# News Congress begins attack on women's right to choose

1. Nov 20, 2004

### Tsu

Last edited: Nov 20, 2004
2. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
I'd like to see the actual bill if you have a link, but all this says is that you cannot deny funding to a doctor that refuses to perform an abortion for conscience reasons. Currently, we have that exemption for Catholic doctors and this extends the exemption to all doctors. I'm not too sure what your objection is. You want to uphold a woman's right to choose, but you don't want to give the doctor a choice?

3. Nov 20, 2004

### Tsu

I have no problem with allowing physicians to choose whether or not to provide abortions to their patients. That is surely their right. What I do have a problem with is having this slipped into a giant omnibus bill without going through committee. It's just another sneaky, sleezy way that they are using to try force their morals and beliefs upon the public. This is just the beginning of loosing a rather large pantload of hard-won civil rights.

p.s.
No. I don't have a link to the actual bill itself. If you want to read it - well, that's what Google is for.

4. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
If you're willing to take the times' portrayal of the language, I suppose I'll trust it as well. I still don't see what the problem is here. Regardless of how it was introduced, do you really take issue with a bill that says you cannot take away a doctors funding just because he refused to perform an abortion?

5. Nov 20, 2004

### Tsu

Did you read what I wrote in my response to you? You are obviously not seeing the greater implication here. Sorry you don't 'get it'.

6. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
I read it. I just don't agree with you that giving doctors the right to choose whether or not they want to perform an abortion is forcing morals upon anybody. In fact, I think the opposite would be.

7. Nov 20, 2004

### Tsu

Well, I guess I say again that YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!! I said I have NO PROBLEM with that. I said that what I do have a problem with is them slipping it into a giant omnibus bill (tucked away) and not passing it through committee (PROPER channels - ya know????!!! Democractic PROCESS???!!!!HELLOOOOO!!!).

8. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
You also said this, and I'm saying that I don't think allowing doctors the right to choose is an imposing of morality on anyone. I certainly wouldn't characterize it as sleazy or sneaky. If your only objection is that it was piggybacked onto another bill, then I guess you must have a huge problem with congress in general, as that practice is extremely common.

9. Nov 20, 2004

### Tsu

Again, you just don't 'get it'. Go back to sleep.

10. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/recarch/98rs/6460.htm

Here, I found a list of piggybacked bills in the Kentucky legislature from the year 1998. I haven't looked through all of them, but the ones I have looked at all increase the efficacy and funding of child welfare programs. I wonder if you think these are a sleazy undermining of democracy?

11. Nov 20, 2004

### Smurf

12. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
What the heck are you psychos talking about? Because I think it's fair to allow doctors the right to choose whether or not they want to perform an abortion I suddenly have great faith in government? If it was up to me, just about every aspect of government would either be privatized or eliminated.

13. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
By the way, there's no way in hell I'm going back to sleep. Ohio State just upset Michigan and Alabama is in the process of upsetting Auburn! What an exciting day in college football.

14. Nov 20, 2004

### Tsu

Did they go through committee to get there? My guess is - you don't know!!!If so - no problem. If not - then, yes. I DO think its a sleazy undermining of the democratic process.

15. Nov 20, 2004

### Tsu

Ah. Yes. Priorities. College football is MUCH more important than our civil liberties... Good God...

16. Nov 20, 2004

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
Most riders are added on after the bill has already gone through committee. This is really a common practice. And don't pretend that was your problem with this. The title of your thread is "Congress begins attack on women's right to choose," something that is simply not true. The title is not "Congress begins attack on committee processes," which would also not be true, as the practice is common and was begun quite some time ago. I don't personally like the use of riders, but there is no reason to single out this bill, especially when the amendment added isn't even nongermane. It's those ones that really get to me.

Jesus Tsu! Would going back to sleep really promote my civil liberties, or are you just being a little ridiculous here?

