Klobuchar bill condemning Tiller murder faces GOP opposition

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://minnesotaindependent.com/37518/klobuchar-bill-condemning-tiller-murder-faces-gop-opposition

In a joint statement, Klobuchar, Boxer and Sheehan said they will not compromise on the wording saying, “condemning violence against women’s health care providers and agreeing not to use violence as a means of resolving differences are not objectionable viewpoints.”

The U.S. House unanimously passed a watered-down version on June 9 which condemned the murder of Tiller but also a half-dozen other murders that occurred in places of worship. It did not mention Tiller’s profession, the reason he was murdered or the terms “abortion” or “reproductive rights.”

[Details]

Oh, this is an excellent bill. Let's see who is on the side of the murderers and terrorists, and who is not. The House sure showed it's weakness.

[Carol25]

What a waste of time! What this really boils down to is:

condemning violence against women’s health care providers and agreeing not to use violence as a means of resolving differences are not objectionable viewpoints.”

Is this all they have to do with all the problems we have today????
:scared:

Is there a contest for who can think up the most bills in Congress and the win a freetrip on Airforce One around the World or something? :angry:

[beattherap]

Maybe I'm not reading this right but the bill does not state it is for "reproductive healthcare re: abortion" it just says reproductive healthcare which is not abortion specific. Did I miss something? :confused:
the resolution mentions tiller specifically and mentions a history of violence against providers of reproductive health care...

i don't think they're talking about nutrition counseling, exercise, sonograms, etc...

the resolution's about abortion.

imfo.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Isn't there already a law against murder? Do we really need a separate law against each and every type or target?

I imagine, any moment, we will hear about a resolution saying killing people at a holocaust museum is objectionable.

[LisaM22]

wow, can you believe the GOP, they have lost it

[LisaM22]

I imagine, any moment, we will hear about a resolution saying killing people at a holocaust museum is objectionable.

do you think the GOP would say it is not objectionable? these are common sense resolutions, there should not even be a fight about this

[LisaM22]

What a waste of time! What this really boils down to is:

condemning violence against women’s health care providers and agreeing not to use violence as a means of resolving differences are not objectionable viewpoints.”

Is this all they have to do with all the problems we have today????
:scared:

Is there a contest for who can think up the most bills in Congress and the win a freetrip on Airforce One around the World or something? :angry:


the waste of time is to fight it, how pathetic of the GOP, you think the GOP would have better things to do then defend these killings

[LisaM22]

The point is... do we need a law against murdering an abortion doctor in addition to the law against murder in general?

this is not a new law against it, this is just a resolution condemning the violence and killings, why would anyone defend the violence and killing?

[Tracian]

What exactly would this bill do in regards to keeping clinics and providers safer? I didn't see much offered in regards to the link as to what this bill would accomplish.

TIA

[LisaM22]

What exactly would this bill do in regards to keeping clinics and providers safer? I didn't see much offered in regards to the link as to what this bill would accomplish.

TIA

it sends a message that this terrorism will not be tolerated

[Details]

Isn't there already a law against murder? Do we really need a separate law against each and every type or target?Apparently we need something, since this simple and obvious statement is being objected to by the GOP, and the House had to go for something even more watered down.

This, however, is not a law - simply a resolution saying that murder and terrorism as a means of resolving differences is wrong, and condemning violence against all reproductive healthcare workers (and that is correct - it's not just abortion these clinics provide, but those who endorse violence - murder, bombing, the routine vandalism and threats they get continually don't really differentiate much). And apparently the GOP disagrees that this is wrong. That's quite the statement.

[Details]

What a waste of time! What this really boils down to is:

condemning violence against women’s health care providers and agreeing not to use violence as a means of resolving differences are not objectionable viewpoints.”

Is this all they have to do with all the problems we have today????
:scared:

Is there a contest for who can think up the most bills in Congress and the win a freetrip on Airforce One around the World or something? :angry:You have a problem with those goals? This is NOT a pointless bill - especially considering that the GOP is finding it difficult to endorse even this seemingly common sense statement.

