Wendy Davis, Texas Democrat defending abortion

[Red7227]

Wendy Davis is near the start of a 13 hour filibuster to defeat a bill that would close the majuority of abortion clinics in Texas

The abortion bill was passed by the House early Monday morning. SB-5 would ban abortions after 20 weeks and require doctors performing the procedures to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic, and abortions would have to be performed at a surgery clinic. Hundreds of protesters were on hand during the House vote as Democrats tried to debate and stall the bill’s passage.

http://www.ibtimes.com/sen-wendy-davis- ... l-1322501#

 

[bawksy]

Yeah, I read CNN too. Do you have an opinion on the matter, or something specific about it you wanted to discuss?

 

[Red7227]

Not really. The bill appears entirely political and the consequences will be the death of a lot of illegals and rural women having to get backyard abortions because of semantic political bullshit. That is pretty much what governments do though day in and day out. I do find it kinda twee that you guys still filibuster

 

[bawksy]

Illegals don't get abortions. They have their babies on American soil so the kids become American citizens.

But I agree, filibusters are pretty stupid. Both major political parties practice them, but when Democrats do it, it's considered brave and bold, and when Republicans do it, it's considered needless stalling and dirty political maneuvering.

 

[Just Me]

Illegals don't get abortions. They have their babies on American soil so the kids become American citizens.

But I agree, filibusters are pretty stupid. Both major political parties practice them, but when Democrats do it, it's considered brave and bold, and when Republicans do it, it's considered needless stalling and dirty political maneuvering.

In the first 50 years of the filibuster, it was used only 35 times. In the last two years alone, it was used over 100. And senators don't even have to show up on the floor to explain themselves – just signaling their intent to filibuster effectively stalls legislation.

As a result, the Senate has become a place that one senator described as "non-functional," where even routine bills must now clear 60 votes. This means that 41 senators, representing as little as 11% of the U.S. population could theoretically obstruct passage of a bill supported by 59 senators representing as much as 89% of the population.

When the shoe fits.

 

[Just Me]

Live stream of the filibuster in Texas.



What hasn't been mentioned or received much press is that the US House of Representatives passed a similar bill a week ago. Luckily, the democrat controlled Senate will not pass this bill. At least I hope not.

 

[Nordling]

Yes, and now when a Senator filibusters, he doesn't really have to filibuster, all he has to do is threaten to filibuster...and the bill is killed, although I assume this story is about the Texas legislature.

Your characterization is unfair, demo vs repub. As Red points out, in years past, filibusters were relatively rare, and were not used to bring the entire government to a halt.

 

[bawksy]

Your characterization is unfair, demo vs repub.

Read the updated article on CNN. The entire article is an epic of how brave she was to stand up there and defeat this bill. P.S. she's a Democrat.

 

[Brad]

I just wish our stupid government could just leave this shit alone! It's legal so just leave it be. Waste of time, money, and energy. This is one of the reasons why I just can't stand politics in the US. I like legal guns and legal abortions so fuck both parties!
:roll:

 

[bawksy]

What government are you talking about? In the USA, there is one federal government, 50 state governments, several governments for territories like Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, and finally all the countless city and town governments. In the case of this story, the government attempting to make a change is that of the state of Texas.

Maybe you think the life and death of babies is a waste of time, money, and energy, but some people don't. Some people believe that there is little difference between a baby that has been born for 1 day, and a baby who is 1 day away from being born. Some people believe that it shouldn't be legal to sever a baby's spinal cord as it is being delivered through the mother's vagina. People including the Supreme Court, who ruled that banning such "partial birth abortions" was indeed constitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

Getting earlier in the pregnancy, it starts to be a big gray area, but with the current state of medical knowledge, babies born as early as 24 weeks into pregnancy have a chance of living on their own outside of the mother's womb. Given this viability date of 24 weeks, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Texas draw a line in the sand at 20 weeks. Halfway into the pregnancy seems like a good balance between protecting the choice of the mother, and the life of a viable baby.

 

[Brad]

What government are you talking about? In the USA, there is one federal government, 50 state governments, several governments for territories like Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, and finally all the countless city and town governments. In the case of this story, the government attempting to make a change is that of the state of Texas.

Maybe you think the life and death of babies is a waste of time, money, and energy, but some people don't. Some people believe that there is little difference between a baby that has been born for 1 day, and a baby who is 1 day away from being born. Some people believe that it shouldn't be legal to sever a baby's spinal cord as it is being delivered through the mother's vagina. People including the Supreme Court, who ruled that banning such "partial birth abortions" was indeed constitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

Getting earlier in the pregnancy, it starts to be a big gray area, but with the current state of medical knowledge, babies born as early as 24 weeks into pregnancy have a chance of living on their own outside of the mother's womb. Given this viability date of 24 weeks, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Texas draw a line in the sand at 20 weeks. Halfway into the pregnancy seems like a good balance between protecting the choice of the mother, and the life of a viable baby.

