Senator and online community wins justice

[Jeremy]

Her filibuster was ended due to 3 violations, the last being her going off topic; nowhere does it say she's a cripple.

 

[Sheldon]

nowhere does it say she's a cripple.

"Lady crip".

 

[Morgain]

Her filibuster was ended due to 3 violations, the last being her going off topic; nowhere does it say she's a cripple.

1 Violation in 11 hours presentation of evidence, was to mention the sonograph requiremnt which was a core part of the proposed law.
1 Violation was that another senator tried to help her adjust her back brace, as she was in pain. She is required to "stand unaided" - humanity might counsel leniency on adjusting a back brace.

You don't wear a back brace if you have a normal functioning spine.

 

[Jeremy]

A back brace does not make someone a cripple. I've warn a back brace, as has my mother and several friends. None of us are 'cripple'. I'd still like to see some proof she's a 'cripple'.

I worked at a fast food restaurant where I would be standing up and walking anywhere between 4-13 hours a day. Standing for that long has quite an impact on someone's back, which a back brace can help with.

 

[DBA]

A Bill was being debated on a controversial issue on Weds 25 June, However polls had made it clear that a strong majority in Texas are against the Bill.

I'd suggest that you read real news sources and not just some person ranting online on a blog. For example [legitimate] polls do not show that majority are against this bill.
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/20/uttt-poll-texans-favor-ban-late-term-abortions/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351959/yes-pro-life-laws-are-popular-texas-michael-new

A lady senator attempted to filibuster the Bill. This means she had to stand up unaided, not eat or drink, or toilet, for 11 hours as she presented evidence against the Bill. Evidence she presented was strictly assessed and if irrelevant she would lose her filibuster.

You must not understand the point of a filibuster nor how they work. If they were not required to stand continually these would go on for days/weeks. While I do not agree with what she was standing for I do respect her for standing up for it.

BTW did you hear/read about Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster earlier this year?
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-does-not-go-quietly-into-the-night/

 

[John]

She wore a back brace and had a catheter inserted to aid her in her attempt to abide by the rules of filibustering. She declined using an IV drip. All this so she could attempt to block voting to pass a bill that would restrict abortions in TX. to not being permitted after the 20th week and abortion doctors being required to have hospital admitting privileges. Not unlike the current laws in France, Germany, and the UK. In regards to the crowd and how it's being portrayed in the mainstream media, one of the left's own has an interesting take on that, too.

 

[LPH]

BTW did you hear/read about Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster earlier this year?

Comparing the Davis filibuster to Paul's filibuster is a false equivalency. They are unrelated because Paul was under a different set of rules. Texas rules require that the person not be able to yield the floor to a colleague to keep the filibuster going whereas Paul was able to yield. While some tried to compare Paul's "talking filibuster" to what Wendy Davis did in Texas, it was just a means to minimize her efforts.

 

[Sheldon]

I fail to see where he was comparing anything.... I see he asked if anyone had seen/read about it. Nothing more.

 

[DBA]

Comparing the Davis filibuster to Paul's filibuster is a false equivalency. They are unrelated because Paul was under a different set of rules. Texas rules require that the person not be able to yield the floor to a colleague to keep the filibuster going whereas Paul was able to yield. While some tried to compare Paul's "talking filibuster" to what Wendy Davis did in Texas, it was just a means to minimize her efforts.

Sorry wasn't trying to compare them and yes I failed to mention that states and federal have different rules.

However if you do wish to compare them; one major difference is that unlike Davis, Paul didn't wear a catheter, which is why he ultimately had to stop.

 

[Morgain]

... voting to pass a bill that would restrict ... Not unlike the current laws in France, Germany, and the UK.

Superficially it looks like the law is about tightening up on standards.
Realistically it's about closing 95% of clinics, making services unavailable for the majority of Texas women.

If a law is REALLY about upgrading facilities, and not about making the facilities unavailable, then it will propose a staged timetable. I've seen plenty of good law like that. Companies and organisations have say 18 months to do X and Y; then another year after that to do A and B.
This law was not framed like that because its intention was to destroy and close down, not to improve.

Texas services in this area have to battle against a fundamentalist type of opposition to exist at all.

