It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

McConnell Delays Loretta Lynch Confirmation Until Senate Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
You are being disingenuous with your title. First, it is not "anti-abortion" it's pro-life. Secondly it DOES NOT RESTRICT ABORTION RIGHTS. It simply says that no Federal funds will be used to pay for your abortion. How about the Feds pay for my next gun purchase? Having a right doesn't mean that Government should pay for you to exercise that right.




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well I don't agree with the ruling. We need a Constitutional Amendment.

Line-item veto in the United States


Supporters of the line-item veto argue that the provision would make the President more accountable for federal spending. Also, the line-item veto can be used to prevent the enactment of controversial rider amendments that powerful legislators have sometimes inserted into important bills, or at least it can be used to ensure that someone elected at the national level is accountable for the enactment of such amendments. Without the line-item veto, Presidents have often felt compelled to sign controversial riders into law even if they did not support them. Bob Barr's former 2008 Libertarian Party running mate Wayne Root has also endorsed the line-item veto to go with his libertarian political views on spending while also suggesting the lifting of the Congressional ban on presidents impounding bills.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I'll agree to that when the government stops subsidizing your boner pills too.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They might not read them, but their staffers do, who then brief them on their "interpretation" of the bill, along with its riders. At which point they make a decision. Which all to often these days is nothing more than a political talking point.

And I am in agreement here with every one. Bills should be passed upon their own merit. No riders at all.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Yea, that would be a good idea too. I agree, but I still do support the line-item veto.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

Broader picture: whether you read a bill or not, the real rub is in the administrative processes created to enact that bill.

While not all laws create crazy hurdles to run through, some (like ACA and Sarbanes-Oxley) created administrative nightmares for companies, pushing smaller companies to the brink of operating (or out of business entirely) just to be able to afford compliance.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
This kind of crap really makes my blood boil. How in hell can a person ever even expect to represent their district, state or country... when forced to vote for something they and their constituents don't want, or vice-verse? This absolutely must change.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
You are being disingenuous with your title. First, it is not "anti-abortion" it's pro-life.


It talks about abortion, not life... You use whatever word you want.



Secondly it DOES NOT RESTRICT ABORTION RIGHTS.


I didn't claim it restricted abortion rights.



It simply says that no Federal funds will be used to pay for your abortion.


Not MY abortion, a sex slave's abortion. I'm not arguing the content of the bill. I'm arguing the fact that McConnell sneaked PORK into the bill and is holding Lynch's confirmation hostage to get his crap passed.



How about the Feds pay for my next gun purchase? Having a right doesn't mean that Government should pay for you to exercise that right.


Ah! The resort to hyperbole! I knew it would be along soon...



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm not your enemy. I am just saying you called it 'anti-abortion' in an effort to promote your agenda and it isn't in any way 'anti-abortion' as it had no effect on the rights of people to kill their unborn children (see I can use inflammatory language too and pretend I didn't). I was correcting your error.

I am pro-choice and pro-life.

I believe people have a right to choose abortion for themselves, but I think it is wrong. I realize its hard for many to understand how someone can be against something, but still support the rights of someone else, however, if I expect this tolerance from others I must also give it to others.
edit on 2015/3/16 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am just saying you called it 'anti-abortion' and it isn't. I was correcting your error.


I didn't make an error. Look it up. Anti-abortion means opposed to abortion. Nothing about "rights". You can call it what you like, be it anti-abortion, pro-life or anti-choice. It's all the same. I don't care what YOU call it. I'm not sure why you care what I call it... ??

The Hyde Amendment bars the use of federal funds for ABORTION. It doesn't encourage the use of federal funds to increase LIFE.



No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by Federal law, shall be expended for any abortion.


Hyde Amendment Text



I also am pro-choice and pro-life. I believe people have a right to choose abortion for themselves, but I think it is wrong. I realize its hard for many to understand how someone can be against something, but still support the rights of someone else, however, if I expect this tolerance from others I must also give it to others.


I have a very similar stance. I wouldn't choose to have an abortion myself. I don't judge it as "wrong", it's just not something I would choose. But I am also pro-choice. So I certainly understand your position.
edit on 3/16/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

Umm, 'rape babies' are not equivalent to 'pork spending'.

The problem with supporters of the Repulsicans is that they make invalid comparisons and then say, "See! See! it's the same thing!" ad infinitum. Repetition of sheer BS does not make a factoid a fact.

Making comparisons between expenditures and morality demonstrates callow callousness. No mature mind with any sense of morality could do this. There is a reason for this reasoning and it has nothing to do with humane values, it always devolves into money for the folks who have it. Abandoning women is just staying the course for the misogynists. Abandoning the children but not the fetus. Abandoning the poor unless they can be exploited. Abandoning the common good for the mercenary.

