# The Texas  Filibuster



## granfire (Jun 28, 2013)

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/opinion/waldman-texas-abortion-filibuster/index.html

After reading about this in a different setting, I wondered why it has not been brought up here, since so many of us are so vehemently for what it's right in the political arena.

it has been suggested that a great many things were not right, and probably outright illegal in the procedings brought forth by Gov. Perry as he called for a special session to push his agenda through. I mean, really? Does nobody smell the rotten fish when he pushes to have his controversial ideas pushed though after hours, so he won't need the normal 2/3 majority, but a simple one will suffice? 

And then there is the matter of the time stamp on the video footage, which many people claim has been altered. After all, time was of the essence to push this through. And attempts to derail the filibuster with equally fishy means.
And here is really what I find amusing: Seems that not even the so called liberal media centers have picked up on these irregularities....MSn was quiet, you knew Fox would not mention it.


and then there is the gentlemanly attack from Gov. Perry on Wendy Davies, on a very personal level...

And the liberal media? <Crickets>


----------



## arnisador (Jun 28, 2013)

granfire said:


> And then there is the matter of the time stamp on the video footage, which many people claim has been altered.



How embarrassing.

Good for Wendy Davis--an inspiration--but sadly it looks like it'll all be for naught. Even when the law is overturned some of those clinics won't come back.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2013)

arnisador said:


> How embarrassing.
> 
> Good for Wendy Davis--an inspiration--but sadly it looks like it'll all be for naught. Even when the law is overturned some of those clinics won't come back.



It has been shelved, until Perry can schedule another special session.


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

And here is the media bias...since the media ignored the horror story of kermit gosnell and his murdering of babies, which lead to this move in Texas, and puts into context what they were trying to do...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...-Arent-Reporting-on-Texas-Abortion-Filibuster



> Anyone familiar with our media knows what the Media Narrative is here -- all about gender politics, "reproductive rights," and any other buzzword that can be utilized to place Wendy Davis astride a white horse, and her political opponents grunting away in that Neanderthal cave known as Texas.
> Naturally, though, most of the national media are ignoring any pertinent facts inconvenient to their agenda. Here are five of them:
> *1. The Texas Bill will Make Abortion Safer:*
> 
> ...In truth, clinics would close only if they failed to meet new safety standards that have been drawn in response to the horror stories in Philadelphia and Houston. The new rules, as summarized by the Texas Alliance for Life, would have &#8220;increase[d] abortion facility safety standards to the level of ambulatory surgical centers to shut down Gosnell-like abortion providers in Texas,&#8221; &#8220;require[d] the 18,000 RU-486 abortions performed each year be done according to FDA safety standards,&#8221; and &#8220;require[d] physicians who perform abortions to be qualified to treat life-threatening complications after botched abortions and have privileges at a local hospital.&#8221;





> *3. A Majority of American Women Back the Ban:* Davis also obstructed the will of American women, who support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks at a higher percentage than men, 50% to 44%.





> *4. A Huge Majority of Texans Back the Ban:* Davis obstructed the will of Texans; almost two-thirds (62%)  of whom  favor this ban on abortion after 20 weeks.


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

This article contains a video showing exactly what Gov. Perry said about the woman who filibustered...saying that all life is important and even children born in difficult situations can thrive...noting the woman who filibustered was born to a single mother, and was herself a teenage mother...and both she and her children have thrived...yeah...some attack...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...ell-snarks-on-rick-perry-pulling-sandra-fluke

But hey, let's let the democrat/government/obama media lead the attack on Perry...by not actually covering what he actually said...


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

> 3. A Majority of American Women Back the Ban: Davis also obstructed the will of American women, who support a ban on abortion after 20 weeks at a higher percentage than men, 50% to 44%.





> 4. A Huge Majority of Texans Back the Ban: Davis obstructed the will of Texans; almost two-thirds (62%) of whom favor this ban on abortion after 20 weeks.



Sooo...you can say Gov. Perry was trying to pass a bill that the majority of his state supports, and she was blocking the will of the people...something that isn't interesting to the democrat/government/obama media...


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2013)

billc said:


> Sooo...you can say Gov. Perry was trying to pass a bill that the majority of his state supports, and she was blocking the will of the people...something that isn't interesting to the democrat/government/obama media...