Please note that I started this thread to comment on the extraordinary events of apparent fraud last Weds/Thurs. and how the online community had a powerful effect. I also found the courage and determination of the heroic senator of interest.
I very much did not want to drag in any discussion of the topic of the Bill , nor the inevitably heated response to the F-word. Neither of these were therefore ever mentioned by me.
I would be grateful if that restraint were respected and sustained.

 

[John]

Please note that I started this thread to comment on the extraordinary events of apparent fraud last Weds/Thurs. and how the online community had a powerful effect. I also found the courage and determination of the heroic senator of interest.
I very much did not want to drag in any discussion of the topic of the Bill ...

Oh, puulleeaassee! Your topic, by it's very nature, invites discussion of the bill...not just this "heroic" senator and her "courage". Plus, what "fraud" are you referring to? Seriously.

 

[Biker]

Gotta love folks that diss Texas and have never stepped foot inside the state, let alone live there and know what it's truly like.

 

[Adam Howard]

Plus, what "fraud" are you referring to? Seriously.

um, I don't know... How about something obvious like not keeping to their own governing rules and trying to say something passed in time when it didn't.

Or do you really, honestly believe if no one had notice this... That the outcome would have come about the same today, out of the goodness of their own hearts & better moral judgement?!

 

[Jeremy]

I wouldn't call a filibuster a heroic move, it's a political tactic to delay a bill from being passed. If you and your constituents feel that strongly about something, it's a tactic to get what you want.

 

[SneakyDave]

It's probably a little heroic to walk around with a catheter without really needing one.

 

[Kevin]

Oh, puulleeaassee! Your topic, by it's very nature, invites discussion of the bill...not just this "heroic" senator and her "courage". Plus, what "fraud" are you referring to? Seriously.

The "fraud" accusation can only be attributed to the vote that was taken after the failed filibuster that originally was marked as having taken place after midnight on 6/26 meaning that the bill failed to pass but was then later said to have been actually before midnight on 6/25 meaning that the bill passed. As you can imagine that set off a bit of a firestorm before the Lt. Governor said that because of the "unruly mob" in attendance that the could not sign the bill in time and it was at that point dead. (timeline of the night from a TX news org can be found here)

If nothing else the night provided subject matter that will be discussed in political arenas for quite some time.

 

[Adam Howard]

I wouldn't call a filibuster a heroic move, it's a political tactic to delay a bill from being passed. If you and your constituents feel that strongly about something, it's a tactic to get what you want.

It is a heroic move if the people don't want something, don't believe in something, and don't support something, but the governing body has decided to say "F" them & do it anyways.

Elected officials are elected to represent the will of the people. It seems to be the only job in the world, where you can lie, cheat, and steal, including be deceptive & dishonest to get the job. And that's a problem, its been a problem, and it needs to be corrected.

It's as if you hired me or someone else here to do X job on your site and I end up doing Z because I felt like it. Then you're told that you still have to pay for it no matter if you liked it or not.

So yes, anyone and anything that prevents elected official from doing "what they want" -vs- "what the people want" is a good thing.

 

[Morgain]

Oh, puulleeaassee! Your topic, by it's very nature, invites discussion of the bill...not just this "heroic" senator and her "courage".

Yes the topic of the bill invites knee jerk discussion which s why I did not mention it as that discussion is everywhere to be found over the last 45 years. Well trodden tracks.
I was aiming to do something more intelligent: look at the purely political issues of the fraud which seems to be involved, and how the online aspect changed the game. Maybe the ethics of filibuster as well.

Plus, what "fraud" are you referring to? Seriously.

Seriously? There are rules on how laws are passed. Breaking them is serious fraud. Seriously.
I'll leave you to study the other posts about this to understand how the rules were broken. It was there in my OP but sometimes reading something in a different way helps to absorb it.

 

[Morgain]

Gotta love folks that diss Texas and have never stepped foot inside the state, let alone live there and know what it's truly like.

Not dissing Texas. Great place in many ways. However like so many otherwise great places it's got bad people at the top. My son's lady, who is Texan, tells me a lot of Texans think that too.

 

[DBA]

I was aiming to do something more intelligent: look at the purely political issues of the fraud which seems to be involved, and how the online aspect changed the game. Maybe the ethics of filibuster as well.

I'm curious, how exactly did the "online aspect" change the game?