Fuck you, Texas Republicans

[Kokopilau]

@Bricker

But that was a rather critical 15 minutes, wasn’t it?

Would you have been as appreciative if the law already existed, and this legislative effort was trying to repeal it, but was stopped by pro-life activists shouting down the vote for the crucial fifteen minutes?

And how do you feel about the Republicans trying to illegitimately stop the filibuster, and then trying to lie on official records about the timing of the vote?

[Ludovic]

@Kokopilau

And how do you feel about the Republicans trying to illegitimately stop the filibuster, and then trying to lie on official records about the timing of the vote?

I’m afraid we’re going to have to assume that that was legal until we get an official ruling from the Supreme Court.

[Bricker]

@Kokopilau

And how do you feel about the Republicans trying to illegitimately stop the filibuster, and then trying to lie on official records about the timing of the vote?

I haven’t studied the rules of the Texas legislature nearly well enough to judge the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the attempts to stop the filibuster. From what I have heard thirdhand, they seem defensible, but I’m absolutely open to learning that this is untrue.

I assume they stopped the clock as a reaction to the shouting, in the same way that an NFL ref might order time put back on the game clock to rectify an error, and I have no idea what, if any, precedent there is for such a move.

So in short: I have no opinion. I’d form an opinion based on knowledge of those factors.

[Bricker]

Because your question made me curious, I did a quick search.

Texas’ legislative FAQ:

Can members filibuster legislation?
In Texas, a filibuster is allowed only in the Senate. A filibuster occurs when one senator holds the floor through talking or long speeches, without sitting down or leaving the vicinity of the senator’s desk. Although the primary purpose of a filibuster is usually to kill a bill, sometimes this is also done to reach a compromise or to delay a vote as long as possible. The filibuster must be on topic; the bill may be read but irrelevant books (i.e. a telephone book) may not be read.

Can you explain what methods were used to attempt to stop the filibuster that went beyond what’s mentioned in the quote?

[bup]

@Bricker

I agree – this is a most curious contradiction. Killing a human being is a terrible thing for a government to do, and it’s especially disturbing to see the claim that Texas values “all life” juxtaposed with their abysmal record on executions.

I favor the Texas move on abortion. I strongly despise the Texas position on capital punishment.

I wonder if you think it’s hypocritical that those of us who think abortion should be legal and are against capital punishment feel that way.

Of course, lots of moderate Dems are *for *capital punishment, but I’m all the way against it. I’m not all excited about abortion - I think it should be as Clinton expressed: “safe, legal, and rare.” It’s more about not being able to disentangle the mother’s rights from the embryo/fetus’s for me. But I am anti-execution and tolerant of abortion.

Still, do conservatives by and large see pro-choice/anti-capital punishment as hypocritical, the way we delight in pointing out Perry’s unintended irony? I don’t see why they wouldn’t.

[Bricker]

Further research:

The Senate’s Rules. (PDF)

The Editorial Notes that appear below Rule 4.03 seem to be relevant. As I understand it, in 1935, a similar situation arose:

The point of order having been raised for the third time that a Senator who had the floor was filibustering and not confining his remarks to the bill before the Senate, the chair requested the Senate to vote on the point of order. It was sustained and the Senator speaking yielded the floor (44 S.J. Reg. 1780 (1935)).

and

A digression by a Senator in his speech on a pending amendment to another subject does not ban his resuming and continuing a germane discussion of the amendment (50 S.J. Reg. 417 (1947)).

A second digression by a Senator on the floor from a discussion of the pending amendment does not necessarily prevent his resuming and continuing a germane discussion of the amendment (50 S.J. Reg. 418 (1947)).

Raising of a third point of order against further debate by a Senator on the floor who has digressed for a third time from a discussion of the pending amendment, after having been twice requested to confine his debate to the amendment, justifies the presiding officer in calling for a vote by the Senate on the question of whether or not he shall be permitted to resume and continue his remarks (50 S.J. Reg. 418 (1947)).

So again I’d ask what was done in violation of the rules?

[Bricker]

@bup

Still, do conservatives by and large see pro-choice/anti-capital punishment as hypocritical, the way we delight in pointing out Perry’s unintended irony? I don’t see why they wouldn’t.

