Trent Franks Now Wants to Tell Every Woman in America When It's Okay to Have an Abortion

trent-franks-house.jpg
house.gov
Abortion fanatic and sometimes Congressman Trent Franks
Anti-abortion fanatic/Republican Congressman Trent Franks has yet another abortion proposal, but this one's quite a bit more restrictive than his many other proposals.

Franks, who is trying again to ban abortions past 20 weeks of pregnancy in Washington, D.C., now wants that proposed 20-week ban to extend nationwide.

See also:
-Trent Franks Does It Again: Abortion-Obsessed Congressman Submits Another Abortion Bill
-Trent Franks on Gun Control: Abortion Is Bad
-Trent Franks' Abortion Obsession Goes International
-Trent Franks Wastes Everyone's Time Again as His Abortion Bill Fails
-Trent Franks Trying to Stop the "Greatest Genocide in World History"
-Trent Franks: Blacks Better Off Under Slavery Than With Abortion
-Trent Franks Makes List of the 10 Weirdest Members of Congress

Mind you, Franks currently is in his second attempt to pass this ban in Washington, D.C., after it failed in his first attempt. Every single other abortion bill he's proposed in the decade he's been in Congress has also failed.

But, here we go, yet again.

"The case of Kermit Gosnell shocked the sensibilities of millions of Americans," Franks says in a statement. "However, the crushing fact is that abortions on babies just like the ones killed by Kermit Gosnell have been happening hundreds of times per day, every single day, for the past 40 years."

It's hard to see how that's related to Franks' proposal at all, since Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor, was found guilty of performing abortions past 24 weeks of pregnancy, the limit provided by state law in Pennsylvania.

Given Franks' current record of getting his bills signed into law -- which is zero, in many, many attempts -- it might not be time to start fretting Franks' fanaticism.

Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.


My Voice Nation Help
50 comments
robert_graham
robert_graham topcommenter

It's never okay to have an abortion.

Reggievv
Reggievv

To be a Republican member of the US House of Representatives,you either have to be a fascist religious zealot, or a liar. Darrell Issa is a liar. Trent Franks is just insane. John Boehner is not just a liar, but the worst Speaker in history. Eric Cantor is an opportunist, who, ironically enough would stab Boehner in The back if it could make him Speaker. Dave Camp is a liar. What a bunch.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."  (Gandhi) 

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

Trent Franks is going to take women's rights away? Government control of women's bodies and their lives? What is Trent Franks educational level? Did he go to medical school?  What a effing hypocrite!

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

Here is a member of the Congress of the United States who should have been aborted in late third trimester for the sanity, safety and freedom of the whole world.

66rock
66rock topcommenter

What is the deal with this wack job?  Better yet, who keeps voting for him??

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

What is the deal with the republicants???? It looks like all they want to do is waste time and money instead of actually doing their jobs.

They just the other day (yesterday I think) had yet ANOTHER vote in the house to repeal the ACA, knowing there is no hope of it actually going anywhere. How many does that make now? 30+?

We truly have a moocher do nothing government right now, especially in the house - mooching of the tit of government without actually doing their jobs

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

I wonder when Trent will provide proof that he's not gay and never hooked up with Marcus Bachmann.


This guy is nothing but a disgrace and a joke.

endre.helgerud
endre.helgerud

What is wrong with his district?  They keep electing this stiff and he doesn't represent them.  He only represents the interests of the right wing fanatics.  More importantly, what is wrong with the Democratic Party in Arizona if they can't run a viable candidate against him?   

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

when those that say they are protecting the unborn start protecting the living poor kids they continually ignore, ill start caring what they say..

