Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted May 10, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
71 Comments
Thank you Governor Sebelius for signing “Alexa’s Law” and helping to support a Culture of Life in Kansas:
http://www.kbsd6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6495121
Nice post Meadowlark… AS LONG AS WE ALL REMEMBER…. Choice is a part of the Culture of Life too…
I cant help but wonder who the CONS are going to blame for the latest slam on Bush — You know, the one where the Republican representatives tell the Prez that he has lost all credibility??? And that people dont want to hear from him, but from the Generals??
I was most amazed, and somewhat stunned, by Russert’s report earlier on NBC…. It is about time that somebody from the Prez’s own Party stand up to him, and his overt arrogance…
I suppose now, the CONS will all say that the “left” paid off the republican congressmen who confronted the Prez… That would seem like one of their typical responses…
But alas, this time the “left” didnt do it!! Hallelujah!!
Protect our troops… Bring them HOME!!!
What a miserable, wretched Governor we have in Kansas.
I am still sickened by sunflower’s latest antics…objecting to the new McAdams recreation director because she is white. That is such racist garbage that the group should be ashamed of themselves.
Once again, sunflower is demonstrating their lack of thought or rational action. They would scream RACISM if a complaint was made about any black person filling a post—yet they feel justified in objecting to a white person–because she is white??
Sick group. They do not deserve any attention, respect, recognition or time.
I agree, why is it OK for people to be racist as long as they’re not white?Talk about a double standard.
“I am still sickened by sunflower’s latest antics…objecting to the new McAdams recreation director because she is white. That is such racist garbage that the group should be ashamed of themselves.”——————–
It’s okey-dokey to be racist against whites, didn’t you know? You’re not supposed to point out that it’s even racist.
It’s part of the progressive “guilt complex” that we’re supposed to all adhere to.
Right along the self-flagellation line.
You DON’T SayBy Nancy Greggs
Were we living in normal times, we’d be hearing all about the glorious accomplishments of the Republican administration and its party members as we head into the 2008 election.
The GOP would be pointing proudly to the strides they’d made in education and health care, national security and the economy, along with bolstering our leadership role internationally through diplomatic efforts and strengthened ties with our global neighbors.
Of course, these are not normal times at all. And more to the point, there are no such accomplishments to be bragged about, to be proffered as a reason for wanting Republicans in charge of anything more intellectually taxing than – well, than clearing brush in Texas.
The Great Kahuna, Newt Gingrich, has already laid down the rules for GOP hopefuls in terms of what subjects shouldn’t be talked about, lest the populace be reminded of the failures of the Bush presidency, aided and abetted by a Republican majority.
And the list of unmentionables is rather substantial.
The first rule of what is now becoming the Flight Club is: Don’t talk about the War. It appears the Republicans who cheerleaded this major fiasco are gearing up to distance themselves from it come September, and it will be amusing to see how they plan to accomplish that feat.
In other words, they’ve set a timetable for pulling the plug – but alas, still have no exit strategy when it comes to explaining away their support for the past four years. Way to go.
What about discussing the unprecedented national debt, the unsecured borders, the price of gas and the profits of Big Oil? Don’t, don’t, don’t and definitely don’t.
Even the traditional GOP talking points have to be discarded, given the unpleasant reality associated with each of them.
Supporting the troops? Walter Reed. Integrity brought back to D.C. politics? Jack Abramoff. Moral values? Mark Foley. Competent government? Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzales. Fiscal responsibility? Billions missing in Iraq. Smaller, non-intrusive government? Wire-tapping of citizens. The party of law and order? Signing statements, the US attorney scandal.
And that’s just the story so far. As subpoenas are issued and investigations proceed, there may be a whole lot more that can’t be mentioned in the months to come.
It would seem that the GOP is down to talking about the weather, but even that’s off-limits in these heady times when the topic might lead to a discussion about global warming. Immediately one thinks of the old adage that it’s better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
As we saw in the recent Republican debate, there is always the option of pretending the current administration never happened, and instead harkening back to the halcyon days of St. Ronnie – when the country was in the hands of a half-wit instead of a full-fledged idiot.
