Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


My neck of the woods: Silencing Representitives

   
Well, seeing as it's been done before by Republican state legislatures, I think that I can be forgiven for taking someone's word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
She said no means no, it's an anti rape slogan.
That's not exactly a direct comparison to rape; that slogan is used in all kinds of contexts. Seems a bit overboard to accuse her of crying rape when she did no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias2008 View Post
Also; Michigan passed a balanced budget under Snyder's scorched Earth cuts so "cannot afford" I have to call bollacks.
Right, 'cause Michigan doesn't have a serious problem with brain drain, Detroit isn't imploding in on itself, and it certainly doesn't have the third-highest underemployment (which was called unemployment, once upon a time) rates in the country at 21%.
Oh, wait.
A balanced budget does not equate surplus funds. Nice try, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkWren View Post
That's not exactly a direct comparison to rape; that slogan is used in all kinds of contexts. Seems a bit overboard to accuse her of crying rape when she did no such thing.
Name one.
Then what in the world do you think she was going for? "No means no" is an anti-rape slogan. Well, okay, anti date rape according to Wikipedia. It amounts to the same thing, really. Don't try to pretend she was doing anything other than what she was - trying to inflame emotions and cheapening the crime of rape by comparing it to telling women they couldn't wait twenty-one weeks to have an abortion. Go back to that freedom of speech thing, you almost had something going there.

The law that was actually passed, according to the Detroit Free Press (a very left-leaning paper; my father dropped his subscription after they published an anti-soldier political comic):
"The bill would increase insurance and regulations on abortion clinics, regulate the disposal of fetal remains, prohibit the use of teleconferences to prescribe abortion medication and make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion.

Another bill that would restrict abortions after 20 weeks with no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, was not considered." (It did make it past the House, though, in a shining display of people who don't need to be re-elected.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
The law that was actually passed, according to the Detroit Free Press (a very left-leaning paper; my father dropped his subscription after they published an anti-soldier political comic):
"The bill would increase insurance and regulations on abortion clinics, regulate the disposal of fetal remains, prohibit the use of teleconferences to prescribe abortion medication and make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion.

Another bill that would restrict abortions after 20 weeks with no exceptions for rape, incest or fetal abnormalities, was not considered." (It did make it past the House, though, in a shining display of people who don't need to be re-elected.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYDailyNews
House Republicans blocked Democratic Rep. Lisa Brown for her remark during a speech blasting the controversial bill that would restrict abortions after 20 weeks, according to The Detroit News.
(bolding added)


So, either you're mistaken, or the article linked in the OP is.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/articl...ion-super-bill probably sticks to the facts the best and avoids getting into rhetoric.

Key bit, bold is mineHB 5711 will enact mandatory "coercion screenings" for all women in need of safe abortion care, prohibit tele-med abortion, and enforce several new costly and restrictive "TRAP" regulations on both abortion providers and clinics.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the "super-bill," however -- a ban on all abortions after 20 weeks, with no exception for rape, incest, or health -- has yet to be voted on by the House. That ban would be enacted by a separate-but-connected piece of legislation, HB 5713, which has not yet been brought before the House for a vote. Ari Adler, spokesman for Republican House Speaker Jase Bolger, told The Detroit News that more time was needed to review that portion of the legislation, and to determine whether such a ban would be constitutional.

The youtube video of her comments linked in that article certainly makes it sound as though she was commenting on the after-20-week ban.

They talk about them before voting on them. I've seen that it hasn't been voted on, and I've seen that it has (with both 'pass' and 'not pass' for results, 'cause people can't seem to separate the three bills of the law).

Like anything controversial, nailing down hard facts is surprisingly difficult. People tend to be idiots, after all. Rhealitycheck says the Senate shouldn't vote on it until September - it's not law until then.

Not even then, it would likely need to go through Senate, Governor, reconciliation, pass constitutional muster, etc.

It's only really news because she was violating the Legislature rules and not called on to speak the rest of the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
When Joe Wilson screamed "You Lie" to Obama, reprimanding him wasn't any sort of repression of free speech and neither is this.

For Neil Munro interrupting Obama's immigration announcements he is being taken to task also. There is nothing unusual about this story except that the topic she was speaking about is a bit touchy.
Actually there is.

Accusing the president of lieing is an allegation and since he had no evidence... It's in a different feild to it's own. I mean... It's not like the US has ever attempted to impeach a president over lieing about something silly... like sexual relations. ~cough~Clinton~cough~


Also, interupting an official announcement made by the current president is borderline treason, depending on the address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
She said no means no, it's an anti rape slogan.
Just becuase it's a commonly used Anti-Rape slogan, it doesn't mean that is what she intended. (However, I do agree with you that it came across that way. There is no point in us argueing her intentions cuz, none of us are her.)

And wait... you're going with an internet publication over an actual newspaper site...?

~blinks~

I think it's wrong to just ignore someone who actually is representing a population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voxanadu View Post
Also, interupting an official announcement made by the current president is borderline treason, depending on the address.
Rape and Treason are both casualties of this thread.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status