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

While Franks is a kook, don't dismiss him.  It's only once you dismiss him and stop paying attention to what he is doing that he is able to push forward this type of facsist bullshit out of the public eye and away from the light of day.  Stay vigilent and don't ever be dismissive.

jbunny
jbunny

@JoeArpaioFan Really? Because I've worked in social services for 15 years, and I've seen many crackheads giving birth to their 8th, 9th, 10th, crack baby. Those babies don't stand a chance and are destined to have a low quality of life from birth. They're born addicted and end up being unable to bond with adults and have learning and behavior issues. You honestly think our country needs even more unwanted children who are never given a chance for success? They end up becoming the very people your group tends to dislike--the ones on welfare who continue to have more babies that they can't take care of. And before you say adoption is the better alternative, keep in mind that most babies born drug addicted or in poverty end up in the care of CPS and are placed in group homes where they aren't properly cared for, and in many cases they learn worse behaviors in the group homes or foster homes. Those kids don't end up getting adopted, they grow up in CPS care and have minimal adult living skills when they're released at age 21. And they commit crimes because they don't know how to get by legitimately because they haven't been taught...and the cycle continues. The most successful adoptions are the private ones, where the adopter can afford to pay lots of fees and provide pre-natal care to the biological mother. Private adoptions make up a small percentage compared to the thousands of kids who are in CPS care who are over the age of three, when the chances of successful adoptions decrease significantly. So really, it's never ok to have an abortion? Ever? Look at the big picture. If you're against abortion, how about we impose a three child limit on every person living on US soil? That way no one gets an abortion but no one gets to crank out a dozen kids either. Let me guess, you don't like that solution because it infringes on one's basic right to reproduce. So I guess you and your like-minded folk are pro-overpopulation and pro-child neglect and malnourishment. With your logic, the world is going to be an even scarier place 20 years from now.

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@66rock You ask who's voting for Trent Franks. The whack jobs in the West Valley!

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

@66rock I'll tell you who keeps him in office: It's low-income, low-information Republicans in a very conservative district in the West Valley, plus hordes of geezers in Sun City. These people show up in pastel-polyester leisure suits at the local "community church." They are plumbers, roofers and farmers. Some of them are cops whose us-them dichotomy mindset makes them suspicious of anyone who is black, brown or in general under thirty. Many are military retirees although Trent never spent a single day pounding dirt for Uncle Sam. These are people whom you probably would not want your daughter to marry because they are such narrow-minded bigots. Nearly 100% are armed to the teeth. The further east you go in his district, the less likely are people living there likely to vote for him. Support for him drops precipitously the higher the income and level of education of voters. All that said, there has got to be a Dem living in his district who could pick him off in the next election, but who? Or have the Dems just basically said "f--- it?"

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@66rock 

"Better yet, who keeps voting for him??"

The same blue haired religious zealots (which IMO describes 90% of the religious population) who only care about 1 thing - is the candidate a god fearing christian/catholic per what they say, not what they do.

It seems as though the only thing you need to do to be a Republican and get people to vote for you is to give lip service to the church, no matter what your actual record is.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@Flyer9753 It was the 37th time the teabaggers voted to kill ACA.  Insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results.  It proves they are insane!

shadeaux14
shadeaux14

@endre.helgerud Before a viable candidate can win, you need to have a sane electorate, which his district, and much of Arizona, doesn't.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@endre.helgerud  As the article says, he's not really a threat on abortion, because he's just so far out there.   We keep electing him because we like his policies on OTHER topics, at least relative to the few other choices available, and we know that his crazy ideas are pretty much harmless, beyond the embarrassment.

danzigsdaddy
danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public  being dismissive and not vigilant is how we ended up with many politicians and officials who have become entrenched in their positions

SARdiver
SARdiver

Oh, and if those babies' lives are so terrible, so worthless, so harmful to society in every way, what exactly is your objection to "euthanizing" them after they're born?  Do you have a moral objection to it?


SARdiver
SARdiver

@jbunny @JoeArpaioFan Would you be in favor of forced sterilization of just the mothers of those crack babies?  Why put the limit on everyone?  Some people can have five, six, or even more kids and nurture them all.  Why have a limit on them?

If you're squeemish about equal rights for all humans, I'd like to point out that the pro-life crowd holds that position to one degree or another.  Some of them are sure when life begins.  Others, like me, aren't sure when life begins, but think human rights should be established when another heartbeat is present.  (Unless you can find me a woman with two hearts, both her own, then logically, there's something there that isn't her.)  My objections aren't based in religion, but the human rights that atheists and agnostics can agree we all have.