And no doubt those who are still waiting for that famous trickle-down theory to work to their advantage will be just as anxious to vote GOP as the deliriously happy residents of New Orleans.
So if you see a man or woman standing utterly mute on a stage in your city or town over the next year, staring mindlessly into space, that’s not a mime – that’s just a Republican campaigning on the strengths of their party’s past performance.
Too bad we didnt get a thread this morning on the “gang of eleven” that had a “come to Jesus” meeting with the shrubster yesterday to tell him the jig is up.
Great post here, but if you are an easily offended wingnut, it might justt be too much, so dont click.
The comments are the best part here. I especially liked the one that asked if “this was an intervention or did they have arrest warrants?” heheheheh!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×856324
ROFLMAO
Nancy Greggs
Hypocrisy has a name.
Nice cut and paste from such a totally objective source, kfg…the democratic underground? Yep…unbiased, fair and impartial source..a-yep.
“Great post here, but if you are an easily offended wingnut, it might justt be too much, so dont click.”——
Or if you have a brain.
LOL
What going onwith all thelink spamming? I thought this site as locked down for that. The bot kicks i every time I try to post a link.
Guess a script kiddie broke thru.
Note to blog monitors; the linker has a typepad acct. Might look to your security provider for that one!!!!
OMG, I’m just HOWLING now. The wingnuts sure are touchy these days. You know you are on a roll when you hit a nerve. Like Nancy Greggs did. Or on the evangelical thread.
heheheheheheheheheheheh! Dont like DU? Dont click!
Pretty simple. It’s just like what I do with newsmax, freeperville, etc.
Notice there are no comments on the substance of the post? Just weak attacks on the author and I? hehheheheeheheheheheheheheheheh!
you guys are so easy it almost isnt fun anymore. Kinda like torturing a helpless animal.
I notice the wingnuts are awfully quiet on the BOE thread.
All in all, it’s just damn hard to be a republican, bush following, evangelical loving, wingnut these days.
Just look at their posts! heheheh!
I think it is racist to complain that the person hired was white. What does that have anything to do with it.
I like my governor for the most part, but I’m just upset that she signed Alexa’s law. She knows this game, and she knows what they’re up to.
Uh, and pmom? You left out the important part.
Governor “leadership” does know the game. And she doesnt give a rat’s ass.
Her positions are based on political expediency. NOTHING more. Doing the right thing NEVER enters into the sebelius equation.
Votes uber alles.
There was no doubt that the Governor would sign Alexa’s law. She knows that she needs it for her political future.
Even though years ago when she was in the Kansas House of Representatives she fought against such a law all the way. For political purposes she now sees things differently.
Way to go Gov!!!!!
So it’s all about what will boost her image? Then why did she veto the CC law?
Almost ALL the legislators fought against Alexa’s law before Chelsea was killed. Because they knew it was a bad law.
Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were having breakfast at the WhiteHouse. The attractive waitress asks Cheney what he would like, and he replies, “I’d like a bowl of oatmeal and some fruit…”And what can I get for you, Mr. President?”George W., looking up from his menu, replies with his trademark wink and slight grin,…. “How about a quickie this morning?”"Why, Mr. President!” the waitress exclaims “How rude!As the waitress storms away, Cheney leans over to Bush andwhispers……….”It’s pronounced, ‘Quiche’”
Looks like Bush brought another good man down. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070510/ap_on_re_eu/britain_blair
Isn’t it amazing how our fabulously “liberal media” didn’t report on the repeals of 21-3440 and 21-3441? They were informed of those provisions in the so-called “Alexa’s Law”, yet they ignored it.
Alexa’s Law does two things: One, it declares a fetus to be a “person” for the purposes of prosecuting certain crimes. It says nothing about protecting the mother. Two: Alexa’s Law _repeals_ statutes that provided enhanced penalties for people who injure pregnant women.
That repeal is a slap in the face of every woman in Kansas. It says that it’s okay to slap them around a little (after all, that’s the man’s privilege), but don’t dare hurt that fetus.
Alexa’s Law relegates women to being nothing more than containment facilities for fetuses.