The bill is really not as much the issue. Except maybe that you ought to just man up and eat your crow, since your favorite whipping boys the 'liberal' media aren't covering it, although according to your playbook they should be all over it.
Then get seconds because your favorite entertainment channel is not all over this for all the violations of procedure that happened there!

Apparently it is not the will of the people, since the man has to resort to all kinds of underhanded tactics to get his way, to circumvent the proper procedures of his state, he has sworn loyalty to! 

I understand you prefer your woman barefoot in the kitchen and pregnant. 
But I am rather disappointed in you, good sir, that the political shenanigans do not outrage you!


Something else about this:
https://www.facebook.com/karsten.school/posts/10201197222879976




> *The  senate was recalled 90 minutes after its midnight end point, to  determine whether or not the vote was valid- behind closed doors with no  microphones, and only the Senate's own muted camera. Then something  disturbing happened. The senate website carries the official record of  the caucus. It listed the vote as happening past midnight, on June 26th.  Until suddenly it didn't. The date was quietly manually changed to  6/25, the minutes altered to say the vote happened at 11:59, despite  almost 200,000 people watching live who saw differently. Suddenly  twitter and other social media sites blew up with before-and-after  screen shots. Inside the closed sessions, the democrats were made aware  of the alterations and brought them up- without social media, almost no  one would have known, and never in time. Ultimately, based on the  fraudulent alterations, the GOP conceded defeat, admitting the vote had  taken place at 12:03, and declaring the bill to be dead. When this  happened, the AP and CBS said the vote was overturned, never admitting  to shoddy journalism. CNN ignored the story until this morning, because  muffins take priority.*




oops....


(could not find the link at first)
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...theyre-pro-violence-anti-women-and-anti-poor/


> The Religious Right is Not Pro-Life &#8212; They&#8217;re Pro-Violence, Anti-Women and Anti-Poor
> June 28, 2013 By jasdye 7 Comments
> 
> First, it&#8217;s important to note that the proper use of labels matters  because words and how we use them matter. It is not appropriate that  much of the anti-abortion movement(s) uses the term &#8220;pro-life&#8221; when they  are only signifying saving the life of the pre-born from an abortion,  and maybe perhaps the prolonging the life of those on life support. That  is not pro-life, for their definition of life is severely limited. Even  the life of the mother is suspect. Within the anti-abortion factions of  Protestantism, the so-called pro-life movement seems to not give a  flying rip about the lives of convicted criminals (pro-death penalty),  of civilians and soldiers (pro-war), and often of the poor in the Third  World or domestically (anti-poor). It doesn&#8217;t give a care to the concern  of poor women, even as they are carrying the sacred pre-born  (pro-shame, anti-health care). Nor does it seem to care for the victims  of their favored Gunstianity (pro-guns, pro-violence). In fact, if the  Evangelical anti-abortion movement is anything besides anti-abortion,  it&#8217;s pro-violence. I don&#8217;t see how any of it is consistently anything  but chaotic control.
> ...



not exactly new, is it. But so revealing.

I know, I know... left wing nutter....


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 28, 2013)

I greatly admire the job that Wendy Davis did in her filibuster. We don't mention Texas politics much because the vast majority of Texans are pretty embarrassed by it. We understand that Rick Perry is a walking comedy sketch. We understand that Texas politics is mainly about who has bought who. The religious right is very powerful in Texas because they're big business here and can throw a lot of money around. I've only heard from one person here in Texas that was upset that that bill didn't pass, and she was only upset because her minister told her she should be. She didn't even know the content of the bill.


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

> 4. A Huge Majority of Texans Back the Ban: Davis obstructed the will of Texans; almost two-thirds (62%) of whom favor this ban on abortion after 20 weeks.


....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2013)

Gov. Perry ....saying that all life  is important and even children born in difficult situations can  thrive...meanwhile Texas executed it's 500ths inmate.
The irony was lost on Perry.

He'd get along great with Cuomo...they use similar means to pass personal agenda's.  Perry will call as many special sessions as he can until he gets what he wants I suspect.


----------



## K-man (Jun 28, 2013)

billc said:


> 4. A Huge Majority of Texans Back the Ban: Davis obstructed the will of Texans; almost two-thirds (62%) of whom favor this ban on abortion after 20 weeks.
> 
> ....


According to who? I did find it on breibart with absolutely no references to back any figures claimed.