[Details]

I find this resolution as a backdoor attempt to legitimize the late term abortions that Tiller was performing. It is much less about him being killed than to say what he was doing was something we should support.

If I were a senator, I wouldn't play into this either. I can't speak for their reasons, but this would be mine.
mooThere's no need to legitimize what Doctor Tiller was doing - it was entirely legal. Even after a politically motivated fishing case, 41 charges in court, it was found that what he was doing was entirely legal. That not guilty judgment, IMO, was what spawned this murder, frustration that they couldn't manage to 'get' him, that the 12 jury members agreed that Tiller was working entirely within the quite strict and rigorous laws on late term abortions.

This is no loose law - late term abortions are only allowed - in general and in particular where Tiller practiced - for extremely serious and tragic reasons - dead or dying babies, mothers who will die and cannot carry to viability, etc. They tried to get him on it. 12 good Kansas jurors (not known for their liberal views) found him not guilty on every single charge.

[Tracian]

it sends a message that this terrorism will not be tolerated

A message without teeth is not much more than lip service. Does it add enhancements in regards to sentencing?

[Carol25]

do you think the GOP would say it is not objectionable? these are common sense resolutions, there should not even be a fight about this
Then the days would be filled with "common sense" resolutions and no fruitful laws would get passed! That's the common sense of this.

[Details]

Then the days would be filled with "common sense" resolutions and no fruitful laws would get passed! That's the common sense of this.I'd say this resolution is very fruitful. We get to find out which of our representatives think murder and terrorism is justified if someone doesn't like a particular legal activity. I think that's one of the most important things I could know about a politician I might or might not vote for.

The other reason for this is again - to tell the terrorists out there, and the terrorists supporters, that they do not represent the views of America - important because they often are sitting in an echo chamber where they convince themselves that we're all sitting here waiting for them to take action - we're all secretly on their side. The GOP is reinforcing that belief right now. This resolution - if the GOP stops blocking it - would tell them the opposite was in fact true, that we're on the side of people who are living their lives within the law and are murdered for that.

[LisaM22]

A message without teeth is not much more than lip service. Does it add enhancements in regards to sentencing?

the message the GOP is sending is they support this terrorism, it sends a message to these quacks that the gop supports them

[LisaM22]

I'd say this resolution is very fruitful. We get to find out which of our representatives think murder and terrorism is justified if someone doesn't like a particular legal activity. I think that's one of the most important things I could know about a politician I might or might not vote for.

The other reason for this is again - to tell the terrorists out there, and the terrorists supporters, that they do not represent the views of America - important because they often are sitting in an echo chamber where they convince themselves that we're all sitting here waiting for them to take action - we're all secretly on their side. The GOP is reinforcing that belief right now. This resolution - if the GOP stops blocking it - would tell them the opposite was in fact true, that we're on the side of people who are living their lives within the law and are murdered for that.

exactly...

[LisaM22]

Just quoting because your post deserves a repeat and just in case some missed the facts.
it just amazes me that they are not supporting this, totally shows the fanatics have taken over the GOP

[Tracian]

the message the GOP is sending is they support this terrorism, it sends a message to these quacks that the gop supports them

I disagree. That is a rather blanketed statement. My objection is that it is a bill that states the obvious. If there is no enhancement to sentence of those guilty of such crimes, so basically, so far as I see IMO, it is just a fluff piece of legislation that serves no real purpose.

[Details]

I disagree. That is a rather blanketed statement. My objection is that it is a bill that states the obvious. If there is no enhancement to sentence of those guilty of such crimes, so basically, so far as I see IMO, it is just a fluff piece of legislation that serves no real purpose.It shows us who will and will not condemn murder and terrorism. If this little statement cannot be passed - how do you expect anything with any teeth to have the remotest chance?

[Tracian]

It shows us who will and will not condemn murder and terrorism. If this little statement cannot be passed - how do you expect anything with any teeth to have the remotest chance?