(cross-posted by request)
by: sotheysaid | May 10, 2007 at 10:07 AM
God help me, I TOTALLY agree with sts on that post!
And the dumbass voters in kansas will probably replace brownback with her. They fall for her tricks everytime. Like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football.
Hey Tom, homicide of the mother is already covered under statutes. Maybe you need to spend more time in Topeka.
Actually, I thought the Alexa Law statute declared a fetus a fetus and made a person criminally responsible if they were to end the life cycle of the fetus. But since you claim to know the statute Tom, perhaps you can point out in the statute where the fetus has been declared viable aka human.
I’m sure Alexa’s mom will disagree with you on the law being a slap in the face. Perhaps is she’s reading this thread, she might want to do a little face slapping herself.
Republican,
This is 2062 prior to Conference Committee changes:http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2008/2062.pdf
Scroll down to page 8, line 34. That’s where “Alexa’s Law” starts. Continue to page 9, line 6. You’ll find this language:
[(d) As used in K.S.A. 21-3401, 21-3402, 21-3403, 21-3404, 21-3405, 21-3412, 21-3412a, 21-3413, 21-3414, 21-3415, 21-3439, 21-3443 and 21-3448 and amendments thereto, ”person” and ”humanbeing” also mean an unborn child.
To find where 21-3440 was repealed, you have to read the House Journal where the CCR was read into the record:http://www.kslegislature.org/journals/2007/hj0425.pdfYou’ll need to scroll down to page 1106, where it says “also repealing K.S.A. 21-3440 and K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 21-3441”
You can find the text of those statutes at http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/index.do
PS: Once again, I provide hard fact to back up my assertions here. Fact is the perfect antidote to snide attempts at condescension and character assassination.
Tom-
While I have not looked at all the paperwork, I have a couple of simple questions.1) if it is now a ‘crime” to harm an unborn baby or fetus, what is wrong with repealing 3440 and 3441. It makes them redundant does it not? Although, with those laws on the books I am not sure of the need for ALexas law@0 How does repealing 3440 and 3441 make it okay to slap around a woman (pregnant or otherwise)? I think there are other statutes to cover that.3) How does Alexas law make women little more than containments for fetuses?
Although there seems to have been no need for Alexas law in Kansas in lieu of 3440 and 3441, I don;t see the dire consequences of it either. Perhaps I am just being naiive.
Looking at the 21 series, the text from 2062 states:
“[New Sec. 4. (a) This section shall be known and may be citedas Alexa’s law.
[(b) As used in this section:
[(1) ”Abortion” means an abortion as defined by K.S.A. 656701, and amendments thereto.
[(2) ”Unborn child” means a living individual organism of thespecies homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.
[(c) This section shall not apply to:[(1) Any act committed by the mother of the unborn child;
HB 2062—Am. by SCW
9
[(2) any medical procedure, including abortion, performed bya physician or other licensed medical professional at the request ofthe pregnant woman or her legal guardian; or
[(3) the lawful dispensation or administration of lawfully prescribed medication.
[(d) As used in K.S.A. 21-3401, 21-3402, 21-3403, 21-3404, 213405, 21-3412, 21-3412a, 21-3413, 21-3414, 21-3415, 21-3439, 213443 and 21-3448 and amendments thereto, ”person” and ”humanbeing” also mean an unborn child”
I can see the re-classification of the unborn child meaning to be a person or human being…
…but I also see where the statute takes great pains to describe that medical procedures as an act committed by the mother or physician does not apply.
There might be a slippery slope here, but it would have to go through some hoops to get there.
As Sol has pointed out, the porno spammers are back, complete with TypeKey accounts.
You know how Republican implied (in his faux-sly “I-know-more-than-you-do” way) that he works for some kind of Internet concern?
Hmmm . . . spamming porn would be a way to make money on the internet.
It would also explain his vicious attacks against “the nanny state” that might want to protect people from porn.
Reposted here because . . . it’s just that good!
When the CONs were b*tching and moaning about the UN oil-for-food “scandal,” it apparently never occurred to them the biggest user of oil is the US and the big companies that supply it are AMERICAN.