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

A little context to the execution of the serial murderer in Texas...a lot different than fighting to limit the killing of unborn children...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...y-executed-texas-500-execution_n_3506550.html



> McCarthy, 52, was executed for the 1997 robbery, beating and fatal stabbing of retired college psychology professor Dorothy Booth. Booth had agreed to give McCarthy a cup of sugar before she was attacked with a butcher knife and candelabra at her home in Lancaster, about 15 miles south of Dallas. Authorities say McCarthy cut off Booth's finger to remove her wedding ring.
> 
> 
> It was among three slayings linked to McCarthy, a former nursing home therapist who became addicted to crack cocaine.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Gov. Perry ....saying that all life  is important and even children born in difficult situations can  thrive...meanwhile Texas executed it's 500ths inmate.
> The irony was lost on Perry.
> 
> He'd get along great with Cuomo...they use similar means to pass personal agenda's.  Perry will call as many special sessions as he can until he gets what he wants I suspect.



as long as this life does not starve on his doorsteps...

here is what a lady on another forum had to say:


> The idea behind pro-choice is the idea that nationally, we recognize the  idea of bodily autonomy and then somehow forget it in the one case of  abortion.
> 
> Bodily autonomy is the idea that you have the right to be in control of  your own body. It sounds like a simple concept, but it isn't especially  when concerning medical procedures. You have the right to refuse medical  treatment. You have the right to refuse to donate organs or blood or  bone marrow even if it will save a life. Parents even have the legal  right to refuse to to donate such things to their child, again even if  the child's life is in endanger.
> 
> ...



it is simply too profound not to share!
The legislation pushed by the GOP gives a woman less rights than a dead body.


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

Hmmmm...so you don't agree with mandating forced blood donations, neither do I, but you support  the ability to kill another human being who has done nothing wrong...hmmm...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2013)

How about the either stop trying to pass laws regulating womens bodies, or they just pass one to make them slaves who can't leave the house without a male escort and permission already? I hear that's popular with some folks. 

Better yet, how about only the people who can have an abortion vote on the bill?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 28, 2013)

If I have no legal interest in my child till its born then maybe men should be given the legal option to deny support. If I have no say in if she kills it, I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't want it.

A baby is not an internal organ.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Jun 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> If I have no legal interest in my child till its born then maybe men should be given the legal option to deny support. If I have no say in if she kills it, I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't want it.



Philosophically fair, but biologically complicated--and bottom line, people don't want to pay the taxes for the welfare of others' kids that'd entail--so they support child support in such cases (until it happens to them).



> A baby is not an internal organ.



A fetus is not a baby--and a woman's body is her own.

But this is about the filibuster. Great theatre but Rick Perry will win soon, then lose later (in court) on this one.


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

another floor at this action in Texas.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/texas-dems-standing-up-to-the-people-and-the-powerless/article/2532405



> Wendy Davis and her allies will paint this as a Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington moment, and sure some of that drama is there. It took real willpower to stand and talk and run out the clock. The thousands of Austinites who showed up to support her certainly feel that protecting late-term abortion is a civil rights issue.
> 
> 
> I&#8217;m going to venture a guess here, though. I think that from the perspective of a few decades from now, Wendy Davis&#8217;s filibuster isn&#8217;t going to look so pretty.
> ...


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

Here is a source for the poll information...

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/20/uttt-poll-texans-favor-ban-late-term-abortions/



> The poll split a question about abortions after 20 weeks &#8212; an effort to see whether talking in the context of fetal pain changed the responses of Texas voters. It didn&#8217;t: 62 percent said they would support &#8220;prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks based on the argument that a fetus can feel pain at that point,&#8221; and that same percentage said they support &#8220;prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks.&#8221; Nearly half &#8212; 49 percent in the first question and 47 percent in the second &#8212; said they would strongly support those prohibitions.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 28, 2013)

The nerve of legislators doing what their constituents want them to do...
I wish CA had some like that.
Edited to add:
Crap, we do, I wish there were fewer morons in CA.


----------



## billc (Jun 28, 2013)

> How about the either stop trying to pass laws regulating womens bodies, or they just pass one to make them slaves who can't leave the house without a male escort and permission already? I hear that's popular with some folks.



Well, first they aren't trying to regulate women's bodies, just trying to save the babies body.  Second, the people who don't want people regulating women's bodies seem more than happy to allow women to regulate/destroy the babies body...considering the one lasts for 9 months and the other is permanent...which one is more " regulating?"


