The bus to the Women's March

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And the only reason I can think that Obama did not force a vote was because he wanted to hold the women's vote hostage in this election.

Can you clarify on how the president could have "forced a vote?" The president has no such authority.

Just about all my favorite ATS peeps are either on this thread, or have been. It's so nice when that happens.

(Don't mind me, I'm having a Grand Marnier)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And the only reason I can think that Obama did not force a vote was because he wanted to hold the women's vote hostage in this election.

Can you clarify on how the president could have "forced a vote?" The president has no such authority.

It was his nominee. His party. His fight:

How Democrats could force a vote

You won't find me passing the buck on to Senate Democrats....or Republicans.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: UKTruth

it is far more pertinent than what is best for you! who can best decide what is best for the pregnant women, or the unborn baby for that matter. you?? the old wisemen writing the laws? ancient manuscripts from a far distant age?
or the women, her doctor, her husband???

The debate is primarily about the rights of the unborn and increasingly about the science around the development of the fetus. That is the debate that will finally yield the correct answer, not solely what's best for you or any other woman, or man.
Even with current law the rules are not defined solely on the choice of the woman. I doubt we will ever get to that horrendous outcome.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I brought it up because of the "Heart Beat" , and argument and your support of it. You said that "no (extreme) side" was going to get what they want. I think the most extreme Prochoice "side" is reflected in Roe V Wade, the ultimate law of the land in regards to when a woman and her doctor's rights are greater than the state's interest in the contents of uterus, until a fetus reaches viability. The state's right supersede the woman's right's to protect the potential life of the unborn child.

Since the US Constitution specifically names "persons born" as those covered by Constitutional rights, I think that's a HUGE compromise, allowing the state to regulate a woman's uterus., and I'm happy to support that compromise.

You're ridiculous. I never said I supported any such thing.


Bleh.

ETA: And, FTR, I do not.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: UKTruth

I usually do. (Obey the laws) I just don't want a bunch of busy-bodies trying to determine what's best for me.

It's not what is best for you that is the debate.

This is where you need to read your own signature. In this case you are making things much more simple than they are.

I thought I summed it up very simply and accurately.
If the debate were about what was best for the pregnant woman, there would be no debate. Fortunately it is not.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: UKTruth

I usually do. (Obey the laws) I just don't want a bunch of busy-bodies trying to determine what's best for me.

It's not what is best for you that is the debate.

This is where you need to read your own signature. In this case you are making things much more simple than they are.

I thought I summed it up very simply and accurately.
If the debate were about what was best for the pregnant woman, there would be no debate. Fortunately it is not.

That doesn't even make sense.
Whatever point you are trying to make, and not making very sensibly, but I can tell you we do NOT need to roll back Roe vs. Wade.
And with that, I will go walk my fabulous monsters.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

As I said, the president does not have the authority to "force a vote."

It gets pretty complicated and hairy from here, as McConnell has numerous ways to block this: he can table the vote, or block the motion from even taking place. All of these need at least a majority of 51 to be overturned. Any way this goes, it’s going to be an uphill battle for Merrick Garland. I sure hope he’s not losing any sleep over this.

www.piolog.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

As I said, the president does not have the authority to "force a vote."

I guess you are admitting he was an ineffectual leader.

Regardless, Democrats were ultimately responsible for that failure. And I don't buy their sudden concern now.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I guess you are admitting he was an ineffectual leader.

What I said was

Can you clarify on how the president could have "forced a vote?" The president has no such authority.

This applies to all presidents.

Regardless, Democrats were ultimately responsible for that failure. And I don't buy their sudden concern now.

No. Mitch McConnell was responsible.

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: UKTruth

I usually do. (Obey the laws) I just don't want a bunch of busy-bodies trying to determine what's best for me.

It's not what is best for you that is the debate.

This is where you need to read your own signature. In this case you are making things much more simple than they are.

I thought I summed it up very simply and accurately.
If the debate were about what was best for the pregnant woman, there would be no debate. Fortunately it is not.