The idea that this scandal only involved the French and the Russians and Koffi Annan’s son is patently ridiculous on its face.
And here’s the new evidence of how ridiculous it is:
“The Iraqis started demanding the kickbacks in the summer of 2000. And at the time, Condi, had she been performing her fiduciary duty to Chevron’s shareholders, would had to have known about the dealings. See, she was head of Chevron’s public policy committee, which, according to the Times, “oversaw areas of potential political concerns for the company.” The committee held three meetings in 2000, according to SEC filings.
“Condi was no neophyte when it came to the decision-making process at Chevron. She served as a board member for Chevron Corp. for 10 years, from 1991 until George Bush’s inauguration in 2001.
“Clearly, Chevron’s illegal support of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship is breathtaking in its criminality. As mentioned above, Fred Barnes himself called the Oil-for-Food scandal, in which billions of dollars went illegally to the Baghdad regime “the biggest scandal in human history.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/8/183441/6853
Posted by: CapnAmerica | May 09, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Chevron Seen Settling Case on Iraq OilBy CLAUDIO GATTI and Jad Mouawad
Chevron, the second-largest American oil company, is preparing to acknowledge that it should have known kickbacks were being paid to Saddam Hussein on oil it bought from Iraq as part of a defunct United Nations program, according to investigators.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/business/08chevron.html?em&ex=1178769600&en=bdffb997cbb5c842&ei=5087
Posted by: kscitydude | May 09, 2007 at 06:27 PM
Chevron settling over paying illegal kick backs to Saddam while Condi was on the board.
No wonder they had to execute him.
Littlejohn,
Violence against pregnant women is a serious issue. The CDC says “between 4% and 8% of pregnant women are abused at least once during the pregnancy” http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm
Alexa’s Law does *nothing* to protect the women who are the real targets of violence. There was an attempt to move a bill early this session that would have enhanced penalties for someone who caused _any_ harm to a pregnant woman, whether the fetus was injured or damaged, or not. It was shot down by the very same people who brought us Alexa’s Law and it’s repeal of existing statutes protecting women. If the proponents of Alexa’s Law were honest, they would have included the proposed language that would have created added protections for pregnant women.
We see how that turned out.
I’m sure Alexa’s mom will disagree with you on the law being a slap in the face.Posted by: Republican | May 10, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Republican,
Alexa’s mom is dead. She was the victim of violence that targeted a pregnant woman, specifically because she was pregnant.
capn – GREAT INFORMATION!
Tom- I would agree that abuse of pregnant women is a serious issue. I would agree moreso than abuse of women in general is a serious issue. Is it your contention that existing statutes concerning violence against women are inadequate? Or somehow removed by Alexas Law? The way I see it, 3440 and 3441 were undoubtedly written to protect the fetus, without bringing the abortion issue into play. My guess it was a compromise. I am reaching here, but just thinking out loud. I see it easily happening that way. Without the considerationof the fetus, there would be no reason for 3440 and 3441, at least as I see it. Now, i agree that I really don;t see the need for Alexas Law with the protectins of 3440 and 3441 in place, but neither do I see the harm in replacing them. Surely the protections afforded us cover pregnant women as well.
Littlejohn,
You are absolutely right that 21-3440 and 21-3441 already create enhanced penalties for anyone who kills a fetus through an act of violence against the mother.
The proponents of Alexa’s Law had a singular goal: Write into statute language that defines a fetus as a “person.” It’s part of a larger agenda of further restricting women’s rights to control their own bodies. That is precisely why there are no protections for women written into this law.
It is a crime against the fetus for someone to abuse the mother of said fetus, but is perfectly OK for the mother to kill said fetus. Gotta love our country.
Sol,
The way Alexa’s Law is written, it doesn’t *matter* what happens to the woman. It’s all about the fetus. Republican helpfully posted the entire bill here (minus the changes made in Conference Committee, which I linked to). I suggest you read it.
Thanks.
“I agree, why is it OK for people to be racist as long as they’re not white?”Talk about a double standard.”