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2013)

Just out of curiosity....how many laws regulating what men can do with their bodies are pending?  I heard that a few hundred laws regulating women had passed this year, but 0 for men. Doesn't seem right.  But women are second class citizens right?

I'm not going to argue fetus=alive or fetus=baby. I'll let others get emotional etc. I posted my view on this once, and that's the only time I'll get into that.

But, you're right...it's not an internal organ. It's also not a self-sufficient life form.  I think it was Carlin who said that the GOP was only interested in them until they were born, then could care less until they were old enough to enlist and ship overseas to expand their business interests....I'm all for 'sanctity of life', but my dogs fixed, my cats are fixed, and I know quite a few people who should be.  Mostly democrats, a few republicans, and 1 green party member to be exact.  lol

I think Arni's right here.  Perry will bully his way, then waste tens of thousands of tax payers money defending something that will ultimately fail at the high court level.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2013)

billc said:


> Well, first they aren't trying to regulate women's bodies, just trying to save the babies body.  Second, the people who don't want people regulating women's bodies seem more than happy to allow women to regulate/destroy the babies body...considering the one lasts for 9 months and the other is permanent...which one is more " regulating?"





> *Republicans Push 700 New Laws to Regulate Women's Bodies*
> 
> April 12, 2013
> 
> ...



Supposedly in the Texas case, there were 26 amendments that were not discussed and Republican legislators ram-rodded the bill through the Texas House. 





> Governor Rick Perry imposed a 30-day 'special session' to advance the bill that temporarily suspends normal legislative rules, making it easier to steamroll efforts to block the bill from within the government and across Texas.
> The special session was imposed after the bill failed in regular session, and SB 5 supporters are rushing to push it through before the session expires.
> After passing the House, the bill will next go to the Senate. The governor is expected to enthusiastically sign the sweeping bill into law if it makes it to his desk.
> "The bills Perry hopes to pass through the special session were too extreme to pass during the regular session," declared Busby. "It is a shame that our state leadership prioritizes the regulation of women's bodies over the pressing needs of Texans."


http://mobile.zcommunications.org/i...ing-anti-choice-bill-advances-by-sarah-lazare

Like I said. He and Cuomo would get along great.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 28, 2013)

But I guess the Texas GOP is ok with back alley bloody coat hangers and women dying as a result, long as they can pat themselves on the backs and strut in oversized hats.   Are there any sane states in the US anymore?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 28, 2013)

billc said:


> the people who don't want people regulating women's bodies seem more than happy to allow women to regulate/destroy the babies body...considering the one lasts for 9 months and the other is permanent...which one is more " regulating?"



The point is that the woman involved gets to choose--not you.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Just out of curiosity....how many laws regulating what men can do with their bodies are pending?  I heard that a few hundred laws regulating women had passed this year, but 0 for men. Doesn't seem right.  But women are second class citizens right?
> 
> I'm not going to argue fetus=alive or fetus=baby. I'll let others get emotional etc. I posted my view on this once, and that's the only time I'll get into that.
> 
> ...



at least it isn't Sharia law....

thanks for doing my dirty work, BTW...


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> If I have no legal interest in my child till its born then maybe men should be given the legal option to deny support. If I have no say in if she kills it, I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't want it.
> 
> A baby is not an internal organ.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



well, as it stands, men deny choice, so they have to pony up the cash.

BTW, making a baby takes two. carrying takes one. And the price is much higher than a few bucks every month. 

But that's beside the point.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 29, 2013)

granfire said:


> well, as it stands, men deny choice, so they have to pony up the cash.
> 
> BTW, making a baby takes two. carrying takes one. And the price is much higher than a few bucks every month.
> 
> But that's beside the point.



There are plenty of pro life women...so spare me the "men deny choice" hype.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Drasken (Jun 30, 2013)

First off, as a Texan, I must say that Perry is an idiot. I did not vote for him. I believe we could have done better electing a trained, yet brain damaged, chimp rather than this man.

Also, I see the argument against abortion. But I also see many problems with the overall argument. For example, access to birth control and teaching actual use of such methods instead of this abstinance only BS. Grow a brain, and a spine, be a responsible adult and teach this to kids. Otherwise shut up about things like the immorality of teen abortion or abortion in general. News flash, if women have to fight to get any form of effective birth control, they will get pregnant. If they don't want it, it will be aborted. Whether by a medical professional trained for such, or by a coat hanger in their bathroom.

