How pro-abortion is Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress? So pro-abortion that they refused a vote on a measure to protect unborn babies from harmful chemicals, even though the vote had absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
Today, the House today approved legislation to designate chemicals found in cooking spray, cosmetics and other grease-resistant products as health hazards.
But before the Hosue voted, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican Leader on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, offered a motion to send the bill H.R. 535 back to committee. She wanted the panel to amend the bill to include protections for unborn children exposed to such chemicals.
Pelosi and Democrats voted no.
Some 219 Democrats voted against extending these protections from harmful chemicals to the vulnerable unborn.
As Cathy, a pro-life mother of three, said on the House floor, “By rejecting this amendment, the Majority would be denying the science of the development of a child in the womb.”
Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!
BREAKING: Democrats JUST blocked us from protecting unborn children from hazardous chemicals that harm development.
— CathyMcMorrisRodgers (@cathymcmorris) January 10, 2020
Leading pro-life groups also took Democrats to task over the vote.
“As a member of the human family, it is only right that the unborn child be considered part of the ‘vulnerable populations’ the EPA should consider. Unfortunately, pro-abortion ideology is too entrenched in the Democratic Party for the House to pass this reasonable motion,” stated Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.
“We thank our pro-life allies in Congress for advancing this motion to recommit, and strongly support it.” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “This motion ensures that unborn babies are taken into consideration when studying the effects of certain toxins on vulnerable populations. To vote against it would be to vote against protecting unborn babies, who may be particularly vulnerable to chemical exposure. We are encouraged by the leadership of Leader McCarthy, Whip Steve Scalise, Rep. Greg Walden, Rep. John Shimkus, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers.”
Here are Rep. McMorris Rodgers’ full remarks:
“This amendment is a good faith effort to improve this legislation in a way that enhances its efforts to protect all Americans from harmful chemicals.
“Section 5 of H.R. 535 seeks to guarantee protection of vulnerable populations from potential PFAS dangers in their drinking waters. It states that the new rules ‘shall be protective of the health of subpopulations at greater risk.’
“The Safe Drinking Water Act already identifies pregnant women as an at-risk group. However, there is not one, but two people put at risk in that situation: the pregnant mother and her unborn child.
“The science is clear. Today’s technology allows us to look inside the womb now. We can see the baby’s developments day by day, week by week. That person is the most vulnerable population that should be protected.
“This Motion to Recommit is simple, clear, and direct. It clarifies that the protection of “vulnerable populations” must include any unborn child.
“Yesterday, Chairman Pallone recognized the potential harm these chemicals can have on child development. Today, Speaker Pelosi reiterated the importance of protecting expecting mothers. By rejecting this amendment, the Majority would be denying the science of the development of a child in the womb.
“This Motion is consistent with policy the EPA itself has employed – considering the impact of chemical exposures to babies in the womb. For example, in 2011 the EPA under President Obama decided to regulate certain chemicals in drinking water, based in part on the impacts to the in-utero person.
“Congress also passed a bipartisan law in 2004, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, recognizing the personhood of an unborn child.
“This Motion makes a small, but vital improvement to this bill. It is an improvement that is necessary to preserve the central goal of the bill’s sponsors – protecting vulnerable populations. If that is the Majority’s goal than this amendment should be accepted.
“It does not strike or delay anything in the bill. It only clarifies what is considered a vulnerable population, based on the same language of a bipartisan 2004 law.
“And most importantly, it protects the unborn child. This is something I hope everyone in this room can agree should be one of our greatest priorities—to protect people before they are born and at every stage of their lives.
“I urge my colleagues to support science by supporting my Motion to Recommit and yield back the balance of my time.”