Anyone else watching this? [W:500]

[grip]

Even mainstream media can't make out what's happening there. This is some weird stuff even for politics.

Republican senators claimed the measure passed, the Austin American-Statesman and Dallas Morning News reported. But both outlets also reported that Democratic senators insisted the vote was not completed before midnight and was thus invalid.

Chaos in Texas Senate: Did abortion clinic bill pass? - U.S. News

 

[digsbe]

I seriously hope this goes through. We need to progress as a nation and I'm glad that Texas is trying to do so.

 

[Your Star]

I seriously hope this goes through. We need to progress as a nation and I'm glad that Texas is trying to do so.

It didn't, at least not legally. The republicans may still try and shove it down the throats of the people.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sounds like this was a pretty wild event.

 

[Slyfox696]

It didn't, at least not legally. The republicans may still try and shove it down the throats of the people.

Surely not, they are the party of small government, and don't believe the government should tell you how to live your life. I cannot believe they would be the ones passing this kind of legislation...



Just reading more on this and it seems like it'll be incredibly interesting to watch play out. If there was an honest bone in the Governor's body, he would not sign this bill, unless the all the legal issues surrounding its passage were cleared up. I doubt there's an honest bone in Perry's body, but it'd be nice.

 

[digsbe]

It didn't, at least not legally. The republicans may still try and shove it down the throats of the people.

They really need to. Ethical violations this serious need to be stopped at all costs.

 

[Your Star]

They really need to. Ethical violations this serious need to be stopped at all costs.

The bill is dead!!!!

It would be a serious ethical violation to pass a bill after the deadline for voting. They wouldn't let Wendy Davis touch her desk while she was filibustering for 10 plus hours, and yet they tried to pass this bill after midnight. Horrible, and am glad women's rights in Texas are secured for now.

 

[Slyfox696]

They really need to. Ethical violations this serious need to be stopped at all costs.

I do not find medical procedures to take care of something which cannot sustain itself to be an ethical violation. I do find telling women they are forced to put their bodies through nine months of hells and be forced to spend the next 18 years dealing with it, in addition to being told they are leeches on society for daring to ask for governmental assistance, to be quite the ethical violation.

Determining what medical procedures one can engage in simply based upon Christianity's religious views and attempt for more power and money is in incredible violation of all that is decent. And that's what the majority of anti-abortion is about, even if those against it don't truly realize why.

 

[HumanBeing]

I don't think I understand how this works. If this woman manages to talk for 13 hours straight while staying on topic and without sitting down, eating, or going to the bathroom, then the law automatically doesn't get passed, but if she needs to pee, then women in Texas aren't allowed abortions anymore?

Is that really how laws are made/fought? Seems bizarre.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I don't think I understand how this works. If this woman manages to talk for 13 hours straight while staying on topic and without sitting down, eating, or going to the bathroom, then the law automatically doesn't get passed, but if she needs to pee, then women in Texas aren't allowed abortions anymore?

Is that really how laws are made/fought? Seems bizarre.

Well, originally a filibuster allowed a Senator to hold up passage of any bill if he/she could be recognized and then hold the floor for as long as he/she could remain standing and speaking. The Senator could only be interrupted on a point of order. I think, but am not certain, short pauses (maybe 5 minutes?) are allowed for bathroom breaks.

However, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remain an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain.

Does that help?

 

[Lord of Planar]

"If this passes, abortion would be virtually banned in the state of Texas, and many women could be forced to resort to dangerous and unsafe measures," President Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund commented.

Maybe most people in Texas want those who don't value life to move to a different state?

 

[HumanBeing]

Does that help?

It does, thank you. I still think it's a bizarre way to decide on whether laws get passed or not. The thing about bathroom breaks is apparently wrong though. Everything I read specifically said that she wasn't allowed to stop to use the bathroom, or eat, or any of that stuff. I also read that the final objection that ended her filibuster was related to someone helping her with a back brace that she was wearing to help her stand for 13 hours straight. I just don't get what any of that stuff has to do with abortion.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It does, thank you. I still think it's a bizarre way to decide on whether laws get passed or not. The thing about bathroom breaks is apparently wrong though. Everything I read specifically said that she wasn't allowed to stop to use the bathroom, or eat, or any of that stuff. I also read that the final objection that ended her filibuster was related to someone helping her with a back brace that she was wearing to help her stand for 13 hours straight. I just don't get what any of that stuff has to do with abortion.