SARdiver
SARdiver

@WhoKnows @Flyer9753 You understand that many of those votes were specific parts of Obamacare, and many of those votes actually passed with broad Dem support, right?  Because you're so well informed, you made that distinction, I'm sure.

I find it rather amusing that people who rail about "the government controlling a woman's body" gleefully handed over control of their health care to the government.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@shadeaux14  We also need to get the Democrats and Republicans to release their grip on our election system and allow more viable candidates into the pool.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative His continual and ongoing fascist efforts to impose his religous observation on everyone else is as big a threat to the freedoms guaranted under the Constitution as any legislation purpoting to take away firearms.  His "crazy ideas" are not "harmless" as long as you continue to give him a platform and bully pulpet from which to scream them.  His continual efforts to require you, your neighbors and the rest of us to adhere to his narrow religious beliefs is a direct threat to everyone who believes in the ideals of a plurastic society. 

jbunny
jbunny

@SARdiver Fair enough, I tend to type fast as I'm thinking and I could stand to use paragraphs. You didn't have to be rude in making that suggestion though, we're just talking about an issue in which we have different opinions.

I'm not uncomfortable with any direction of this debate, and I guess I didn't recognize that your specific question was about when life begins. I understand now why the animal argument was pointless to you. That said, there are groups that would argue your point that animals are not on the same level as humans. Animals were here before humans and are living and breathing as we are, and having advanced intelligence does not necessarily give us the right to play God and decide what animals are food, what ones are valuable for their fur, etc. But as you said, that argument is irrelevant now that you've clarified you don't value all life equally.

As far as killing a child in the womb vs. out of the womb, I believe I mentioned that once the fetus can survive on its own, it becomes questionable. That's why there are regulations on late-term abortions. I never said I supported infanticide or abortions in the 8th or 9th month, so I don't know where you're getting that. Even if I did support infanticide, my personal opinion on that has zero bearing on the issue, because as a society we would never accept such a thing. As it is, pro-lifers don't accept aborting the fetus when it's just an overgrowth of cells, so embracing infanticide for the good of population control would never be considered for even a second. (Never mind the fact that the pro-life extremists think it's perfectly ok to murder an adult doctor who performs abortions.)

My issue is the strict regulations even on earlier abortions. Making it more difficult for people to access safe abortion services becomes a slippery slope. If a teenager is a victim of incest, she now has to have parental consent to an abortion in some states. If the consequences of family finding out are severe, the parental consent laws put that teenager in a position where she may feel she does not have choices. As for never hearing objections to abortions in cases of incest, rape, or endangering the life of the mother, there are plenty of Republican politicians who support prohibition of exactly that. 

My original reply to JAF was in response to his blanket statement that it is never ok to have an abortion. Never is a strong word, and I do take issue with people who use generalizations. Would he say the same thing if his wife's life was in danger due to her pregnancy? I was simply trying to show him that there are many sides to the issue.

I am not a doctor and I can't tell you when life begins, but I do support the rights of fully formed women to choose not to have a baby in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Would I personally support that choice or make that choice myself in the 8th month? No, but my opinion doesn't matter--we need practical laws and regulations that support the good of society, protect rights of women, and protect the life of a fetus without infringing on the woman's right to choose. It's a tall order. I personally think safe and accessible abortions until the last trimester are a good compromise, but other people would not.

I don't see bans and tight regulations as a solution either--how does having even more neglected, malnourished, and unwanted children burdening our already stressed system help society? When you don't work in social services and you don't see abused and maltreated children on a daily basis, it's easy to think there are alternatives. Maybe if you worked with children who have been completely failed by their biological parents and have been failed even further by their state-appointed guardians, you'd realize how truly tragic it is for a child to grow up being disadvantaged from day one. 

I was simply using this forum to state my perspective and to reply to the original post, but my perspective is just one. I'm curious what you think the solution is--if abortions were banned completely after the fetus has a heartbeat, what would you propose in ensuring the child has proper care and a high quality of life? Contrary to your accusation that I support infanticide, once a child is born I believe that we have a social responsibility to make sure that the child (and all children) has equal access to quality food, health care, and a loving and supportive environment that fosters growth, self-esteem, and sound decision making in the child. If we don't provide that to our abandoned and abused children, those kids become society's problem as adults.