Now, I am not one who supports abortion of a fetus capable of surviving outside the womb. That is murder. Early term abortion within first 10 weeks is certainly preferable if that is the only option.
And yes, we should have clean and well equipped clinics. But many of these regulations exist already. And many, if not most clinics already follow these regulations. This bill is more about nitpicking small issues that really sound good to the uneducated or easilyh manipulated. However it is underhanded tactics to force many clinics to shut down in order to be up to code. Now there is nothing unsafe about most of these clinics, but they know forcing them to close down for minor insignifigant things mean many won't be able to continue operation.
And I must point out as others have, the underhanded way they are doing this is JUST LIKE what was just pulled for the passing of anti gun laws, among others. Why is it ok if YOUR side does it? The answer is that it isn't. Even if I agree with content (and I don't, 99% that I know here don't either) I completely disagree with the process. It's not ok, no matter which side is doing it.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

Hmm, that pose looks somewhat familiar...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 30, 2013)

Let's hope they stay energized!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Let's hope they stay energized!





> Earth, Hilter, 1944


Captain Kirk


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 30, 2013)

They'll be Republicans then .

Can't care less which political party they are but I too thought that, Don .


----------



## arnisador (Jun 30, 2013)

Is the point that all forms of political movement lead to Nazi dictatorships? I don't follow,


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

Here we have a group of democrats fighting for abortion, which disproportionally affects minorities, kinda the way the Nazis targeted minorities...
The same way Margret Sanger targeted minorities...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Here we have a group of democrats fighting for abortion, which disproportionally affects minorities, kinda the way the Nazis targeted minorities...



Wow.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Wow.



Yeah, an honest recitation of indisputable fact is great isn't it?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Here we have a group of democrats fighting for  abortion, which disproportionally affects minorities, kinda the way the  Nazis targeted minorities...





Big Don said:


> Yeah, an honest recitation of indisputable fact is great isn't it?



It's an indisputable fact, you're saying, that the Democratic Party is targeting minorities much as Hitler did?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It's an indisputable fact, you're saying, that the Democratic Party is targeting minorities much as Hitler did?





No, but, nice try. I'm saying minorities get abortions at a far higher rate, just as Sanger, the other Eugenicists and Nazis liked.


----------



## granfire (Jun 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Here we have a group of democrats fighting for abortion, which disproportionally affects minorities, kinda the way the Nazis targeted minorities...
> The same way Margret Sanger targeted minorities...



so it excuses the right using Nazi tactic in pushing their agenda through?
okies....


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> so it excuses the right using Nazi tactic in pushing their agenda through?
> okies....



What Nazi tactic is that?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> I'm saying minorities get abortions at a far higher rate, just as Sanger, the other Eugenicists and Nazis liked.



What's your point, then?


----------



## granfire (Jun 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> What Nazi tactic is that?



Bending the process to get the desired outcome.

Did you not pay attention?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

granfire said:


> Bending the process to get the desired outcome.
> 
> Did you not pay attention?



Oh, using common parliamentary tactics is nazi like. OK...
Even by that (idiotic) standard, I'd say it is better to use Nazi tactics than to espouse Nazi goals.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 30, 2013)

arnisador said:


> What's your point, then?



That the DNC is the modern heir to Nazism, Margret Sanger and Eugenics doesn't bother you?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 30, 2013)

Big Don said:


> That the DNC is the modern heir to Nazism, Margret Sanger and Eugenics doesn't bother you?



You're really off the deep end.


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Oh, using common parliamentary tactics is nazi like. OK...
> Even by that (idiotic) standard, I'd say it is better to use Nazi tactics than to espouse Nazi goals.



Aside from the childish personal attack, how do you figure that?

Oh, I am sure the Nazis saw it your way, since they figured the end justifies the means. 
Oh, no wait, that's your point, right.

Sanger - isn't she dead? 
Anyhow, tell me how it isn't Nazi goals to demean part of  the population, to deprive hem of their legal rights....

Means or goals, neither means a thing if you can't legally obtain it. 

But I am astonished to say the least, that you, as defender of all that is just against undue influence are not outraged about the blatant abuse of the system. 

Oh well, at least when the women die from back alley abortions, their bodily autonomy is reinstated....