Roe v Wade. That government. The locals all follow along. In the end the top dog is the United States Supreme Court but you may lump all of the jurisdictions in there if you like.

And why does my dislike for people's desire to make abortions illegal mean I don't care about a babies life? This is the problem I have with this entire debate. You actually can put limits on things without making them completely unavailable.

And instead of being so focused on removing ANY choice a woman MAY have why don't more people go to the root of the problem and cut it off there. Safe sex, birth control, etc. Plenty of work to be done in those areas. Or offer more options and help by supporting adoptions and agency's to help the girls throughout the process. Why is it always such an all or nothing campaign other then the obvious religious aspects of it? Just making a female have to go somewhere unsafe to have an abortion helps nobody. They happened before they were legal and they'll happen after if the law was ever changed. Only difference will be the health and welfare of the girl having it done. So why don't you care about their life?

 

[Nordling]

Your characterization is unfair, demo vs repub.

Read the updated article on CNN. The entire article is an epic of how brave she was to stand up there and defeat this bill. P.S. she's a Democrat.

Not arguing about her. I'm talking about in general, and the US Senate. I agree with what you're saying about her...she's a hero.

 

[Brad]

I forgot to add this. I am adopted. It doesn't take much thought to guess how I personally feel about this issue. I literally owe my existence to my grandmother. BUT that doesn't mean I think there shouldn't be a choice available. The rest is debatable in my eyes but removing it all is just not wise as it will only hurt those who can least protect themselves.
:twocents-02cents:

 

[Nordling]

What government are you talking about? In the USA, there is one federal government, 50 state governments, several governments for territories like Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, and finally all the countless city and town governments. In the case of this story, the government attempting to make a change is that of the state of Texas.

Maybe you think the life and death of babies is a waste of time, money, and energy, but some people don't. Some people believe that there is little difference between a baby that has been born for 1 day, and a baby who is 1 day away from being born. Some people believe that it shouldn't be legal to sever a baby's spinal cord as it is being delivered through the mother's vagina. People including the Supreme Court, who ruled that banning such "partial birth abortions" was indeed constitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

Getting earlier in the pregnancy, it starts to be a big gray area, but with the current state of medical knowledge, babies born as early as 24 weeks into pregnancy have a chance of living on their own outside of the mother's womb. Given this viability date of 24 weeks, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Texas draw a line in the sand at 20 weeks. Halfway into the pregnancy seems like a good balance between protecting the choice of the mother, and the life of a viable baby.

Roe v Wade. That government. The locals all follow along. In the end the top dog is the United States Supreme Court but you may lump all of the jurisdictions in there if you like.

And why does my dislike for people's desire to make abortions illegal mean I don't care about a babies life? This is the problem I have with this entire debate. You actually can put limits on things without making them completely unavailable.

And instead of being so focused on removing ANY choice a woman MAY have why don't more people go to the root of the problem and cut it off there. Safe sex, birth control, etc. Plenty of work to be done in those areas. Or offer more options and help by supporting adoptions and agency's to help the girls throughout the process. Why is it always such an all or nothing campaign other then the obvious religious aspects of it? Just making a female have to go somewhere unsafe to have an abortion helps nobody. They happened before they were legal and they'll happen after if the law was ever changed. Only difference will be the health and welfare of the girl having it done. So why don't you care about their life?

Agree. Generally, the anti-abortion folks (not pro-life since they don't give a shit about either the mother or a child after it's born) are about religion. When does life begin? Dumb question. A solo sperm or egg are "life." As far as deciding when the embryo or fetus is a human life, that is when the HOST...the mother decides it is. Any other method is worse than arbitrary and simply causes more arguments.

As far as "late term abortions," that is limited by law and is very rare and are almost never performed unless the mother's life is at risk. (except for illegal or corrupt clinics, but those are another problem)

 

[AmberCutie]

And instead of being so focused on removing ANY choice a woman MAY have why don't more people go to the root of the problem and cut it off there. Safe sex, birth control, etc. Plenty of work to be done in those areas. Or offer more options and help by supporting adoptions and agency's to help the girls throughout the process. Why is it always such an all or nothing campaign other then the obvious religious aspects of it?

Because sex out of wedlock is bad, mmmkay? We shouldn't be educating teens about it in school, we shouldn't be providing them with safe sex information and protection, we shouldn't be supporting Planned Parenthood because they're EVIL!

/sarcasm

 

[QueenJolene]

Illegals don't get abortions. They have their babies on American soil so the kids become American citizens.

But I agree, filibusters are pretty stupid. Both major political parties practice them, but when Democrats do it, it's considered brave and bold, and when Republicans do it, it's considered needless stalling and dirty political maneuvering.

...Undocumented people do indeed get abortions, and not all of them are here just to pop out some babies in America so that they are citizens. Its more likely, in fact, that they bring their already born children here for a chance at a better education and a safer lifestyle without senseless violence.