So what do you suggest?

SARdiver
SARdiver

@jbunny@SARdiver

A couple of things.

First:  Paragraphs.  Learn them, live them, love them.

"If your pro-life stance stems from the idea that all life is precious, I'd like to ask you, do eat eggs? Because an egg is basically an aborted chicken fetus. Are you a vegetarian?"

Apparently, you neither read nor understood my first post.  I was fairly clear about my belief that "human rights should be granted when the heartbeat is present".  I said nothing about "all life" being precious, so pretty much your entire animal argument was pointless to make.  It's kind of apparent that you made the assumption about my point in order to steer this into a direction you're more comfortable with.  Also, the eggs available in the store tend not to be fertilized.  Even if they are, the refrigeration stops development almost immediately.


"Do you agree with Maricopa County Animal Care and Control's policy of euthanizing dogs after three days in the pound due to lack of space? When it comes to homeless animals, our government euthanizes them to manage population. But making the personal choice to not have a baby when you know you (or CPS) cannot give it a good life, is morally wrong? It's just another way to manage population growth, as would be a child number limit. If life is precious, why is human life worth more than another animal?"

Uh, yeah.  A cat is a pig is a dog is a boy.   It's a waste of my time to argue with someone who puts humans on the levels of animals.  I'll finish this reply and walk away.  We're not starting with the same regard for postpartum human life to begin with.   "So why should a law dictate that I MUST have a child if I get raped or if pregnancy endangers my own life, or if I simply can't handle the responsibility?"  You haven't distinguished why it's somehow okay to kill the child in the womb, but not out of the womb.  I doubt you've seriously examined the question.  The only reason you aren't okay with postpartum infanticide is "the law says so".  I dunno about you, but I don't use the law to determine what I think is right and wrong.  "The law is an ass." You're okay with a third trimester abortion.  You're okay with infanticide.  Don't bullshit yourself.  That's what it is. 

I have no problem with abortion or abortifacients prior to the heartbeat, so that takes care of the rape question.  As far as life of the mother:  I've known this in more than the hypothetical, and in every case past 24 weeks, the mother has taken the chance and carried as close to term as possible.  However, in the rare cases when this occurs, when the child is actually developed enough to be a threat to a cardiac patient, etc.,, it can actually be viable outside the womb anyway.  Prior to that, ectopic pregnancies essentially require an abortion, since the mother and child will die if not done.  The child cannot survive.  I have yet to hear an objection to abortions in these cases.


jbunny
jbunny

@SARdiver I'm not squeamish about equal rights for all humans, that's where I was going with the three child limit. Laws are in place for the worst case scenario, but we all have to follow them. Example: My dogs are super friendly and would never hurt anyone, but I have to follow the law and keep them on a leash because leash laws are in place for the idiots who can't control their dogs or have vicious dogs. So if we were to impose a three-child limit, similar to the one-child limit they have in China, yes some good families who can handle lots of kids would be affected, but it would be in place for the worst case scenario--a crack whore having her 12th crack baby that's going to straight into the care of CPS. (When I worked on the ob/gyn unit at a non-profit hospital, I witnessed the birth of the 12th crack baby on more than one occasion, by the way. I'm not exaggerating.) Laws are generally in place to create an equal playing field, and sometimes they guarantee an equal lack of rights for all in order to maintain order in our society. Anyway, I proposed the three-child limit as a hypothetical to JAF, and there is no way in hell a policy like that would ever be adopted in the US. I was more curious what he thinks the solution is, because limiting reproductive rights is anti-American, but apparently limiting one's right to NOT reproduce, in his opinion, is completely American and does not infringe on women's rights to choose. To answer your question about euthanizing babies after they're born, whether I personally have a moral objection to it or not is irrelevant. As a culture we do not condone murder, so once a fetus is deemed to be able to survive outside the womb, abortion becomes more questionable. Most clinics don't perform late-term abortions. I personally think if you get knocked up and know that you can't handle the responsibility, having an abortion in a safe, clean clinic prior to the third trimester seems reasonable. If your pro-life stance stems from the idea that all life is precious, I'd like to ask you, do eat eggs? Because an egg is basically an aborted chicken fetus. Are you a vegetarian? Do you agree with Maricopa County Animal Care and Control's policy of euthanizing dogs after three days in the pound due to lack of space? When it comes to homeless animals, our government euthanizes them to manage population. But making the personal choice to not have a baby when you know you (or CPS) cannot give it a good life, is morally wrong? It's just another way to manage population growth, as would be a child number limit. If life is precious, why is human life worth more than another animal? Our country can't even provide care for homeless dogs, but somehow you think our overburdened government systems can manage proper care for unwanted children? Take the morality, religion, and politics out of this issue and the bottom line is we have more people on this planet than our resources can handle. So why should a law dictate that I MUST have a child if I get raped or if pregnancy endangers my own life, or if I simply can't handle the responsibility?