Especially when you consider the untold thousands of White men who were lynched (even into the 1960’s) due racism directed at Whites. It is not fair. /sarcasm
My objection to this line of argument is that it almost requires an underlying assumption the results of racism from whites is equal to the racism toward whites. The effects are not even close.
My second objection to this argument is that it seems to reach for the “well, they do it too” rationalization for the renewed white racism that I contend is becoming part of the national dialogue.
What is scary to me is that people who are NOT nuts like Ian are falling for this racism directed at Whites trap.
I admit I am obnoxious on this point. I do not own slaves, never have, and to my knowledge my forebearers did not own any either. My position does come from “White guilt”, though there is plenty to be guilt about – if you think about it. Rather, wanting people treated equally, seems like a fundamental concept with respect to liberty and democracy.
Tom-
i guess I am just being naiive. I just don’t see that. I see exceptions for abortions, etc. i see politician getting on the bandwagon for a “national cause”.But then, i generally oppose treating the victims of crime differently based on the group they belong to, (so rescinding 3440 is not a problem for me), but since it was already there, I see no need to replace it with Alexas law. I see your point about the agenda, but I don;t really think it is there. I don;t know, Maybe you are right. As I think about it, why else?
.
Littlejohn,
There are good reasons for treating perpetrators of certain crimes more harshly that perpetrators of similar crimes.
Example one: Two guys get into a fistfight after a night of rowdy drinking. One fighter goes to the hospital for stitches.
Example two: A guy gets drunk and beats the crap out of his pregnant wife, injuring the wife and endangering the pregnancy.
Which is the more heinous? Assume the same number of punches are thrown, with the same force. Should the law make distinctions between the victims, or not?
Steven Davis,
Rather, wanting people treated equally, seems like a fundamental concept with respect to liberty and democracy._____________________________________Posted by: Steven Davis | May 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Therein lies the problem. One group of people can say or do actions X while another group can not. Inequality.
Socially, I think the beating of the wife is much more heinous. Legally, I am not so sure. What if the wife wasn’t pregnant? Then is that less henious than the pregnant one? What is he were one race, she another? Should another tier be placed upon the crime? I DO Understand your point. And socially, I agree that beating up on a women, far more so a pregnant women, is more repugnant to me. I am just not sure the legal penalty should be different.
To continue down LJ’s thread, with the law in place, then the beating of a pregnant woman carries a higher price tag as the offender has assaulted two separate individuals.
Sol – Would that still be true though if the fetus wasn’t harmed?
Although I think SolDevVB brings up a good point, If I had been a legislature, and 3440 and 3441 already in place, I would have either tried to move away from Alexas law, or include 3440 and 3441 in the language. I think the language in the previous statutes did what Alexas law is purported to do, without all the baggage and discussion about abortion.
Sol – Would that still be true though if the fetus wasn’t harmed?Posted by: TDT | May 10, 2007 at 01:10 PM
In a word: No.
I would have either tried to move away from Alexas law, or include 3440 and 3441 in the language.Posted by: littlejohn | May 10, 2007 at 01:11 PM
Littlejohn,
Women’s rights advocates attempted to do just that, and to take it a step further to add protections for pregnant women _whether_or_not_ the fetus was damaged or the pregnancy endangered. Their attempts were shot down.
Again, I will assert that the only goal the proponents had in Alexa’s Law was to statutorily declare a fetus to be a “person” from the moment of fertilization. If their goal had been to protect women, they would have enacted stronger protections for women.
Alexa’s Law is about the right of an unborn baby, as a human being, to justice when assaulted, injured, or killed in a violent crime.We will also have justice for George Tiller’s continuing illegal killings of viable babies in his Wichita abortion mill.We will have justice.
Agreed in part. What is wrong with protecting the unborn?
I don’t know nor care to read about the Kansas law, but if the laws are already in place to protect women, then what is wrong with also enacting a law that protects the unborn?
I suppose Tom that the language utilized applying a fetus to human status was done for the final judgment grid and to classify the fetus as a human for criminal classification if a crime is committed against the mother.