----------



## crushing (Jul 1, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Hmm, that pose looks somewhat familiar...




It should.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 1, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Oh, using common parliamentary tactics is nazi like. OK...
> Even by that (idiotic) standard, I'd say it is better to use Nazi tactics than to espouse Nazi goals.



Manually changing the time stamp so the vote looked legal is only common parliamentary tactics for idiots like Perry and his cronies. Unfortunately, idiots like Perry covers the vast majority of the GOP.


----------



## aedrasteia (Jul 1, 2013)

An armed woman is a free woman.
S​EXPAND







you're welcome.


----------



## billc (Jul 1, 2013)

As to the time stamp change...

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/ruling-says-time-stamp-was-correctly-changed/nYXqf/



> In a statement, officials with the Legislative Reference Library &#8212; the office in charge of the online listings &#8212; said the change was nothing more than correcting an error. It said TLO listings are always preliminary until they are made official after Senate and House records are verified.
> &#8220;When the Senate took its final actions on SB 5, the LRL floor staff was unable to hear the motions made or the result of votes taken,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;After midnight the LRL floor staff confirmed that a vote was taken on the motion to concur in House amendments and that the motion prevailed. The system used to enter actions for TLO defaults to the current date, so when the concurrence action was initially entered, the system automatically entered 06/26/13.&#8221;
> The statement continued: &#8220;In reviewing the actions initially entered by LRL staff, and based on our best understanding at that time that a vote was taken on the motion to concur, we modified the date of the action to 06/25/13. During or after the senate&#8217;s deliberations on SB5, LRL did not enter or alter any information on TLO at the direction of any Senate officer or member.&#8221;
> &#8220;After confirming the date of the final vote on SB5 to have been 06/25/2013, the LRL has now corrected the entry on TLO to reflect the official record.&#8221;
> Officials said actions taken by either legislative chamber are entered and updated in the TLO system manually by the library staff &#8220;and for that reason there is a delay between the time the action takes place and the time the action is entered into TLO.





> &#8220;TLO is not the official record of those actions, and LRL enters actions on TLO as a public service independently of the officers of the House or Senate,&#8221; the statement said.
> The statement also said that &#8220;the LRL strives to ensure the information in TLO is timely and accurate, and as part of our normal business process, the LRL ultimately verifies actions posted in TLO against the official journals of the Senate and House. TLO actions should be considered preliminary until verified against official Senate and House records.&#8221;


----------



## billc (Jul 2, 2013)

This is from Kirsten Powers, a liberal, liberal democrat, who is a contributer to the Fox News cable network...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/02/kirsten-powers-i-don-t-stand-with-wendy-davis.html




> It&#8217;s amazing what is considered heroism these days.
> 
> 
> A Texas legislator and her pink sneakers have been lionized for an eleventh-hour filibuster against a bill that would have made it illegal  for mothers to abort babies past 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the  case of severe fetal abnormalities or to protect the life or health of  the mother.
> ...





> In addition to the limit on  late-term abortions, the Texas legislature sought to pass regulations on  abortion clinics similar to what was passed in Pennsylvania in 2011  after the Gosnell horror. _The New York Times_ warned that the Texas bill &#8220;could lead to the closing of most of Texas&#8217;s 42 abortion clinics.&#8221; That sounds familiar. In 2011, the Pennsylvania ACLU claimed  a post-Gosnell bill &#8220;would effectively close most and maybe all of the  independent abortion clinics in Pennsylvania.&#8221; Last month, a Pennsylvania news site reported that &#8220;several&#8221; abortion clinics have closed, which isn&#8217;t quite the Armageddon the abortion-rights movement predicted.






> So no, I don&#8217;t stand with Wendy. Nor do most women, as it turns out. According to a June _National Journal_ poll, 50 percent of women support, and 43 percent oppose, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape and incest.





> Gallup reported in January  that 80 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the  third trimester, and 64 percent think it should be illegal in the second  trimester.