I still think it is fluff legistation, it is not going to amount to anything, but to divide the country once again.

Now, if it was going to provide longer prison terms, then it would be worth the debate. This is lip service, which is a waste of time.

[LisaM22]

I disagree. That is a rather blanketed statement. My objection is that it is a bill that states the obvious. If there is no enhancement to sentence of those guilty of such crimes, so basically, so far as I see IMO, it is just a fluff piece of legislation that serves no real purpose.

I disagree, you and I both know exactly why the GOP is against this and it has nothing to do with the excuses you are trying to make for them right now - the pro-life fanatics approve of this mans actions and they do not want to condemn him, simple as that

[beattherap]

I disagree, you and I both know exactly why the GOP is against this and it has nothing to do with the excuses you are trying to make for them right now - the pro-life fanatics approve of this mans actions and they do not want to condemn him, simple as that
the house gop doesn't count ?... the house resolution condeming the murder of tiller was approved unanimously... the house kept abortion out of its resolution.

imfo.

[Details]

the house gop doesn't count ?... the house resolution condeming the murder of tiller was approved unanimously... the house kept abortion out of its resolution.

imfo.The House resolution listed a bunch of people killed at churches - wasn't about the principle of not murdering people as a method of changing the laws - it was just "aww, let's not kill people at churches."

They kept everything with meaning out of their resolution, because the idea of "Don't kill people because you disagree with the laws" was apparently too hot to handle.

[lunchlady]

The bill doesn't say much, except to endorse laws that already exist but haven't been fully enforced. But that doesn't seem to be why the GOP is opposing it.
The GOP is running scared and is afraid to lose The Base, but where would the Base go instead? A new third party with Palin? Seems unlikely but stranger things have happened.

This is partisan politics at its finest. I interpret this to mean that the GOP won't budge one inch on abortion, not because they aren't individually more moderate but because they are too chicken to go against the party line. Well, then, phooey on them. If they can't even publicly condemn murder if it might displease some hardline Pro-Lifer then they are further hardening my heart against the GOP. I grew up in a very very GOP home, and used to be a very independent voter, but I haven't voted GOP for a pretty long time. Things like this keep me feeling that way.

[LisaM22]

The bill doesn't say much, except to endorse laws that already exist but haven't been fully enforced. But that doesn't seem to be why the GOP is opposing it.
The GOP is running scared and is afraid to lose The Base, but where would the Base go instead? A new third party with Palin? Seems unlikely but stranger things have happened.

This is partisan politics at its finest. I interpret this to mean that the GOP won't budge one inch on abortion, not because they aren't individually more moderate but because they are too chicken to go against the party line. Well, then, phooey on them. If they can't even publicly condemn murder if it might displease some hardline Pro-Lifer then they are further hardening my heart against the GOP. I grew up in a very very GOP home, and used to be a very independent voter, but I haven't voted GOP for a pretty long time. Things like this keep me feeling that way.

yep, there is no reason for them to be against this other then their fear of losing votes from the crazies that endorse these kinda killings

[LisaM22]

"The President’s statement on murder of Dr. Tiller"

http://malarkynews.com/2009/05/the-presidents-statement-on-murder-of-dr-tiller/

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

[beattherap]

No, it doesn't. It says that the Republicans didn't support the language in the bill that they felt glorified the abortion industry. If the language would have been toned down to only include condemning the murder, the votes would have probably been there.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09062301.html

i'd vote against it because it Doesn't mention abortion... take these sections---

Whereas there is a history of violence against providers of reproductive health care, as health care employees have suffered threats and hostility in order to provide crucial services to patients;

Whereas the threat or use of force or physical obstruction has been used to injure, intimidate, or interfere with individuals seeking to obtain or provide health care services; and...

imo, that way overstates the prevalence of violence against 'health care providers'... just say 'abortion providers'...

i don't like putting 'physical obstruction' in there... physical obstruction has a long history as part of protest and civil disobedience here and elsewhere... it shouldn't be part of a murder, violence resolution.

imfo.

