I just can't avoid thinking in these terms the conclusion when, ultimately, you follow the logic of at least one of the Supreme Court justices. In essence, what is being implied by the question is if you want to avoid paying to kill a child in the womb, then just pay the tax, and we will allow you to observe your conscience, your firmly held religious beliefs. It is staggering that anybody, any justice on the United States Supreme Court, would have rationalized to the point that--could ever even dream of saying: just pay the fine penalty tax, and then you don't have to pay for killing children in utero.
Louie Gohmert: “I just can't avoid thinking in these terms the conclusion when, ultimately, you follow the logic of at least one of the…”
Share
More from Louie Gohmert
I do appreciate my friend, Congressman Al Green. We are friends. People have said: ``What do you have in common with Al Green?'' Well, actually, he is my brother. We are Christian brothers. He adds significantly to this body, and I am…
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendment No…
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendment No…
A law today that I was not aware of is 2 USC 1979, Release of Security Information. And section (c) says, ``Nothing in this section may be construed to affect the ability of the Senate and the House of Representatives, including any Member…