> If the majority of Americans oppose  elective late-term abortion, why do we have Davis complaining to CBS&#8217;s  Bob Schieffer that the male politicians who are championing the  late-term abortion ban are &#8220;bullying women&#8221;? Maybe it&#8217;s she who is  bullying the rest of us into supporting a view that is mocked by  scientific advancement; namely 3-D sonograms. Maybe we should be  thankful for the men and wonder what is wrong with the women who think  protecting the right to abort your baby for any reason up to the 26th  week is a &#8220;human right.&#8221;
> 
> 
> Human-rights  movements have traditionally existed to help the voiceless and those  without agency gain progressively more rights. Yet in the case of  abortion, the voiceless have progressively lost rights at the hands of  people who claim to be human-rights crusaders. Abortion-rights leaders  have turned the world upside down.  They want us to believe that a grown woman is voiceless, that she has  less agency than the infant in her womb who relies on her for life.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 2, 2013)

billc said:


> This is from Kirsten Powers, a liberal, liberal democrat, who is a contributer to the Fox News cable network...



Hmmmm...one of these things i not like the other.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 2, 2013)

Texas SB5 is about late term abortion in the same way that the Civil War was about slavery.


----------



## granfire (Jul 2, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> Texas SB5 is about late term abortion in the same way that the Civil War was about slavery.



Blasphemer!


----------



## Drasken (Jul 2, 2013)

Really. See, clinics here won't perform a late term abortion unless there is something wrong. At least usually. My friend's ex wife, I had mentioned her previously in another thread about abortion, she was told by a doctor with no morals that the abortion she wanted was not possible because it was at 24 weeks. Then he claimed she wouldn't be able to carry the child to term, a claim all in all that was false and she had no pain or symptoms to back it up. But the abortion happened anyway.

The problem is not the regulations. Or the qualifications of the staff. It is that the agencies tasked with enforcing these regulations are nowhere to be found. You can't enforce the laws when you never set foot in the place. The paperwork can be manipulated, and often will be, by people breaking the law and covering their tracks.
The laws they talk about passing are BS. I have seen clinics first hand. They are cleaner than most hospitals I have visited. The regulations they speak of placing are generally just time consuming and expensive.
Why do this? To force a clinic, which gets no government funding and is struggling to stay open, to close their doors.

What gets me, is that these same tactics of secret meetings, pushing through bills that haven't even been fully read and discussed, all of it. It has been done before. For gun legislation and Obamacare and the like. And people like Bill rose up against it and the immoral and illegal activities used by the officials to push their agenda.
But now that it is something these people agree with, it's all ok?
I don't care if I agree with the laws in question here or not. This whole thing is disgusting. And the worst part? You guys still can't see the blinders you have on.

Wake up already guys, you're smarter than this.


----------



## billc (Jul 2, 2013)

To tell you the truth I haven't followed this story that much.  I will say that I won't trust the account of the democrats, or their members in the media, to tell the truth about how this event actually happened...and accusations of secret deals, time code changes...I'll wait till someone more neutral tells the story.  The democrat/government/obama media, can't stand Rick Perry, Texas, and they don't like pro-life supporters and they will do everything they can to support abortion, on demand for any reason.  So any details from those groups are automatically suspect in my mind.   How do I know this...the I.R.S. was used as tool by the democrats against conservative groups, including pro-life groups...so before I get animated about the legislative process in Texas...I have to know what the process is supposed to be, and I would prefer to hear it from a neutral source.

I'm all for doing things by the declared rules, so if something was done that violated the rules...I'm against it...with the belief that both sides need to obey those rules.  If one side breaks them...I don't see much of a choice but to follow the new rules they apparently want to follow instead.   The democrats are willing to use the agencies of the federal government as weapons against Republicans and Conservative groups...are those  supposed to sit there and just say..."okay."  You win, we'll waste our time trying to follow the Byzantine system to get you guys to obey the rules you are supposed to be following, while you guys continue to cheat.  Especially when the Department responsible for investigating these things...is controlled by eric holder...


----------



## Drasken (Jul 2, 2013)

billc said:


> To tell you the truth I haven't followed this story that much.  I will say that I won't trust the account of the democrats, or their members in the media, to tell the truth about how this event actually happened...and accusations of secret deals, time code changes...I'll wait till someone more neutral tells the story.  The democrat/government/obama media, can't stand Rick Perry, Texas, and they don't like pro-life supporters and they will do everything they can to support abortion, on demand for any reason.  So any details from those groups are automatically suspect in my mind.   How do I know this...the I.R.S. was used as tool by the democrats against conservative groups, including pro-life groups...so before I get animated about the legislative process in Texas...I have to know what the process is supposed to be, and I would prefer to hear it from a neutral source.
> 
> I'm all for doing things by the declared rules, so if something was done that violated the rules...I'm against it...with the belief that both sides need to obey those rules.  If one side breaks them...I don't see much of a choice but to follow the new rules they apparently want to follow instead.   The democrats are willing to use the agencies of the federal government as weapons against Republicans and Conservative groups...are those  supposed to sit there and just say..."okay."  You win, we'll waste our time trying to follow the Byzantine system to get you guys to obey the rules you are supposed to be following, while you guys continue to cheat.  Especially when the Department responsible for investigating these things...is controlled by eric holder...