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@Flyer9753 @truthseekeraz  I do too. The truth speaks louder than the words of those playing God with our lives. This needs to be posted everywhere and often. 

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."  (Gandhi)

ConcernedCitizenAZ
ConcernedCitizenAZ topcommenter

@Flyer9753 @truthseekeraz @66rock  Those who impact Arizona's laws through their lobbyists are the  Evangicals who believe in Christ. The Mormons control the other half. They worship the GOP God. No one else matters in Arizona to these people who control our destiny and lives imposing their self-righteous values on the rest. Unfortunately. 

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@truthseekeraz @Flyer9753 @66rock  

Agreed, although I would say it as their religion is their god, not jesus

Too many of the religious people in this country worship their religion, instead of Jesus or God

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@ExpertShot@valleynative@shadeaux14 

"That's what political parties do, they screen out the nut jobs!"

Well... that's what the parties are supposed to do, but it's been a long time since that's happened, especially in the Republican party

Look at the last 20 years on all levels of government and it's clear that the Republican party is encouraging the crazies and supporting them instead of screening them out.

(Bush, Bachman, Murdock, Franks, Akin - just to name a few, there is a post limit after all :)

ExpertShot
ExpertShot topcommenter

@valleynative @shadeaux14 The political party system in the United States is a good way to get viable candidate into the pool.  You just have to be involved.  There is a LOT of nuts out there who, if it were easy enough, would LOVE to run for office.  I mean people who would make Franks look like an Einstein!  I "frankly" don't want a bunch of no-nothings in office.  As it is, a-holes like Franks drop through the cracks but most of the crazies are kept out.  I know what I'm talking about - I was state secretary for the Green Party during its formative years here in Arizona.  That's what political parties do, they screen out the nut jobs!


Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public@valleynative 

"Democrats want to tell me how and what to think."

I would love to see some examples of this fallacy. The other things you mention I see the evidence of across almost the entire republican party, but I only see the democrat thing in 1 area of that party, specifically New York and I don't agree with it there, but that is an isolated area and those attempts will cost those democrats their seats/jobs in the next election cycle.

One of the problems I see though is that the same response has not historically been the case when it comes to the republicans, in fact it seems to be the opposite - the farther out to their respective 'side' they do the longer they stay in office and the more money they steal from the american taxpayers.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@ValleyNative But do not dismiss Franks as harmless, because the more he shouts into the wind the more likely it is that wind is going to carry his voice to others who are willing to embrace his brand of fascism.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative Democrats want to tell me how and what to think.  Republicans want to tell me how to pray and who to pray for.  Democrats want control over my mind; Republicans want control over my soul.  They both want to tell me how they want to spend my money. 

All are bad choices.  Franks, however, is worse than most because of how far out of the mainstream and how persistent he is.  You must be able to find a better choice.  If can't find a better choice among those that are presented to you, you really need to get involved and recruit, support and work to elect someone who is a better choice. 

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public  I am as protective as anybody against the insanities of the Christian Right, but it seems to me that he is a bigger threat to those Christians because all he really accomplishes is to make them look foolish.

I really wish we could elect somebody who actually represented me, but as long as I'm stuck with a choice between the person who appeals to the most Republicans and the person who appeals to the most Democrats, that's not going to happen.   In order to minimize the damage that Congress can actually do to my life, I'm forced to vote for Christian loonies.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...