1) The mother is attacked the fetus is too young in development and subsequently dies.2) The mother is attacked the fetus is wounded but old enough to be viable, however dies outside the womb.3) The mother is attacked and the fetus is viable outside of the womb.4) The mother is attacked and the fetus is viable, but suffers grievous injury.
My guess here is that the language had to be so stated that if a fetus is developmentally mature enough to be viable, then classification of human status would naturally follow.
The other scenario is that a fetus not normally viable outside the wound but is mortally wounded needs protection by the court system to become viable. Any act of violence against a pregnant female that ceases the life of the fetus would eliminate the chance at viability of being human and therefore be classified as a homicide.
The slippery slope as you and others seem to point is that viability potential or not classifying the fetus as human threatens the status of current abortion laws.
The aforementioned Alexa’s Law appears to have for now, an exclusionary clause that handles the abortion instance. I think that using an exclusionary clause of this particular law to charge physicians and/or mothers would not be seen from the court as justification to reverse current laws on abortion.
The main reason is that once you remove the exclusionary clause from the main body of inclusion, then it no longer becomes exclusionary.
At least that’s my take on it.
Perhaps Vaughn Tolle and GMC, others might want to weigh in with some precedent.
Sol,
In the process of enacting Alexa’s Law, the Legislature _repealed_ two laws protecting women. KSA 21-3440 and 21-3441.
OK, on one hand, what makes a woman any different than anyone else abused?
On the other hand, as a man, I feel that women deserve and should expect protection.
I won’t post on this thread anymore as I am not familiar with Kansas law. I am, however, happy to hear that an unborn person is being identified as that; a person. I hope that the rights of these people are protected as much as if not more than the women that carry them.
Y’all have a blessed evening.
Republican,
What’s the point you’re trying to make?
You posted 2062 (pre-CCR) upthread. In the plain language of the bill you posted, it defines an unborn child as a person *from the moment of fertization.* There’s no test for viability.
”Unborn child” means a living individual organism of thespecies homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth.”
Sol,
Pregnant women are far more at risk of violence than women who are not pregnant. The further along in their pregnancies they are, the more vulnerable they are, and the less able they are to actively defend themselves from an attacker. The law should absolutely make distinctions regarding violence against pregnant women. That’s what the law is *for* – to protect the vulnerable from those who would harm them.
Agreed then. Protect them both. Damn it I lied. Ok THIS is my last post on this thread ;->
That’s right Tom, the law removes the status of viability and classifies them as humans. I was giving my own thoughts of how the law came about.
One will eventually have to argue the constitutionality of the Alexa Law, I was just getting a head start. :D
As I see it, opponents of the law have to challenge the status of the fetus as provided currently. And they would have to challenge the protection of the fetus human.
It was artfully crafted, so unless something or someone challenges the law that can defeat the new fetal status and the protection status, a long row will need to be tilled (no pun intended.)
I based my premise on the partial birth abortion law concerning that the fetus in its viability status can be classified as a human child if it is removed completely from the birth canal. i.e. is why abortionists leave the head of the viable fetus in the birth canal to avoid prosecution.
Removing the uterus as a protection for “lawfulness” in the equation concerning Alexa’s law eliminates the need for the classification of viability under any circumstance of fetal development.
Sorry Tom,just thinking out loud.
Boy did I pick the wrong day to ignore this blog!! Thanks Tom!
The right already places more value on the fetus than the mother. Let them have their way and soon if a mother has a miscarriage then she will be locked up. Call it the faulty reproductive act. Just give them time, its coming.
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has placed unprecedented restrictions on who can testify before Congress, reserving the right to bar lower-ranking officers, enlisted soldiers, and career bureaucrats from appearing before oversight committees or having their remarks transcribed, according to Defense Department documents……………..Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress see the move as a blatant attempt to bog down investigations of the war. But veterans of the legislative process — who say they have never heard of such guidelines before — maintain that the Pentagon has no authority to set such ground rules.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/10/pentagon_restricting_testimony_in_congress/?page=1
More corruption from the Bush administration:
http://www.kansas.com/519/story/66340.html
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department is reviewing an audit that found hundreds of millions of dollars have been improperly paid to a student loan company, House Education Committee Chairman George Miller said Thursday.