Well Bill, it goes both ways. You see, either side will demonize the other in order to gain ground. But when the Democrats did something, you used conservative media in most of your quotes. Yet now you want a neutral party to report. It's odd that you don't see what's happening here.
Like I said, I can agree with either side if the arguments made are logical. And I trust neither party. You are so anti democrat that you are supporting Perry. And trust me, the most conservative man I know here in Texas even says he's an idiot. Not only that, but you are setting aside your morals and beliefs about doing things by the law to support him. It doesn't matter if we agree with the agenda. I disagree with his methods. And to say a neutral party has to report on it? There IS no neutral party bill. The media takes one side or the other. You can't claim a neutral party when the whole nation is so far into left or right that nobody sees the middle ground anymore.
And it's sad that we have once again started the game of showing evidence of something and listening to the other side basically repeatedly saying "nuh uh" until nobody cares anymore.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 2, 2013)

billc said:


> I would prefer to hear it from a neutral source.



Breitbart?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 2, 2013)

This is George Carling, so you know the language will be offensive ... so don't watch it if that will upset you or if your political blinkers are so welded on you can never have an independently intelligent thought.  

The clips not about the abortion issue, it's about the whole screwed up system that has people like Don and Bill thinking it makes a 'happoth of difference which 'party' is technically running the show:

[video=youtube_share;Yi6XV8yBFoU]http://youtu.be/Yi6XV8yBFoU[/video]


----------



## billc (Jul 2, 2013)

I believe I said...



> more neutral



And...if you notice...I didn't quote from any of the conservative sources on exactly what happened as far as the vote went, I went to a Texas newspaper site to do it, (for the time stamp accusation )  so yes, a more neutral reporting agency would get my attention as far as exactly what happened and wether it was fair or unfair, proper or improper...and the regular news sources are too biased to be of help.

I would have to look overseas, probably to get a source that wasn't immediately biased in favor of the pro-abortion side vs. the pro-life side.  Perhaps Canada, or Mianmar...


----------



## arnisador (Jul 2, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Well...in general OK, but w.r.t. abortion it really does make a difference...


----------



## Drasken (Jul 2, 2013)

billc said:


> I believe I said...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem is that in general, Texas news IS right wing.

Once again, it isn't the issue of abortion. It is the issue of what their methods are on pushing their agenda. They cover up the real issue with talk of this abortion doctor that, if reports are indeed correct, broke the law. They also throw out late term abortion as the cause they are fighting against. Why do they do this? Because it's what we call spin.
If they listed everything they really are doing, well they might lose a lot of support. It is the same crap that anti gun legislators have done. And I can not in good conscience not call them out when at the same time going after anti gun legislation and the whole Obamacare issue.
Think about it. You don't ever have a lobbyist or legislator get up and talk about what is really going on. That would insure a signifigant drop in public support.

Now, we have numbers stating that women overwhelmingly support these laws right? Well I wonder if they support it all, or is it the more likely scenario that they are against late term abortion? These people generally don't know what they are supporting because the media, lobbyists and legislators spin the issue really well. Just like they claim people overwhelmingly are against guns. But from what I've seen lately it seems people are against mass shootings, not guns.

That's the point. Their methods are immoral. And the vast majority of people just eat it upband allow these immoral "leaders" to do the thinking for them. Now there IS a growing number of people that are no longer happy living that way, and this is a good thing. Now more people want to know the content of the bills being passed. Are not happy with secret meetings to pass these laws.
So while I do disagree with aborting a fetus that could live on its own, and I disagree with dirty and medically unsafe clinics. The point is that the pieces of legislature they're spinning for the public, well there are regulations already in effect to solve these issues. But it's all the BS under it that they are really fighting hard to pass. And they're fighting just as hard to do it before anyone realizes what they're really trying to do. And THAT sir, is unforgivable. I don't care which party is doing it.


----------