I imagine many do. At least I suspect they view it as unintentional hypocriscy.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…Would you have been as appreciative if the law already existed, and this legislative effort was trying to repeal it, but was stopped by pro-life activists shouting down the vote for the crucial fifteen minutes?

Everybody come see the liberal hypocrisy!

We really need to get you a liberal hypocrisy frownie for Bricker Appreciation Day, save you a lot of typing.

[Karrius]

Isn’t it amazing how “Altered time stamps online without giving any explanation or even admitting they did it” is equivalent to stopping a clock in a football game?

[Bricker]

@Karrius

Isn’t it amazing how “Altered time stamps online without giving any explanation or even admitting they did it” is equivalent to stopping a clock in a football game?

No, it’s not particularly amazing. The analogy is a strong one, I think. The purpose of the time limit in both cases is identical. The time limit is itself an arbitrary one, but its existence is important because the lack of any definable time limit would be unworkable.

At the same time, there’s a recognition that certain external events should not be counted against that time limit.

The “without giving any explanation” business is different, of course, but I assume that’s because ultimately they chose not to pursue that remedy. Since the clock stopping was then a nullity, there was no further reason to address it.

What aspects of it do you find amazing?

ETA: A similar manoeuver in Illinois.

[Bricker]

A whole Wiki article on the practice.

[elucidator]

“Amazing” is used here in a tone of irony, I suspect. Given that the Texas Republicans would sell their mothers into bondage for the slightest political advantage, almost nothing they could do would really count as “amazing”, outside of honesty, integrity or a sense of justice. Any of those would indeed be amazing, as well as a fairly clear sign of the End Times.

[Feyrat]

@sylmar

Indeed Bricker. ALL life is SACRED.

Every time your wife exudes a living, unfertilized egg cell it’s MURDER!

Better get busy Bub… Texas has the express lane for murderers.

Not to get too into the abortion debate, but the whole “the fetus feels pain at 20 weeks!” thing… who cares?

Seriously, since when do human beings give a crap about non-sapient life feeling pain?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

You don’t believe anyone has a soul, I take it?

Yeah, I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren’t wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this “soul” does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.

[Bricker]

@Feyrat

Not to get too into the abortion debate, but the whole “the fetus feels pain at 20 weeks!” thing… who cares?

Seriously, since when do human beings give a crap about non-sapient life feeling pain?

Since pro-lifers regard the entity in question as a human life, I would ask the question as, “Since when do we humans care about other humans feeling pain?” and I would answer it is follows: “Since forever, although not as often and as deeply as we should.”

[Bricker]

@BrainGlutton

Yeah, I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren’t wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this “soul” does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.

OK.

I disagree.

Except about #1. I own a nice fedora, myself.

[elucidator]

But what about the rule of law? Did the relevant rule read “midnight” or did it read “approximately midnight, or thereabouts, depending on the perceived advantage available to the Republican Party”?

[Mr.Miskatonic]

A very conservative friend of mine last night is appalled that the person who changed the timestamp isn’t up on charges. I am inclined to agree.

[Feyrat]

@Bricker

Since pro-lifers regard the entity in question as a human life, I would ask the question as, “Since when do we humans care about other humans feeling pain?” and I would answer it is follows: “Since forever, although not as often and as deeply as we should.”

It’s a human life, sure. But the question is, how does the pain sensing of a non-sapient life form, even if you ID it as human, outweigh the pain of the adult sapient human being involved?

Not to even bring up the many, many, many not-so-distant past cases of human being not giving even a tiny flying fuck about human pain. I mean, we don’t even have to go back to slavery or the way we treat prisoners of war, we can just look at whoever the last raped woman or assaulted person was. Humanity in general gives no fucks about the pain of other humans, let alone non-human life.

[EverwonderWhy]

@Bricker

Because that nine months of misery is going to save a human life.

So would mandatory organ/blood/tissue donation, but we don’t legally mandate that now do we? We don’t mandate it of corpses who are already dead and no longer even need there body parts! Not even to save a human life.

No born person’s right to life entitles them access to another person’s body in order to survive. You are trying to bestow rights on a fertilized egg that no born person even has. Unacceptable.