That doesn't even make sense.
Whatever point you are trying to make, and not making very sensibly, but I can tell you we do NOT need to roll back Roe vs. Wade.
And with that, I will go walk my brat dogs.

It's your opinion that Roe vs. Wade does not need to be rolled back, but given it's language on the third trimester, the recent poll suggests that the majority would support more strict rules than those stipulated in Roe vs Wade. Overturned...no...but altered.

a reply to: UKTruth

no, it won't, then we will just on to argue about whose rights should be dominate under what circumstances.
although the fetus is within the women's body, that does not mean that the woman's body belongs to the fetus does it?
if a landlord finds a tenant to be too offensive or abusive, can he not evict the tenant? is he ever forced to allow the tenant to remain in the his apartment if he's proven that the tenant is being destructive, putting massive holes in the wall, is loud and obnoxious with the neighbors to the point where the land lord is losing tenants because of this one tenants actions? or can he go through an eviction process and get him out of there?

so, well, between the women and the fetus, just how do you write laws that will determine who's right dominate in what circumstances? if the tenant is behaving in such a way that it is making it impossible for the landlord to rent out the apartments surrounding his, well, that seems to be an acceptable reason to evict the tenant, isn't it?
so, if the pregnancy has affected the women's health enough that she can no longer full fill the obligations she has to those who are depending on her, shouldn't she also have a right to evict? if the women has a medical condition that requires medication that is known to be harmful to a developing fetus, should the fetal rights dominate over hers and force here to live and suffer without that medication? who is it that be deciding where the line is to be drawn, the point where that fetus can no longer interfere with the life of the mother, the right of that mother's living children to have their mother capable of caring for them properly, that she will be able to continue working to bring home the paycheck that pays for a child's asthma medication, or just keep that mother in a sane state by allowing her to take the medication that is need to keep her sane and functioning in the real world? you?? a group of lawmakers a thousand miles away? a council of old men who will eventually get around to hearing her case and deciding sometime after that baby has done the damage and has been born into a state of disaster?
no, there is no way that women will accept that they should unconditionally give up their rights, hand them over to an unborn fetus..
so, agreeing that a fetus has rights will not solve much of anything.

a reply to: Phage

Oh, please. It never got far enough to blame him.

From your own link...LAST paragraph, the part you edited out:

There is one hope. Since parliamentary procedure is as old and as convoluted as Emperor Palpatine’s wrinkled face, they are always alternatives to the current political status quo in the Senate. Using a rare parliamentary procedure called ‘a motion to discharge,’ Garland’s nomination would be brought to a floor vote.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

actually, I think the american citizens agreed that we had an ineffectual congress... or at least that is what the polls would indicate.

a reply to: dawnstar

The standing ruling already limits abortions.
How late in the pregnancy an abortion can take place will be the ongoing debate, and such a debate will focus almost exclusively on the fetus. Science will lead the way. The rest of the issues regarding circumstances of the pregnancy and the rights of the woman have already been well covered.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: MotherMayEye

actually, I think the american citizens agreed that we had an ineffectual congress... or at least that is what the polls would indicate.

The vote doesn't. We keep electing these turds for decades.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh, please. It never got far enough to blame him.

McConnell blocked the process.

From your own link...LAST paragraph, the part you edited out:

Which was followed by the part I posted.

It gets pretty complicated and hairy from here, as McConnell has numerous ways to block this: he can table the vote, or block the motion from even taking place.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh, please. It never got far enough to blame him.

McConnell blocked the process.

 

From your own link...LAST paragraph, the part you edited out:

Which was followed by the part I posted.

It gets pretty complicated and hairy from here, as McConnell has numerous ways to block this: he can table the vote, or block the motion from even taking place.

You mean the part that never happened either.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh, please. It never got far enough to blame him.

McConnell blocked the process.

 

From your own link...LAST paragraph, the part you edited out:

Which was followed by the part I posted.

It gets pretty complicated and hairy from here, as McConnell has numerous ways to block this: he can table the vote, or block the motion from even taking place.

You mean the part that never happened either.

That is a good point. So Obama did not push it as hard as he could have?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Are you saying that McConnell did not block the Merrick confirmation process?