UGH!



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Your avatar is a complete explanation of the 'libertarian value system'. The fact that this may be an unconscious selection would only make it more telling.

The problem with folks espousing your conception of proper conduct is that there has been no validity of that construct proven to work in HISTORY. The reason it exists NOWHERE is that it is an ineffective means for a society to emerge from the chaos of self-interest. Societies overcome individuals in EVERY instance. Voluntary participation is not a requirement of the legal system ANYWHERE within a society.

Essentially Libertarians want a fairyland utopia to pop up like a Jack in the Box because, like small children, they want it and they keep cranking till they cry or fall asleep. Sometimes maturity overtakes them and they realize that it is unlikely at best and most likely impossible to operate a system based on herding cats.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: TDawgRex

Broader picture: whether you read a bill or not, the real rub is in the administrative processes created to enact that bill.

While not all laws create crazy hurdles to run through, some (like ACA and Sarbanes-Oxley) created administrative nightmares for companies, pushing smaller companies to the brink of operating (or out of business entirely) just to be able to afford compliance.


The real problem is the fact that the Bills being proposed are not written by our congressional representatives and in most cases, they're not even written by legal experts representing that congressman's concerns. They're being written by corporate attorneys representing special interest groups and lobbied into the Halls of Congress for approval.

By and large, most congressmen couldn't understand them if they did read them. That's why they delegate that task to their staffs.

In the Senate, the problem of not being able to understand the language in a Bill is not as prevalent because most senators are highly educated lawyers and doctors etc.. At the very least, it's a less viable excuse.

Not personally reading Bills indicates several things, at least it does to me.

First; He/she may not be able to understand the legal language contained in a Bill and therefore opts to have someone who does, read it and explain it to them. (Which is no excuse for not reading it themselves and learning to understand these things.)

Second; It could be that the congressman is just too lazy to read the Bills put before him/her. (He/she could be a "leader" and NOT a "reader" like G.W. Bush.)

Third; Not personally reading the Bill is an intentional ploy to be used later in the form of an excuse. ("Yeah I voted for it but I didn't know that was in there, or I didn't understand it that way.")

Fourth; It could be that the congressman in question never felt the need to read the Bill because, (seeing how it's sponsored by one of his heavy hitting political donors) he was going to vote for it regardless of the language.

None of those are enjoyable concepts for the average voter to accept as reasonable and IMO, there is no acceptable reason for not reading legislation put before them.

On the other hand, you won't see me crying any crocodile tears for the likes of Enron or Worldcom. Much less, healthcare insurance companies who make their profits by denying claims of the people they sell insurance to.

Although, I did read where they were considering easing the Sarbanes Oxely requirements on small companies which should relieve some of the adverse effects it's having in that arena.

ETA; Fifth reason for not reading Bills.

The congressman didn't feel the need to read the bill because he/she already read it the first time it was introduced and are now being lied to by the Majority Speaker about it being a re-introduction of a previous Bill.
edit on 16-3-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Hah! Doesn't surprise me.

The GOP has been doing this for a few years now, in 2012 Rand Paul decided to add some abortion pork to a flood insurance bill.

From 2012



The Senate’s flood insurance program looked like it was headed toward smooth passage – but now, there appears to be an abortion-related wrinkle.

Yes, abortion.

That’s at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who said Tuesday that a Republican senator is insisting on a vote on an amendment defining “when life begins.” Reid didn’t name the senator, but it was Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who had offered the amendment.



Link



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I encourage anyone who has not to read the full descriptions of many of these laws.

The texts are available here congress.gov.

Now, keep in mind that as part of political maneuvering, these bills get changed all the time.

Yes, all bills should be read by our Representatives and Senators. Stipulated.

Before blithely commenting on something, educate yourself; read some ... for example, here's all the legislation associated with Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Oh, and just for something resembling actual facts, as Heretic pointed out, the Federal Government has not "funded abortions" for more than 30 years ... Hyde Amendment

The Republicans are trying to monkey with the standard wording of this "rider" and the Democrats are taking exception to that.

The Federal Government does not pay for abortions by any stretch of the imagination EXCEPT in the case of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother. Last time I checked, even the most stringent anti-choice advocate was not claiming that a woman should be forced to bring a fetus to term under those conditions.

Just ask Mrs. Santorum.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

McConnell is a moron in a sea of mendicants.