@Bricker

But that was a rather critical 15 minutes, wasn’t it?

Would you have been as appreciative if the law already existed, and this legislative effort was trying to repeal it, but was stopped by pro-life activists shouting down the vote for the crucial fifteen minutes?

If pro-choice activists or any political party of which I was a member had calculatingly called a special session to advance controversial legislation in order to circumvent the public debate, the 2/3 majority rule, and shut down a filibuster on points that were absolutely germane - even if the activists were the WBC - I would agree with the outcry.

Hopefully now there is time to bring more attention to what is in the actual bill. Since Texas Republican’s care nothing about sound medical science or women’s health (despite their ignorant patronizing claims), bringing awareness to the public may put pressure on these ignorant zealots.

Statement by the Texas Division of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Key Points of Opposition:

Fetal Pain: No credible scientific evidence exists of fetal pain perception pre-viability. The medical profession produced a rigorous scientific review of evidence on fetal pain in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2005. Fetal perception of pain is not confirmed prior to the 3rd trimester. Perception of pain is only confirmed after viability.

Fetal Viability: Most obstetrician-gynecologists understand fetal viability as occurring near 24 weeks gestation utilizing LMP dating. Supporters of fetal pain present misleading evidence about fetal viability (especially in using post-fertilization age, instead of LMP dating) and falsely implying high survival rates among neonates that are overwhelmingly pre-viable.

Fetal Anomalies: Many fetal anomalies can be diagnosed before 20 weeks; others are not diagnosed until around 20 weeks. CSSB 5 provides an inadequate exception for “severe fetal abnormalities.” This exception puts into statute how a doctor should exercise medical judgment and interferes with the private nature of deciding what to do when a fetus has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality.

Life of the Mother: SB 5/HB 60 fails to entirely protect women for whom pregnancy poses serious health risks. By requiring doctors to wait until a woman faces immediate injury or death, indefensibly jeopardizes a patient’s health. Instead doctors are forced to compromise patient health by waiting until a woman’s condition deteriorates and becomes life threatening or severely debilitating.

SB 5/HB 60 weakens standards of care and patient safety:

[quote]

[ul]
[li]CSSB 5 would require a woman to come to an Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) to take a pill for a medical abortion. She would then have to return a second time to the ASC to be watched taking the 2nd pill within the next 24-48 hours.[/li][li]Requiring a woman to physically come in to take a 2nd dose increases the risk of her not being able to return—this increases the chance for hemorrhage, blood transfusion, and emergent D&C.[/li]

[li]Women outside of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin will have to travel long distances to find a clinic that meets ASC regulations.[/ul][/li][/quote]

Texas-ACOG opposes unnecessary requirements that may be extremely difficult and in some cases impossible to meet, without a basis in public health or safety.

[ul]
[li]SB 5/HB 60 places an unacceptable level of control over the doctor-patient relationship in the hands of the legislature, essentially allowing the legislature to practice medicine.[/li]*** * Since some members of the legislature think rape kits are abortions and other such nonsense - this is particularly horrifying***
[li]Late term abortions (16 weeks and later) are already required to be provided at a facility licensed as an Ambulatory Surgical Center[/li][li]Ectopic pregnancies are frequently treated in outpatient facilities and physician office settings—SB 5/HB 60 may prevent doctors from treating cases as they normally would.[/li][li]Ectopic pregnancies must be reported to DSHS as emergency abortions; this could result in physicians losing exemption from abortion facility licensing requirement.[/li][li]SB 5/HB 60 requires hospital admitting privileges for physicians performing an outpatient procedure that bears low risk. No other outpatient procedure requires a physician to have active admitting privileges in a hospital within a specific distance.[/li][li]A physician may have active admitting privileges, but not within a 30 mile radius. This is especially problematic for rural areas where hospitals are scarce.[/li][li]Not all hospitals may meet the requirement of providing “obstetrical or gynecological health care service.” There is not a special designation for hospitals providing OB/GYN services. This provision is vague and could have extensive consequences.[/li][li]Criminally penalizing physicians for performing a legal procedure is inappropriate and prevents physicians from exercising medical judgment in order to treat their patient as they see fit.[/li][/ul]

*Emphasis Mine