In any case, if that bill had passed it WOULD be an issue mostly for poor women, because upper class women will always have the means to get a safe abortion. Abortions don't stop just because they are made illegal, they just become more dangerous and mean the deaths of more underprivileged women.

I agree that filibustering is a silly loophole in our system...but in this case I am damn glad that it existed as an option, and I believe that Sen. Davis is amazing for speaking for almost 12 hours straight without a break.

 

[bawksy]

I agree that filibustering is a silly loophole in our system...but in this case I am damn glad that it existed as an option, and I believe that Sen. Davis is amazing for speaking for almost 12 hours straight without a break.

And this, right here, is the hypocrisy that allows dirty politics to continue in our country. It's only bad when the other guys do it.

Just like how the winning side of a Supreme Court battle is never mad that the decision was split by a cunt hair 5-4 along political party lines. Then when they lose the next one 5-4, they scream bloody murder about how partisan politics shouldn't be factoring into the unbiased interpretation of the law.

 

[Shaun__]

Texas Governor Perry is calling a new special session to try again.

 

[JickyJuly]

To be fair, she was not "defending abortion" she's defending the rights of women and their bodies to be treated with as much respect as men. You can hate that abortion exists, be against it and still feel that women should have the option. Also, bringing up partial birth abortion as an argument against all abortion is grasping at straws. Close to no one wants that legalized.

 

[Nordling]

I agree that filibustering is a silly loophole in our system...but in this case I am damn glad that it existed as an option, and I believe that Sen. Davis is amazing for speaking for almost 12 hours straight without a break.

And this, right here, is the hypocrisy that allows dirty politics to continue in our country. It's only bad when the other guys do it.

Just like how the winning side of a Supreme Court battle is never mad that the decision was split by a cunt hair 5-4 along political party lines. Then when they lose the next one 5-4, they scream bloody murder about how partisan politics shouldn't be factoring into the unbiased interpretation of the law.

You're just describing human nature. Of course someone's going to be biased toward things they like and against things they hate, and be more forgiving of the using of methods they would rather not exist. It isn't hypocrisy--should one side tie their hands while the other side gets to USE this legal maneuver? Filibustering isn't corruption, it may be unfair, but it's perfectly legal. And really, the Texas legislator at least used the filibuster the way it was intended, she stood there talking for ten fucking hours. In the US Senate, all you have to do is threaten to use it and it's as good as done. That's corruption.

 

[Brad]

I agree that filibustering is a silly loophole in our system...but in this case I am damn glad that it existed as an option, and I believe that Sen. Davis is amazing for speaking for almost 12 hours straight without a break.

And this, right here, is the hypocrisy that allows dirty politics to continue in our country. It's only bad when the other guys do it.

Just like how the winning side of a Supreme Court battle is never mad that the decision was split by a cunt hair 5-4 along political party lines. Then when they lose the next one 5-4, they scream bloody murder about how partisan politics shouldn't be factoring into the unbiased interpretation of the law.

And now we get back to my original post in this thread. Put an R or a D behind someone's name and people get all crazy with each other. (I'm speaking in general terms, not what's in this thread) Just point the finger and blame the "other side" while they screw us all. It's a freaking shell game. And sadly enough I really do hate both parties for what they've become.

 

[SoTxBob]

Texas Governor Perry is calling a new special session to try again.

Im sooo fcking tired of "Pretty Boy Perry" and his BS...

 

[LadyLuna]

I will call a Republican a hero when they filibuster to protect our right to bear arms. I will call a Democrat a hero when they filibuster to protect our right to get an abortion. I will call a Republican a villain when they filibuster to prevent the legalization of Gay Marriage or pot. Basically, if they're doing it to protect my rights, they're a hero. If they do it to keep rights from being granted, they're a villain.

But I can totally agree with the idea of putting an abortion as legal before 24 weeks. After 24 weeks, the girl should be allowed to search for adoptive parents to either pay her to finish carrying it or pay for the child to be c-sectioned early and kept in the hospital until it can live without the machines.

Though honestly, I'd prefer to allow abortions up until the child can be safely pulled from the mother and kept alive with minimal help. Because honestly, surprises happen. I had a teacher in college. She was definitely over 50, well past menopause. She discovered she was pregnant when labor started. It was a good birth, she never skipped a class (it happened over spring break I believe. I found out when I saw her with her child the week after break.) A friend of mine discovered she was pregnant four months in. She bled through the first three. She definitely did not have the resources to care for that child, and had to go WIC and welfare the whole damn way. Should she have been denied the chance for an abortion just because her body didn't signal that she was pregnant until it was too late? (this was in the bible belt, so of course she didn't see abortion as an option.)

One thing I always had to hang on to, even in the worst of my depression, was the knowledge that my mother could've aborted me. She didn't. Obviously, at the very least, my mother wanted me. I never had to wonder if she really wanted me. This is one huge reason I'm all for abortions being legal.