Actually I have to apologize. I thought this was an issue in the U.S. Senate. My description of how it works in D.C. does not apply to Texas. Each state has it's own rules regarding debate in their legislatures.

In Texas there was apparently a deadline for the bill to be passed before it could be signed by the Governor. This particular state senator was attempting to prevent passage by talking until the time elapsed and the bill would fail. Most recent report on yahoo indicates she lapsed, but the Governor failed to sign it anyway. He claimed it was because of the noisy crowd outside the statehouse that "distracted" him until it was too late. LOL He may be a conservative but apparently he was afraid of the public reactin if he signed it..."distracted" indeed. LOL

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Live stream of the Texas senate, Wendy Davis was 10 hours in on her filibusterer, and was stopped prematurely by what looks like a breach in protocol by the republicans in the senate. Now they are debating what the hell just happened. Hopefully this horrible bill doesn't pass.


Wendy Davis Filibuster LIVE: Watch Her 13-Hour Speech for Abortion Rights

All it does is ban abortions after 20 weeks (which is still far, far, too late IMHO, 12 weeks would be better) then require some standards for abortion doctors. Boo-hoo. I think you're completely blowing it out of proportion.

The bill is dead!!!!

It would be a serious ethical violation to pass a bill after the deadline for voting. They wouldn't let Wendy Davis touch her desk while she was filibustering for 10 plus hours, and yet they tried to pass this bill after midnight. Horrible, and am glad women's rights in Texas are secured for now.

Bahaha. The "right" to wait twenty ****ing weeks to make up your mind was secured. What a huge victory for procrastinating women everywhere!

Surely not, they are the party of small government, and don't believe the government should tell you how to live your life. I cannot believe they would be the ones passing this kind of legislation...



Just reading more on this and it seems like it'll be incredibly interesting to watch play out. If there was an honest bone in the Governor's body, he would not sign this bill, unless the all the legal issues surrounding its passage were cleared up. I doubt there's an honest bone in Perry's body, but it'd be nice.

Just because you're small government doesn't mean you have to support murder. Whether or not you consider it murder is irrelevant. They do, and I do. You're purposely misunderstanding their intentions.

Also, some of the religious quote their religious beliefs as their reasoning. I, among many other pro-lifers, do not. I am an atheist, and I simply believe that life is precious and we shouldn't squander it.

There's no reason a woman should wait over 20 weeks to get an abortion. That's absurd and I'm glad someone is trying to address it.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Surely not, they are the party of small government, and don't believe the government should tell you how to live your life. I cannot believe they would be the ones passing this kind of legislation....

You don't need to agree with the position to be honest about it. The idea is that the law here is being used to protect an Individual from being killed. A position I am sure most people support in other contexts.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

I don't think I understand how this works. If this woman manages to talk for 13 hours straight while staying on topic and without sitting down, eating, or going to the bathroom, then the law automatically doesn't get passed, but if she needs to pee, then women in Texas aren't allowed abortions anymore?

Is that really how laws are made/fought? Seems bizarre.

There is also a sudden death round where one fights a rabid baboon with amputated feet. Just to keep things sane

 

[HumanBeing]

Actually I have to apologize. I thought this was an issue in the U.S. Senate. My description of how it works in D.C. does not apply to Texas. Each state has it's own rules regarding debate in their legislatures.

In Texas there was apparently a deadline for the bill to be passed before it could be signed by the Governor. This particular state senator was attempting to prevent passage by talking until the time elapsed and the bill would fail. Most recent report on yahoo indicates she lapsed, but the Governor failed to sign it anyway. He claimed it was because of the noisy crowd outside the statehouse that "distracted" him until it was too late. LOL He may be a conservative but apparently he was afraid of the public reactin if he signed it..."distracted" indeed. LOL

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I'm still trying to learn how the laws work in America, the whole thing seems very, very complicated from the outside looking in. One thing that is clear is that (at least in Texas) the legality of certain things depend as much on one woman's bladder as they do on the underlying ethical arguments related to whatever law is in question, if not more so. I think they should maybe consider changing that, it seems hard to justify in any logical terms.

 

[Thrilla]

definitely a good night of political theater... very entertaining.


the only thing missing from this drama is the usual criticisms of filibusters from liberals/democrats... something about blocking the will of the people, obstructionism, etc etc etc, bla bla bla

 

[Captain Adverse]

Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. I'm still trying to learn how the laws work in America, the whole thing seems very, very complicated from the outside looking in. One thing that is clear is that (at least in Texas) the legality of certain things depend as much on one woman's bladder as they do on the underlying ethical arguments related to whatever law is in question, if not more so. I think they should maybe consider changing that, it seems hard to justify in any logical terms.