[doctor_J]

I still think it is fluff legistation, it is not going to amount to anything, but to divide the country once again.

Now, if it was going to provide longer prison terms, then it would be worth the debate. This is lip service, which is a waste of time.

I agree.

There may be no reason for the GOP to oppose except as some have stated (to oppose all things abortion), but there was also no reason for the bill to be drafted to begin with other than to promote the Dems party line. Murder is already illegal and receives our harshest punishment. Why not draft a bill condemning the murder of museum security guards who die trying to save lives? Why not draft a new bill each time and officer dies in the line of duty, or a fireman? Both sides are just pushing their agenda and wasting taxpayer money by wasting their time.

[LisaM22]

the GOP is basically saying they support home grown terrorism by not supporting this imo

they had a chance to prove republicans did not support this terrorism and they just could not do it, shows where they stand imo

[LisaM22]

"Homegrown terrorism a greater threat to Americans"

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005126498

[lunchlady]

Yes, "reproductive health care" includes abortions, as it should IMO, including reasonably easy access to late term abortion. The Tiller murder has encouraged people I know to start telling stories, such as my friend's sister who discovered that the 24 week fetus inside her had almost no brain, no liver, and I don't remember what else. She was able to have a late term abortion without a lot of fuss because of who and where her doctor was, but more and more women aren't so well positioned.

To me abortions are a normal part of medical care, like back surgery and whatever. The patient has to evaluate their own situation, with the care providers' assistance. The people who provide medical care shouldn't be targets of violence, for their sake as well as the people they serve.

[LisaM22]

"Palin Is Not Sure Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Terrorists"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4rxEIWQyDU

[beattherap]

Yes, "reproductive health care" includes abortions, as it should IMO, including reasonably easy access to late term abortion. The Tiller murder has encouraged people I know to start telling stories, such as my friend's sister who discovered that the 24 week fetus inside her had almost no brain, no liver, and I don't remember what else. She was able to have a late term abortion without a lot of fuss because of who and where her doctor was, but more and more women aren't so well positioned.

To me abortions are a normal part of medical care, like back surgery and whatever. The patient has to evaluate their own situation, with the care providers' assistance. The people who provide medical care shouldn't be targets of violence, for their sake as well as the people they serve.

exactly... abortions are a normal part of medical care, like removing an infected tooth, or a wart... http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_adam.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcnszSzcont entzSzadamfullzSzadam_encyzSz2zSz9575zPzhtm...

i missed all the reports of violence against back surgeons, ob-gyn's, neurologists, etc.

imo.

[lunchlady]

exactly... abortions are a normal part of medical care, like removing an infected tooth, or a wart... http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_adam.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcnszSzcont entzSzadamfullzSzadam_encyzSz2zSz9575zPzhtm...

i missed all the reports of violence against back surgeons, ob-gyn's, neurologists, etc.

imo.

Can't tell if you're agreeing with me or being sarcastic..... BTW abortions are usually done by ob-gyns.

IMO violence towards and obstruction of abortion services is as unacceptable as doing the same for brain surgery or plastic surgery.

I don't approve of most plastic surgery, as most of it is not medically necessary and I think its pushing our society in the wrong direction. Its making celebrities harder and harder to look at and take seriously. The standard of "beauty" produced by all that plastic surgery, working out, makeup, and Photoshopping is making a lot of normal women (and men) insecure and miserable. Entertainers who don't look good enough have a huge handicap in spite of talent. Girls growing up in this era are having a harder time than ever feeling okay about their appearance. The potential for complications and future re-dos is not emphasized enough. Normal aging and sagging is becoming a sign of slovenliness and low status. And IMO all that emphasis on appearance has further impoverished the quality of our news reporting and intellectual content of our so-called entertainment.
But in spite of all that I'm not going to be picketing at the huge new Aesthetic Center opening near here. And the plastic surgeons are smiling in the paper like rock stars, the glamor boys and girls of the AMA.

