As long as I live I will never understand US politics...

[Gob]

A Texas lawmaker who was a single mother at the age of 19 pursued what would have to be a nearly 13-hour filibuster on Tuesday to block a bill that would close almost every abortion clinic in the nation's second most populous state.



To reach the midnight goal, Democratic state senator Wendy Davis, 50, cannot sit, lean on her desk or take any breaks, including to eat meals or to use the bathroom. Her chair was removed. She remained unfazed when a male protester stood and shouted, "Abortion is genocide!" Security removed him.

At midnight, the Republican-controlled Senate ends a 30-day special session. In the opening remarks of her filibuster, Davis called Republican efforts to pass the bill a "raw abuse of power".

A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal.

Texas is one of several states taking aim at the landmark Supreme Court decision in 1973 that made abortion legal and set off a raging debate on the issue that continues today.

North Dakota is another, and abortion rights advocates on Tuesday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging two new laws there that impose the nation's toughest abortion restrictions. The lawsuit seeks to block a measure that would ban abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, when a fetal heartbeat can first be detected.

The Texas bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities. Doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 48 kilometres — a challenge in rural communities across the vast state.

A woman living along the Mexico border or in West Texas would have to drive for hours to obtain an abortion if the law passes.

"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," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/wendys-13ho ... z2XHsA26Br

Mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, mad.....

[liberty]

What is mad, that one person can block a bill form become a law?

[Gob]

That a civilised country has such a strange attitude to abortion, and such convoluted politics.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Some might say that it is abortion that is "uncivilized".
And then there is this

A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure

I'm guessing we adopted it from the Brits.

[rubato]

delete

[Guinevere]

Rube, Wendy was filibustering *against* the bill, trying to prevent it from coming to a vote.

As for the procedure, it is an ancient and time-tested legislative method used by the ancients *and* the Brits (where, according to wiki, it is also referred to as " talking out" a bill:

One of the first known practitioners of the filibuster was the Roman senator Cato the Younger. In debates over legislation he especially opposed, Cato would often obstruct the measure by speaking continuously until nightfall.[6] As the Roman Senate had a rule requiring all business to conclude by dusk, Cato's purposefully long-winded speeches were an effective device to forestall a vote.
Cato attempted to use the filibuster at least twice to frustrate the political objectives of Julius Caesar.[6] The first incident occurred during the summer of 60 BC, when Caesar was returning home from his propraetorship in Hispania Ulterior. Caesar, by virtue of his military victories over the raiders and bandits in Hispania, had been awarded a triumph by the Senate. Having recently turned 40, Caesar had also become eligible to stand for consul. This posed a dilemma. Roman generals honored with a triumph were not allowed to enter the city prior to the ceremony, but candidates for the consulship were required, by law, to appear in person at the Forum.[6] The date of the election, which had already been set, made it impossible for Caesar to stand unless he crossed the pomerium and gave up the right to his triumph. Caesar petitioned the Senate to stand in absentia, but Cato employed a filibuster to block the proposal. Faced with a choice between a triumph and the consulship, Caesar chose the consulship and entered the city.
Cato made use of the filibuster again in 59 BC in response to a land reform bill sponsored by Caesar, who was then consul.[6] When it was Cato's time to speak during the debate, he began one of his characteristically long-winded speeches. Caesar, who needed to pass the bill before his co-consul, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, took possession of the fasces at the end of the month, immediately recognized Cato's intent and ordered the lictors to jail him for the rest of the day. The move was unpopular with many senators and Caesar, realizing his mistake, soon ordered Cato's release. The day was wasted without the Senate ever getting to vote on a motion supporting the bill, but Caesar eventually circumvented Cato's opposition by taking the measure to the Tribal Assembly, where it passed.

[rubato]

Deleted because the reference to burkhas referred to the conservative women-hating jackasses who were male, hence, it didn't work. There being no similar clothing metaphor for men I deleted it.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

A few general points:

It is a GOOD THING that getting a law passed is difficult, and it is absolutely appropriate that there are countless legal, procedural, practical, and traditional hurdles to be overcome before a proposal becomes law. The decision of some legislatures (e.g., the United States Senate and apparently the Texas Senate) to permit the filibuster is one such obstacle that has undoubtedly prevented the promulgation of a lot of BAD laws, and maybe a few "good" ones as well.

After 200 years, one could well make the argument that this country and the Great State of Texas already have enough laws and don't need any more. Thus, the passage of new laws should be painstaking and ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Which is why, I suppose, the Texas legislature is in session for so little time.

When you distill the cornucopia of bullshit that the USSC has published on the subject of abortion, it appears that "first trimester" abortions cannot be prevented by the state. This is not to say that the state must build abortion clinics, pay for abortions, mandate that health insurance cover them, or provide gift certificates to "victims of unwanted pregnancies." The state can't prevent them - that's it. After the end of the first trimester, the state can "regulate" abortions. And the power of the sovereign to "regulate" often means regulating them to death. In other words, if the representatives of the people of Texas believe that the said population wants to minimize later-term abortions in the Lone star State, those representatives have the legal and constitutional right, and the ethical obligation, to make such abortions as difficult as possible, through appropriate "regulation."

If someone (a private citizen, whether living in Texas or elsewhere) doesn't like that, tough shit. If you happen to believe that a fetus is nothing more than "tissue," and no more deserving of independent consideration than a tumor, and if you further happen to live in Texas, then you'd better get used to the idea that your views on abortion are in the minority. Maybe you want to move to fucking Massachusetts.

[Econoline]

[Big RR]

For all the hand-wringing on filibusters, actions like this don't happen very often. If the Texas legislature wanted to change its filibuster rules, it could; the fact that they don't shows how much of a problem the rules are.

[Crackpot]

that's because far and wide talking filibusters aren't a problem. it's the rules that allow for "filibusters" without even being in attendance.

[Big RR]

True, but I never see any changes, regardless of which party holds the power.

[Crackpot]

The "rules" have been getting progressing more "lenient". Filibusters are supposed to be a reader and a difficult thing "rules" have made it common and easy. Say what you will about Rand ( I'm going to spend 13 hours droning on about something no one ever suggested) Paul but at least he took the time to do the work.

[Big RR]

I give anyone credit for speaking for hours at length to filibuster a bill, even if I disagree with them.

[Crackpot]

Reader is supposed to be rare fucking autocorrect

[Big RR]

????

[Crackpot]

In my previous post.
It should say "fillibbusters are supposed to be a rare and difficult thing"

[Lord Jim]

Reader is supposed to be rare fucking autocorrect

yeah, and sos yer old man...

[Lord Jim]

"Reader is supposed to be rare fucking autocorrect "...

Is supposed to be:

"fillibbusters are supposed to be a rare and difficult thing"

I have a paranoid Steve-like theory that "auto correct" isn't "auto correct" at all...

That it is in fact a deliberate set up, designed to make people look foolish...


For one thing, "auto correct" seems to have a Tourette Syndrome function..

No matter what people intended to say, it seems to toss out random obscenities...

[Crackpot]

You're a member of the protocols of the elders of Zion you bastard!


Fuck you I never accursed to of being in collusion with a Jewish plot to take over the world