17. Nov 20, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

Careful, Tsunami - you're getting violent :rofl: . The title of your first post says nothing about the process, it says this is an attack on a woman's right to choose. This is precisely the sort of knee-jerk reaction I've talked about before and now that you see you reacted to it before you knew what the issue really was, you're lashing out.

18. Nov 20, 2004

### GENIERE

Wait one moment. You can’t make that judgment based on the few posts in this thread. I can only assume it’s the sum total of all their posts that led to your conclusion.

..

19. Nov 20, 2004

### plover

I think the relevant quote is probably Boxer's "On a huge spending bill they're writing law". Some senators, most prominently Byrd (D-WV), are already pissed enough that appropriations have ended up being funnelled into this omnibus end-of-session bill. Attaching a rider that obviously deserves debate (mostly, it seems, to keep the DeLay posse happy) to an already overloaded bill that essentially must be passed before the senate session can end seems like a good candidate for abuse of procedure to me. I say "obviously" as the provision is controversial enough to have provoked the reaction indicated by the NYT. It's not the use of riders that's upsetting, but the misuse of them.

And anything that's got the fetus über alles crowd pitching rhetoric like "government agencies [coercing] health care providers to participate in abortions" definitely needs some vetting.

In the end, however, the Times is annoyingly vague on precisely what those opposing the provision expect to happen if it is passed, so other than the procedural sliminess, it is hard to know what to make of the issue. But if this provision would have had no chance of being passed without parasitizing a do-or-die bill then it should definitely not be there.

20. Nov 20, 2004

### franznietzsche

No you don't get it.

There is nothing sleezy or wrong here. All they are doing is saying doctors don't have to do that if they choos not to. You are making crap up in your posts about this being an attempt to reduce civil rights. Its not.

PLease show me wher ein the constitution it says a woman haas the right to choose? I'm not even going to bother using anti-abortion language, because either way it is not there. That said i still don't think it should be made illegal, but thats for seperate reasons altogether.

You know what democrats tried to sneak through the legisalture in a bill limiting methane emissions from the posteriors of cows?

Free tuition for illegal aliens at public universities--thats right, giving foreign cirminals completely free education. Thats a hell of a lot worse than trying to keep doctors from being punished for excersizing their right to choose. Thats because the democrats are such upstanding citizens themselves.

You are as hypocritical as your party affiliation, and just as lacking in reason.

21. Nov 21, 2004

### Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
On this one, I have to disagree with you Tsu and go with what Loseyourname and Russ are saying. The "process" is very common in Congress. In this case, I don't think it's all that unreasonable either. Usually much worse legislation sneaks in this way...the typical "pork barrel" projects. It's always a balancing act. Try to get in as much as you can riding on a well-supported issue without making it so much that even those in favor of the original bill must vote against it because the riders have gotten out of control and do more harm than good. I don't like the practice, because I think a lot of government waste comes of it, but sometimes it's an important way to get good legislation passed...by tacking on a few pork projects that appease the borderline objectors.

22. Nov 21, 2004

In THIS particular case, there were 11,772 pieces of pork totaling $15.8 Billion. Yeah, its a big problem. 23. Nov 21, 2004 ### franznietzsche •$335,000 to protect sunflowers in North Dakota from blackbird damage.

• $60 million for a new courthouse in Las Cruces, N.M. •$225,000 to study catfish genomes at Alabama's Auburn University.

• A potential boon for Bush himself, $2 million for the government to try buying back the former presidential yacht Sequoia. The boat was sold three decades ago, and its current owners say the yacht is assessed at$9.8 million and are distressed by the provision.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

24. Nov 21, 2004

### plover

But at least it's a monument to Republican leadership...
More here...
And I'm sure granting Congressional committee chairs the power to look at the tax returns of anyone they don't like would be a spiffy idea:
Here's the text of the provision:
McCain's comment from an interview with Russert:
Most news articles seem to be reporting the original line that the language was inserted by some unknown Congressional staffer, but Frist told AP that the provision was introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK).

25. Jun 10, 2006

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday made an important decision on this.