[lunchlady]

"Palin Is Not Sure Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Terrorists"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4rxEIWQyDU

Ah, yes. Thanx for reminding us of this moment. Seems pretty pertinent here.
IMO a terrorist is someone who uses strategic violence to produce fear which produces the results desired by the terrorist. Sounds just like Roeder and those like him, especially since the clinic in Wichita is now closed and Operation Rescue is doing a victory dance around the building.
OR can disavow Roeder all they like, but he felt he was the one to the do the job of "absolutely stopping" Tiller and he had the phone number of an OR bigwig on his dash board.

[LisaM22]

Ah, yes. Thanx for reminding us of this moment. Seems pretty pertinent here.
IMO a terrorist is someone who uses strategic violence to produce fear which produces the results desired by the terrorist. Sounds just like Roeder and those like him, especially since the clinic in Wichita is now closed and Operation Rescue is doing a victory dance around the building.
OR can disavow Roeder all they like, but he felt he was the one to the do the job of "absolutely stopping" Tiller and he had the phone number of an OR bigwig on his dash board.

yep, sad isn't it, not sure what republicans are thinking these days, Abe must be turning in his grave

[momof6]

And Tiller was not a terrorist? He terrorized babies and tore them apart or burned them alive.

I do not condone his murder.

[LisaM22]

Ann speaks on Tillers Murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woHB8qCDVv4&feature=related

"I don’t really like to think of it as a murder"

:shrug:

[lunchlady]

And Tiller was not a terrorist? He terrorized babies and tore them apart or burned them alive.

I do not condone his murder.

No, he wasn't. He was a doctor doing a legal procedure, however some may feel about it.

I'm glad you don't condone his murder.

[lunchlady]

Ann speaks on Tillers Murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woHB8qCDVv4&feature=related

"I don’t really like to think of it as a murder"

:shrug:

Oh, Ann, always so clever and controversial. She had to outdo Bill in her hardcoreness. Whatever.
I guess she thinks Roeder is an okay guy, or on equal moral footing with Tiller. Is that her point?

[LisaM22]

Oh, Ann, always so clever and controversial. She had to outdo Bill in her hardcoreness. Whatever.
I guess she thinks Roeder is an okay guy, or on equal moral footing with Tiller. Is that her point?

yep, remember when she attacked single mothers, almost like she expected them to get abortions or something if they were not gonna have a man in their life

[lunchlady]

yep, remember when she attacked single mothers, almost like she expected them to get abortions or something if they were not gonna have a man in their life

I haven't forgotten. :rolleyes: Ann clearly doesn't approve of abortion but she doesn't approve of single mothers either. I guess she expects all those wayward women to not get pregnant in the first place, or find a husband quick, and keep their husband from leaving them etc. etc.

It hasn't escaped me that Ann is chronically single and shows no sign of becoming a mother. I would guess that she has no aspirations for that sort of thing either.

[lunchlady]

Not getting pregnant in the first place, would be a start.....

It sure would. So let's fund sex ed, birth control access and use, encourage all females to look out for themselves, and encourage males of all ages to think its totally uncool to have sex with any female if they aren't willing and able to help raise and support any offspring produced. That's sure not what's going on right now. "Abstinence only" just isn't going to cut it because people of all ages and beliefs are so lousy at it, which is too bad because it would solve the additional problems of STDs and pregnancies due to birth control failure.

Any anti-abortion man shouldn't even THINK about having sexual relations with a woman unless he and/or his family is willing and able to take full responsibility for any children produced from the moment of birth, if he isn't interested in spending the next twenty years or so sharing a household with the mother. Otherwise its right back to the idea that babies are the woman's problem, which really boils my blood.

[lunchlady]

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=9309dc4e-a792-473b-a99b-d64e1df51c29

Bill blocked in the Senate. When will Franken be seated finally? Its been over 7 months since the election.

[Tracian]

Does anyone have a link to the bill in total? Sorry if I missed it.


TIA

[Briar]

If there was a bill approving a short trip to every childish GOP leader to Guantanamo that is playing the opposite game with the President they would for it if he objected to it.