Problem 1 - they vote on these bills without reading them? It was all but admitted in the article that they didn't read it because they were told it was a reintroduction of a prior bill. ACA wasn't read either....just as an example. No wonder everything sucks so bad....how long have our representatives been passing legislation that they didn't read? Can they even comprehend it? Are they failing to read it because of choice, or necessity? Why don't they make their jobs easier by passing less convoluted legislation?

Problem 2 - "riders". It is how all the underhanded BS happens.


Problem 1 is part of a larger issue. Bills are simply too long these days and they're written in legalese that intentionally obfuscates things. Often times the bills are written by policy advisers who have their own agendas, and because those advisers are experts in their fields Congress simply defers to them.

We could address this if Congress had a more diverse skill set and each person could weigh in on issues relative to their own professional talents. However our politicians lack most of those skills these days. The fix for this comes back to what I've said many times on these forums. It doesn't matter who we elect, what matters is that we encourage better candidates to run. Even a good candidate who is opposed to your beliefs can benefit Congress because they bring various talents with them, and the political debates still need to happen.

Problem 2 is something that I don't think we can ever be rid of. Getting broad support for a bill often times requires riders that provide local benefits. This is actually a good practice because it provides a method for states and towns to have representation, by attaching their support to larger issues. Ultimately this practice has been built by design into our system, it was very intentional that congressmen can put riders onto bills.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

EXCELLENT points!

I provided a link above to the actual texts of all bills before Congress.

They're ... incomprehensible.



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Aazadan

EXCELLENT points!

I provided a link above to the actual texts of all bills before Congress.

They're ... incomprehensible.


I wouldn't say that the Bills are "incomprehensible," but rather we are electing representatives to Congress who lack the will and/or intellectual skill set to do so.

The obvious truth is, This is what happens when voters elect bigots and idiots to represent them in D.C..

When we elect bigoted representatives who are supportive of dumbing down our public school systems, in denial of scientific facts, support elimination of advanced history education and insist on teaching religious principles over academics, (like reading comprehension) it's hard to expect a different result.

You end up being represented by idiots who think a woman's body has ways to shut down pregnancies brought on by rape, that the world is 6,000 yrs. old, that corporations have "our" best interest at heart, or that shutting down government is the way to get things done.

Stupid is as stupid does!

Furthermore, as long as people continue to equate accumulated wealth with righteousness, things won't change.

In this day & age, legislation has to be steeped in legal language in order to withstand the legal challenges it's sure to to attract.

The real problem is that we're electing representatives who are too stupid to comprehend what's put before them and they're either too ideologically indoctrinated and/or too lazy to learn the necessary skill sets to do so.

Mostly, I think it's laziness. Even with my measly assed high school education, I can comprehend most of what I read.

I sometimes need my dictionary and maybe even some help with terminology from experts in specific fields. But in the end, legal language is only a barrier to those who allow themselves to be intimidated by it.

It's not that the Bills are incomprehensible, it's that most aren't being written by anyone representing the voters.

They're being written by corporations, with their own best interest at the core and passed into law by politicians who are beholden to their campaign contributions.

Over my lifetime, I have successfully represented myself in numerous courts of law for alleged violations ranging from traffic citations to alleged boating violations to identity theft. (My identity being used by someone else). I had 11 warrants out on me in 4 different counties. In the end, I even tracked down and identified the thief to law enforcement.

I have been asked by judges whether or not I was a licensed lawyer, which I am not. I would explain to the judge that I was a career longshoreman, but that I did teach myself to use the law library.

I once beat a traffic citation where I was clocked on radar doing 91 mph in a 55 mph zone and I used the Texas State Constitution to do it.

My point being, you don't have to have a college education to comprehend legal language, but you MUST have the will to do so and not allow yourself to be intimidated by those who use it to regulate your life.

Unless of course, you're content with playing the role of the pawn in the global game of chess.



edit on 17-3-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Federal Government does not pay for abortions by any stretch of the imagination EXCEPT in the case of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother. Last time I checked, even the most stringent anti-choice advocate was not claiming that a woman should be forced to bring a fetus to term under those conditions.


Until now... I guess McConnell figures a girl who's been sold into sex-slavery and becomes pregnant wasn't "really" raped. I mean... she had to do something morally wrong to end up as a sex slave in the first place, right? And he's not alone in his thinking.



If the anti-trafficking legislation passed with the abortion measure intact, the victims fund it establishes would be subject to the Hyde Amendment.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he hopes senators will be move forward on the anti-trafficking bill after the potential vote.

“The Democrats will get their chance to have that vote, and hopefully we can get on with the business at hand,” he said. “The politics in the United States Senate has to stop and Democrats have to let this bill move forward.”


Will someone please vote these asshats out???




top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join