Well to try and help you understand a little bit better, the filibuster is an outgrowth of our Free Speech principle. You’ve no doubt heard about our First Amendment protection of speech, religion and other forms of expression?

People have a belief that this protection is absolute. But the truth is, there are many limitations imposed on speech and expression in our country. For example, speech that can lead to direct harm, like crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater is against the law. So is speech that incites violence, like inciting to riot. These are just a couple of examples of a moderately long list.

However, under current rules of debate in the U.S. Senate, ALL speech is free. It is actually the one place in all of the U.S.A. where this is true. This was done as a symbolic example of the ideal encompassed by the First Amendment. This is what allows filibusters. Whenever a Senator wishes to fully exercise this example of free speech he can start a filibuster and keep talking until he is literally unable to speak anymore. Filibusters are typically reserved for when the Senator is trying to make a point in opposition to a bill he does not wish passed. It's often used as a threat by a political party to force some kind of compromise in legislation they disagree with.

Now, each of the 50 States, and also the various inhabited territories have some form of legislature with debate rules similar to the U.S. Senate. However, while none have as liberal a Free Speech rule as the U.S. Senate itself, they usually have some variation of debate rules allowing a form of filibuster.

I hope that helps some.

 

[HumanBeing]

Well to try and help you understand a little bit better, the filibuster is an outgrowth of our Free Speech principle. You’ve no doubt heard about our First Amendment protection of speech, religion and other forms of expression?

People have a belief that this protection is absolute. But the truth is, there are many limitations imposed on speech and expression in our country. For example, speech that can lead to direct harm, like crying “Fire!” in a crowded theater is against the law. So is speech that incites violence, like inciting to riot. These are just a couple of examples of a moderately long list.

However, under current rules of debate in the U.S. Senate, ALL speech is free. It is actually the one place in all of the U.S.A. where this is true. This was done as a symbolic example of the ideal encompassed by the First Amendment. This is what allows filibusters. Whenever a Senator wishes to fully exercise this example of free speech he can start a filibuster and keep talking until he is literally unable to speak anymore. Filibusters are typically reserved for when the Senator is trying to make a point in opposition to a bill he does not wish passed. It's often used as a threat by a political party to force some kind of compromise in legislation they disagree with.

Now, each of the 50 States, and also the various inhabited territories have some form of legislature with debate rules similar to the U.S. Senate. However, while none have as liberal a Free Speech rule as the U.S. Senate itself, they usually have some variation of debate rules allowing a form of filibuster.

I hope that helps some.

It does help thanks. The thing is, this isn't just an issue of free speech, it seems to be an issue of bladder control, hunger management, appropriate footwear, and a strong back. It seems like this is more about deadlines than free speech. From what I read, the whole thing was about whether the law could get passed by midnight. I think that's the part I actually have a problem with. I mean, if her arguments weren't good enough before midnight, why would they be strong enough to prevent a law being passed just because she carried on after midnight? And potentially vice versa? Why would the creation of laws have to follow such a strict deadline? When I give my staff a job to do, I expect them to stay until it's done, not just fill in time until 5pm and then declare they couldn't do it.

 

[VanceMack]

Darnit! They should still have the right to slaughter this inconvenient unborn child. 20 weeks...WHAT were they thinking??!!!

 

[nota bene]

definitely a good night of political theater... very entertaining.


the only thing missing from this drama is the usual criticisms of filibusters from liberals/democrats... something about blocking the will of the people, obstructionism, etc etc etc, bla bla bla

Yes, where was the usual criticism?

 

[Captain Adverse]

It does help thanks. The thing is, this isn't just an issue of free speech, it seems to be an issue of bladder control, hunger management, appropriate footwear, and a strong back. It seems like this is more about deadlines than free speech. From what I read, the whole thing was about whether the law could get passed by midnight. I think that's the part I actually have a problem with. I mean, if her arguments weren't good enough before midnight, why would they be strong enough to prevent a law being passed just because she carried on after midnight? And potentially vice versa? Why would the creation of laws have to follow such a strict deadline? When I give my staff a job to do, I expect them to stay until it's done, not just fill in time until 5pm and then declare they couldn't do it.

In this case it has to do with a set of rules in Texas regarding the process of passing laws. Bills entered for debate in the Texas legislature must be voted on before the end of the legislative session. (A session is the period of time the body has pre-agreed to sit in the legislature to work on issues, and in this case it was a 30 day session.)