[lunchlady]

You should not have to have a formal education to prevent pregnancy. IMO, anyone who has an "unwanted pregnancy" in 2009, has failed.

Grrrrrrr. By "formal education" do you mean sex ed in the schools? Health education includes sex ed and covers all sorts of useful information. I think its great to have an accurate and comprehensive version of information about sex presented to kids. In spite of all the other forms of information kids come with incredible misconceptions. A lot of parents still feel uncomfortable talking about sex, except to give general disapproval, but that really leaves kids in the lurch as they navigate today's world.

What do you mean by "failed"? Made the mistake of having anything do with men?

[lunchlady]

Grrrrrrr. By "formal education" do you mean sex ed in the schools? Health education includes sex ed and covers all sorts of useful information. I think its great to have an accurate and comprehensive version of information about sex presented to kids. In spite of all the other forms of information kids come with incredible misconceptions. A lot of parents still feel uncomfortable talking about sex, except to give general disapproval, but that really leaves kids in the lurch as they navigate today's world.

What do you mean by "failed"? Made the mistake of having anything do with men?

Bolding mine.

Just curious......So any woman who has anything to do with a man, has failed? In that what you're insinuating?:blink:

I was trying to imagine what posterguy5 meant by "failed" if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.

That pushes a big red button for me, because it makes it sound like its all the woman's fault that she ends up being pregnant and not being thrilled and prepared.
Such a position discounts male irresponsibility, birth control failure, and the strong tendency for all people to engage in sexual activity whatever their social position. Girls and women have sex for all sorts of reasons, not all of them good or pleasant, and they get more than half of the blame for the consequences. I think what posterguy5 meant is that women who have unwanted pregnancies failed to keep their legs closed.

So the only way for a woman to make absolutely sure that she doesn't end up having an unwanted pregnancy is to not have sexual relations with men at all, unless she is totally prepared and married and so on. Just like what was expected of a virtuous woman in the so-called good old days, except that a married woman would keep having children until nature no longer provided them for her. It wasn't that long ago that many married woman had a dozen or more children.

I know its pretty pointless to argue with folks who are anti-sex ed, anti-abortion, anti-birth control. What they really are against is sexual activity in general, with even stricter rules for women.

[lunchlady]

[QUOTE=lunchlady;13232018]


Not a bad post, but I still fail to see why you made the comment. Just curious again. Sounds to me like you're castigating men. Which is as ludicrous as PG's comment, imo.

????????? I'm married and like men in general. I grew up as a tomboy and have always had male and female friends. The only men I want to castigate are those who are IMO anti-woman.

But I'm very sensitive about some of the inequities between men and women. Especially sexual politics, the double standard, and the economics of motherhood. The "good old days" included a lot of bad things for women, and some people would like to see those days return.
My own mother has recently been telling about her multiple close calls for rape and incest, all occurring before she was 18 and all unreported. It didn't even occur to her back then she could do anything about it, because it was all so hush hush and she felt like the incidents were her fault somehow.

I suppose I made too provocative of a statement without fully explaining myself, but don't let it make you think I'm a manhater or a lesbian separatist.

[lunchlady]

I'm realizing that I'm getting way too off-topic and will now get off my soapbox.

[LisaM22]

You should not have to have a formal education to prevent pregnancy. IMO, anyone who has an "unwanted pregnancy" in 2009, has failed.

we have many types of birth control, though some pharmacies do not like to prescribe them even though a doctor prescribed them sadly and sometimes that leads to an abortion

[LisaM22]

Exactly! What an obscene waste of time. Trying to lyonize an abortion doctor through legislation while our economy crumbles and the unemployment rate skyrockets. Why don't we just enact laws everytime someone we like is murdered or just dies...where is the Farrah Faucett law, denouncing rectal cancer, or the Billy Mays legislation denouncing heart issues?

Talk about bread and circuses!

IMO

are you defending terrorists now?

[aproudmom]

http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3

Abortion provider shooting suspect hearing