one, this one was still an improvement over the status quo, even if only a small and overrated one. Unless there's something I'm missing, he should have voted for it.

[brenden.b]

I grant all that. I'll be the first to admit that I think the pro-life movement gets too caught up in symbolic gestures that don't really accomplish anything over substantive changes in law, and this could well be another example of that.

But it still remains that, regardless of how much another law could have been better than this one, this one was still an improvement over the status quo, even if only a small and overrated one. Unless there's something I'm missing, he should have voted for it.


Politically speaking, he probably should have voted for it. I'm sure there will be a Republican challengers trying to point out this vote in the Primary. But I have to give him credit, he's standing by his principles, even on something that is so important to him. I agree 100%, defunding Planned Parenthood is the right thing to do, but I completely understand Amash's position on this vote. I also agree that the Pro-Life movement gets way too caught up on "symbolic gestures" instead of real victories.

[Brett85]

Ron didn't vote yesterday, so if this was an amendment that was voted on yesterday, Ron didn't vote for it.

[brenden.b]

Ron didn't vote yesterday, so if this was an amendment that was voted on yesterday, Ron didn't vote for it.

I checked the rollcall and saw his name in the Yes column.

Link: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll093.xml

[eduardo89]

Slightly off topic, but must you be physically there to vote or can you vote by proxy?

[whoisjohngalt]

He said it arguably is unconstitutional. His point is the one I'm always trying to make about abortion to people on this forum. You don't make laws because they have good intentions. You weigh how effective they will be at accomplishing their intended goal and compare it to the cost of implementation. What he was saying that the legislative process was sloppy and regardless of what the law was addressing, he can't vote for it because it didn't achieve its purpose and was not properly drawn up in legislation.

[invisible]

But I have to give him credit, he's standing by his principles, even on something that is so important to him. I agree 100%, defunding Planned Parenthood is the right thing to do, but I completely understand Amash's position on this vote.

I give him a lot of credit for this prinicpled vote. Granted, it would be great to defund pp (along with a lot of other stuff the gov't has no business subsidizing), but his explanation of his vote points out that it was simply a poorly written piece of legislation. He not only explains his vote, but his explanation is extremely rational as well. No matter how well-intended, poorly written legislation is exactly that and should not be passed. Amash's vote had just as much validity as Ron Paul's did, although it was a different vote for a different reason. The more I hear about Amash, the more I like him. I think this guy is absolutely great, and will go on to eventually occupy as great a place in history as Ron Paul himself, just think, Amash is only just starting his political career. Sitting here watching my video of his speech at CPAC as I type this, it was wonderful to briefly meet him as well. He also even signed my copy of End The Fed, putting his signature right underneath Ron's, how cool is that? (too bad I missed the chance to have Rand sign it as well! maybe in the future) Justin Amash rocks, no question about it!

[brenden.b]

I agree 100% with invisible and whoisjohngalt. Well said.

Any chance you can post that video of Amash at CPAC?

[anaconda]

Justin's statement:

As a pro-life conservative, I have cosponsored and supported several important bills to protect the life of the unborn, including Rep. Mike Pence’s H R 217 to defund abortion providers. Today, I voted "present" on Amendment 11 to H R 1 because, while I oppose abortion funding, the language, as drafted, violates my conservative approach to legislating.

Legislation that names a specific private organization to defund (rather than all organizations that engage in a particular activity) is improper and arguably unconstitutional. Moreover, the legislation is easily thwarted because the organization may simply change its name.

As a conservative, and as the Representative for the people of Michigan’s Third District, I cannot vote "yes" on legislation that does not take the process of legislating seriously. A responsible amendment—one that I would fully support—would defund all abortion providers. That is why I support Mike Pence’s H R 217, which cuts off all federal funds to any organization that performs an abortion—including Planned Parenthood.

Sounds like solid reasoning to me.

[anaconda]

He said it arguably is unconstitutional. His point is the one I'm always trying to make about abortion to people on this forum. You don't make laws because they have good intentions. You weigh how effective they will be at accomplishing their intended goal and compare it to the cost of implementation. What he was saying that the legislative process was sloppy and regardless of what the law was addressing, he can't vote for it because it didn't achieve its purpose and was not properly drawn up in legislation.

And if their "intended goal" and method of "implementation" are both Constitutional. Should these not be added to the mix of the result per dollar ratio?

[wormyguy]

He's right. If such a law is constitutional, then it would also be constitutional to pass the "100% Tax on Political Donations to Ron Paul Act," for example.

[Maximus]

I love Justin's response. I was confused reading the headline of the thread, but his response makes sense to me. Wish every legislator did what he does.

[malkusm]

Effectively, Amash thinks (correctly) that any targeted tax breaks or non-uniformly applied laws create distortions that unfairly create winners and losers. The role of government is not to choose who wins and loses, but rather to provide a uniform set of laws that allow all to compete equally, freely and fairly in the market.

[brenden.b]

Effectively, Amash thinks (correctly) that any targeted tax breaks or non-uniformly applied laws create distortions that unfairly create winners and losers. The role of government is not to choose who wins and loses, but rather to provide a uniform set of laws that allow all to compete equally, freely and fairly in the market.

Wow, that was brilliantly said, my friend.

[Zap!]

And once again, this proves to me why paleo-cons, Buchanan Brigaders, and the Constitution Party are vastly better than quasi libertarians like Amash.

[AlexMerced]

I think Amasha's reasoning is spot on, every bad precedence set just opens up for worse things to happen when the guys you don't like are in power.