In Texas the debate rules allow a dissenting State Senator to filibuster in an attempt to kill a bill before it can be passed. The rule requires that the Senator must stand unaided and speak on topic (meaning she must focus on the issue of the bill itself) for however long it takes for the legislative session to end. In this case when she started it required a period of 13 hours because that would be when this session ended. If the State Senator could successfully do that, it kills the bill because it was not voted on for signature before the session ended.

She fell short by 3 hours and so the bill could be voted on and if passed, sent to the Governor for signature. While legislative bodies enact laws, the Chief Executive (in this case the Governor of Texas) must also sign them in order for them to finally become laws enforceable in that State.

However I was slightly mistaken about what happened next. There was some debate about whether or not the Senator had actually failed to stand unaided or speak on point when she was warned a third and final time. Meanwhile there was a packed crowd of citizen visitors in the visitor seating area and they all began making noise to disrupt the proceedings. They refused to leave the Senate Chambers which made it impossible to conduct the vote. The vote failed to finish before midnight when the session was required to end and that is why the bill failed.

 

[HumanBeing]

However I was slightly mistaken about what happened next. There was some debate about whether or not the Senator had actually failed to stand unaided or speak on point when she was warned a third and final time.

From what I read, the "third warning" that led to her not being allowed to continue was for someone who came to help her fix or adjust a special back brace that she was wearing to help her stand up for so long. I get what you're saying about the way the law making process is structured, but clearly it needs to change. This woman's backbrace shouldn't have anything to do with the abortion debate.

a packed crowd of citizen visitors in the visitor seating area and they all began making noise to disrupt the proceedings

I don't think that's how laws should be decided either. Laws shouldn't be based on being within a single minute of a deadline or someone needing to use the bathroom. I think the whole thing sounds very silly. I mean, other countries have equally silly ways of making laws, I'm not trying to single out America or Texas or whatever, I'm just saying, it's an obviously illogical way to decide what ends up being legal and what doesn't.

Edit: I'm now officially confused. I just read this:

"Initially, Republicans insisted the vote started before the midnight deadline and passed the bill that Democrats spent the day trying to kill. But after official computer records and printouts of the voting record showed the vote took place Wednesday, and then were changed to read Tuesday, senators retreated into a private meeting to reach a conclusion" Texas abortion bill falls after challenge

I'm confused by how falsifying voting records through fraud turned into a seemingly innocent couple of sentences in an article that makes no further mention of the issue. Don't people go to jail for stuff like that in developed nations? I would have thought getting busted doing something like that would be considered kind of a big deal. Again, I'm back to feeling like I don't understand anything

 

[Captain Adverse]

From what I read, the "third warning" that led to her not being allowed to continue was for someone who came to help her fix or adjust a special back brace that she was wearing to help her stand up for so long. I get what you're saying about the way the law making process is structured, but clearly it needs to change. This woman's backbrace shouldn't have anything to do with the abortion debate.

Well you must try to understand the purpose behind a filibuster is to try and prevent laws from being passed. We have basically a two party system in this country, which are currently identified as Democrats (liberal-socialists) and Republicans (conservative-capitalists). There are dozens of smaller political parties but none have been able to get a member elected to the U.S. Congress in the last 70 years except for one Socialist from Maine.

These two parties are at odds ideologically, and constantly work against each other rather than FOR the nation as a whole. It's no different than most other democracies around the world. The same clashes occur at the State level in the State legislatures too, only more...explosively, since they are closer in contact with their voting constituencies. There is also a greater possibility of membership from a few of the smaller political parties in State legislatures, with their own agendas and conflicts.

Now as for the "brace," it seems she does not actually have a back medical disability that would require the wearing of a back brace so provifing one for her so she could continue to stand as required was a violation of the stand "unaided" part of the requirement. Legislatures don't like filibusters, and at the state level they often make them as difficult as possible to prevent success.

I don't think that's how laws should be decided either. Laws shouldn't be based on being within a single minute of a deadline or someone needing to use the bathroom. I think the whole thing sounds very silly. I mean, other countries have equally silly ways of making laws, I'm not trying to single out America or Texas or whatever, I'm just saying, it's an obviously illogical way to decide what ends up being legal and what doesn't.

Well again, different rules for different States. Remember The United States is a "Federal" Republic, meaning a unified group of separate States, with each State exercising sovereignty over its own territory. Not all States have the rules used by the State of Texas.