Miller, D-Calif., made the review public during a hearing in which he pressed Education Secretary Margaret Spellings on her decision to ignore a recommendation by her department’s inspector general, John Higgins, to recover an estimated $278 million. It’s the IG’s audit that Justice is reviewing
Tom thank you so much for carrying the torch for women while I was sleeping.
What part of this do the others not understand? I get it from Sol and Parkay who want to see abortion overturned anyway…but for the rational people, they just don’t seem to get it at all.
I don’t care who you are, beating a pregnant woman is more heinous than beating up a guy at a bar.Violence in pregnancy is a huge problem. Violence against women is a huge problem. And injury to a pregnant woman was just repealed by this law. All it does it protect the fetus, where the previous law protected the woman.
Nice job.
They had a story on NPR about how women being abused usually won’t leave to a shelter or to get help because of pets that they leave behind and the fear that the abuser will do something to their pets, because most often, just like any abuser they threaten to do harm or kill their pets.
I was just reading the KS Criminal code to see how Alexa’s law would affect it and thought about this.
21-3412 – “Battery is…intentionally causing physical contact with another person when done in a rude, insulting or angry manner”Alexa’s law expands ‘person’ to include fetus.
If a man ‘pokes’ a fetus while having sex with a pregnant woman, he would be committing illegal battery against the fetus.
If you touch a pregnant woman’s belly and the fetus (or maybe the woman) felt it was rude, you would have committed battery against said fetus.
I wish laws would be thought through a little more
Brian,
The proponents _did_ think this through. Their intent was to define a fetus as a “person” in state statute. Nothing more, nothing less. They used Chelsea Brooks family’s grief to push their agenda.
Good point Tom.
Restated:I wish the general public would think about the ramifications of laws like this before supporting them.
Kansas supports Bush. Here’s an example of “What’s the matter with Kansas” :House passes $3.5 bln farm disaster aid 1 hour, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill offering $3.5 billion in disaster aid to farmers and ranchers on Thursday despite a threat by the White House to veto the package.
ADVERTISEMENTRepresentatives passed the bill, 302-120. Backers said the disaster bill was long-overdue assistance for crop and livestock losses that occurred since 2005.
“This is the unfinished business” from when Republicans controlled the House, said Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio (news, bio, voting record). Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson (news, bio, voting record) said the disaster package had the tightest rules ever on an aid package.
A few hours earlier, the White House pledged a veto of the bill on grounds that it was not needed when there already was a generous safety net in place for farmers.
“Due to the excessive nonemergency spending it contains, if this legislation were presented to the president, he would veto it,” the White House said in a statement on the disaster bill.
Along with $3.5 billion in disaster aid, the bill offered money for fighting wildfires in the West and support for rural counties.
Farm-state lawmakers have pursued disaster aid since the fall of 2005. There have been droughts in the Plains and parts of the Midwest and just this year, cattle-killing blizzards in the Rockies and crop freezes in California and Kansas.
The disaster aid bill was passed shortly after the House passed an Iraq war funds bill that President George W. Bush has promised to veto because it only provides enough money to continue combat for the next two or three months without a guarantee of future funding.
Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey (news, bio, voting record) said a separate vote was taken on disaster aid “to demonstrate to the president there is support in both parties” for the aid. The disaster bill was expected to be combined later with the Iraq funding bill.
For its part, the White House said offsets should be required for the spending in the bill, which it said did not qualify for emergency status. It said the farm economy is strong and crop subsidies and crop insurance provides “a generous safety net.”
The major elements of the bill were:
–$3.5 billion for crop and livestock losses since 2005.
–$31 million to extend the Milk Income Loss Contract subsidy for one month. The White House said the provision would cost $2.4 billion over the next decade by changing the budget formulas for farm subsidies.
–$500 million for fighting wildfires.
–$425 million for payments to schools in the West.
–$60 million for payments to salmon fishers in the Klamath River basin of the U.S. Northwest.
Poke a fetus by having sex with a pregnant woman?
LOL!
Ole!