Animals Get Better Trteatment Than Babies

When you slaughter an animal you have to follow strict federal rules to keep from hurting the animal unduly. Not so when you slaughter unborn human infants. "The U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday evening voted 250-162 in favor of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099). This bill, supported by the National Right to Life Committee, would require abortionists to provide women seeking abortion after 20 weeks past fertilization (the beginning of the sixth month) a brochure explaining that there is 'substantial evidence' that the abortion will cause pain to the unborn child, and advise them of their right to request the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the unborn child. The bill received a solid majority but fell short of the two-thirds vote required for approval under the parliamentary procedure employed." Why was this particular parliamentary procedure employed? Ordinarily, a simple majority vote is sufficient to pass such a bill. Whose bright idea was it to require a two-thirds vote for such an important (to unborn infants) bill? Somebody ought to slap him or her silly. It's clear that the feds think more of animals than they do of human infants. (Truth TV, 11/12/06)