The most interesting vote he missed was during the time he was most blasting Bush for high unemployment and low job creation. And that same week, while giving the speeches, he missed the vote to extend unemployment insurance. And he would have cast the deciding vote. It failed.
Good point phoenix. Is he still on the payroll for showing up for work 1/3 of the time? Are we still paying his support staff for what amounts to nothing 2/3s of the time? Am I the only one disturbed by a man voting against any measure that punishes violence against a pregnant woman? I thought it was an effective commercial and was curious was others thought...
Apparently not much. <shrugs>
I missed that Bill. Going back to listen again.
I'm torn on that one. I am so opposed to rampant litigation against doctors when children are born less than 'perfect' unless there is blatant malpractice--John Edwards for instance has made his fortune largely from sueing doctors and hospitals when children are born with cerebral palsy. So how much protection should there be for the child in the womb?
At the same time, if the unborn child is not a 'person' entitled to protection under the law, how can we object if a mother smokes, drinks, does drugs etc. while pregnant?
If the child is not due protection, then how do we justify programs to help pregnant women have healthy children?
And if the child is to be protected as a person, at what stage does that happen? At conception? Mid term when maybe viable? Late term when usually viable? Most damage from maternal negligence happens in the first trimester.
This is a very complicated issue. I'm going to have to think on it more.
Does anyone have any more details on that bill? I'm sure it's not as simple as the Bush people would have us believe.
I don't know why Phoenix. Unless I'm mistaken the guys who decided Roe v. Wade have to overturn it or no one can. This law protects against assault and murder. I'd rather be locking up (well executing would truly be my preference) guys who are socking pregnant women in the gut and monsters like that Scott Peterson if he's guilty of what they say he is. Try this:
Man punches woman in the gut who is 8.5 months pregnant hard enough to kill her unborn child. He should be charged with simple assault or battery? Why? That bastard is a murderer who deserves to be treated like one. If you want to go to a pro-choice rally, I'll drive... but that is not this.
Foxfyre wrote:And if the child is to be protected as a person, at what stage does that happen? At conception? Mid term when maybe viable? Late term when usually viable? Most damage from maternal negligence happens in the first trimester.
Great point. Where did this bill draw that line?
They're never simple Kicky.
Here.
Here's a little summary of what the opponents of the bill say. I got it from a CNN.com story.
"But the bill is controversial. Much of the opposition to it comes from lawmakers who favor abortion rights. Some abortion rights activists see the measure as a back door to influencing the abortion debate because the law would define a fetus as a separate life.
Opponents say supporters of the legislation are using the Rochas.
"They are cynically and opportunistically trying to exploit this tragedy," said one Democratic consultant aligned with the opposition. "It's not a new bill. They're recycling old stuff."
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, admitted that the measure could have an impact on abortion law."
Actually, it doesn't matter... Look:
Quote:Bars prosecution under this Act: (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman (or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf) has been obtained or is implied by law or for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (2) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
Thanks for that link, Bill. I still can't decide about this thing. It does say that it doesn't matter when, as long as the baby is in utero, which makes me think it's going to be used by some f*ckin' scumbag politician to go after abortion, but on the other hand, it probably would be a good thing to have scumbags who kill pregnant women get the double punishment.
This is a tough one.
Add me to the dunnos about that one.
Here's the bigger description. Where is the dilemma? This should have been a unanimous slam-dunk before breakfast the day it was introduced.
Quote:(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on February 26, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 or Laci and Conner's Law - Provides that persons who commit certain Federal violent crimes (conduct that violates specified provisions of the Federal criminal code, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or specified articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) ) and thereby cause the death of, or bodily injury to, a child who is in utero shall be guilty of a separate offense. Requires the punishment for that separate offense to be the same as provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother (or in the case of a UCMJ violation, to be such punishment as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for such conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother).
Declares that such a separate offense does not require proof that: (1) the person who committed the offense knew or should have known that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (2) the defendant (or accused) intended to harm the unborn child. Prohibits imposition of the death penalty for such an offense.
Bars prosecution under this Act: (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman (or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf) has been obtained or is implied by law or for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (2) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
Edit= bold for emphasis
I'm impressed that the pro-lifers in Congress would have included that final clause.
The way it is worded, however, I'm inclined to think I would vote for it.
Gee, I wonder if Bush was being paid to be the governor while he was running all over the country campaigning? Is he still on the payroll for showing up for work 1/3 of the time? Are we still paying his support staff for what amounts to nothing 2/3s of the time?
You know what? Kerry is my senator, and the people of my state voted for him to become a presidential contender. Did we think that during this most important election he might not be able to hang around and cast votes? Yeah, we did. Did we think it was a priority for him to focus on replacing Bush? Yeah, we did. Were we expecting republican dirty tricks around senate votes? Naively, no; silly dems that we are, giving people like Frist more credit than they deserve!
These things can come up for votes again - they don't just disappear if they're worthwhile. Right now, many people feel that getting Kerry elected as commander-in-chief has to be the priority.
Don't worry, naysayers, if he wins, you will still have a future in which to bring these votes up again. If Bush wins, no promises!
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
Just to play devil's advocate here:
Say a guy beats his wife up, and she turns him in. She finds out later that she's been pregnant for a few weeks. How the hell do they determine whether the child has been injured or not?
kickycan wrote:(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
Just to play devil's advocate here:
Say a guy beats his wife up, and she turns him in. She finds out later that she's been pregnant for a few weeks. How the hell do they determine whether the child has been injured or not?
Innocent until proven guilty. If they can prove he injured the child while beating his wife, fry the bastard. I still don't see a dilemma...
If he beats up his wife and anything is wrong with the baby, I frankly don't care if he gets a double rap whether he did it or not. There is no excuse for that.
