State Houses Thread

[fraurosena]

Uhm.... so killing a fetus is bad, but killing a woman who has an abortion is just fine.

*thinks deeply*

Ok, sounds perfectly logical. No, really... life in utero is sacred, life once born doesn't really matter that much. Got it.

*thinks again*

... but what about all those babies that she could have born if you hadn't killed her? By your own logic, wouldn't it follow that you are killing those not yet conceived, but perfectly conceivable fetuses?

[mamallama]

I am so angry at these red states and gerry mandered  districts.  I'm at the point where I feel like these states need to suffer the consequences of their stupidity and bias.  (ps I don't really mean this, just venting).

 

[fraurosena]

Again disingenious  state legislature has been called out for it’s unconstitutionality by the courts.

 

[fraurosena]

Next thing you know, Ohio Republicans are going to introduce legislation to change Ohio's name to Gilead.

Ohio Republicans declare motherhood “necessary,” want to make it mandatory

Quote

While the name of Brett Kavanaugh has fallen out of the headline news cycle, the religious right has not forgotten that his recent addition to the Supreme Court now means they likely have five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion. While the endless churn of outrageous Trump stories occupies national headlines, anti-choice activists and politicians are swiftly moving to pass laws that they clearly hope will lead, perhaps within a year, to vacating the current legal protections for abortion rights.

In the stampede to ban abortion, Republican politicians don't always bother to keep up the pretense that their opposition to abortion is about "life." All to often, they let slip how much it's rooted in contempt for women having control over their own bodies and their own futures.

Last week, the Ohio state house passed a bill that would ban abortions at six weeks. That would effectively a ban on most abortions, since performing the procedure before a pregnancy shows up on an ultrasound, which happens at just about six weeks, is not medically recommended. During debate over the bill in the Ohio state house, Republican state Rep. Christina Hagan brought her infant twins onto the floor to shame women who aren't mothers about their alleged selfishness.

"Motherhood isn't easy but it's necessary," Hagan dramatically declared when arguing for her bill to make motherhood mandatory.

Perhaps we should be grateful to Hagan for using her floor time to unsubtly suggest that women who have abortions are lazy and selfish. There should be no doubt that this is the belief that motivates the anti-choice movement in general, but most abortion foes have become media savvy enough to realize that they get more sympathy if they ascribe views to a religious delusion that equates embryonic life to that of actual babies. So at least Hagan showed her true colors, revealing the resentment of childless women and desire to exert control over other people's lives that lies at the center of the anti-choice movement.

Still, this rhetoric is enraging on a couple of levels. First, there's the deep sexism of assuming that a childless woman has nothing to offer society, that our value is only in the womb and not in the brain and the heart.

Furthermore, Hagan's insinuation — that forced childbirth is needed to ensure the continuation of the human race — simply doesn't reflect reality. The majority — nearly 60 percent — of women who seek abortions are mothers already. Among the rest, plenty plan to have children in the future, but are waiting for stability in both their economic and romantic life — because that's best for the child. Women have abortions because they take motherhood seriously and believe that it's better for children to be raised in homes that are ready to accept them.

That's why it shouldn't be controversial to point out that anti-choice views are rooted in misogyny. These people actively choose to ignore the carefully collected evidence about women's lives, in order to cling to sexist stereotypes painting women who have abortions as lazy and slutty. The only reason to choose ugly stereotypes over facts is because you want to believe the worst about women.

That, in turn, should explain why, after passing this already egregious abortion ban, the Ohio legislature is now considering an even more draconian bill that would reclassify fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as "persons" in the criminal code.

This bill received a lot of national attention, because headlines emphasized that it could make performing or getting an abortion a capital offense. That's alarming, absolutely, but it barely touches the surface of how troubling this bill actually is. It could very likely criminalize more than abortion, putting women in danger of prosecution if they have a miscarriage, or even use birth control.

The six-week abortion ban is enough to end abortions in Ohio, if that's all the Ohio Republicans wanted. This bill, on the other hand, would go much further. By designating an embryo or a fetus a person, the state could open the door to charging women for child abuse or manslaughter if authorities believe their personal choices — ranging from using drugs to eating soft cheeses — were to blame for miscarriage or poor birth outcomes.

This isn't just "Handmaid's Tale" speculation, either. Many states have already experimented with charging women for child abuse for drug use during pregnancy. In Montana, women are frequently held captive during pregnancy for just this reason. Formalizing these efforts by declaring that embryos are the same as babies could drastically expand these efforts, moving it past just punishing women for drug and alcohol abuse and towards criminal investigations for any failure to follow medical advice during pregnancy.

To understand the full scope of how awful this bill is, note that it defines as "persons" entities that are undetectable by either the woman herself or by any medical instruments. It takes a number of days for a fertilized egg, which this bill would declare a "person," to attach to the uterine lining and start the process of pregnancy. About half of all fertilized eggs fail to attach, and the woman then experiences a normal period with no way to know the difference. This bill would render every menstrual period, at least for women who have sex with men, into a legally ambiguous area, where she may or may not have a "corpse" of a "person" in her tampon.

It's no mysterious why anti-choice activists think creating this troubling legal ambiguity is a great idea. For years, the movement has been spreading pseudo-science about female-controlled birth control methods, such as the pill or the IUD, claiming that they kill fertilized eggs. (In reality, they work primarily by preventing fertilization to begin with.) This pseudo-science gives anti-choice activists an excuse to claim that female-controlled contraception is a form of "abortion" — as Kavanaugh did during his confirmation hearing — and thereby lay the groundwork to restrict contraception access.

Tendering every period a woman has as a maybe-person admittedly creates such an enormous legal gray area that it's unlikely even Republicans want to go there. But that's why there's no downside for anti-choice politicians in introducing this bill. It makes the six-week ban look "moderate" in comparison. It's unlikely that the birth control pill will ever legally be considered "murder," but anti-choice activists are using the claim that it kills fertilized eggs as a pretext for cutting off government and insurance funding for contraception. The appointment of Scott Lloyd, a lawyer who has worked to allow pharmacists to deny contraception prescriptions to women, to work at the Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives in the Department of Health and Human Services suggests that this new office, created in May, department, exists mostly to create bureaucratic obstacles for women seeking contraception.

In Mississippi, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks was struck down by a district court judge, who pointed out that multiple court decisions, including at least three from the Supreme Court, have upheld that states "may not ban abortions prior to viability." Because of decisions like this, it's believed that Ohio Gov. John Kasich will veto the six-week ban, rather than commit state resources to defending it through the lengthy appeals process as lower federal courts strike it down.

Still, if Mississippi chooses to fight that, and if that leads to a real chance to overturn Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, there's no telling how aggressive Republicans might become. Abortion bans that once seemed blatantly unconstitutional now have a real shot at being upheld. It's likely just a matter of time before there's a showdown in the Supreme Court over whether or not abortion rights in the United States will stand.

 

[fraurosena]

Thanksgiving, presiduncial style.

 

[Cartmann99]

22 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Next thing you know, Ohio Republicans are going to introduce legislation to change Ohio's name to Gilead.

Ohio Republicans declare motherhood “necessary,” want to make it mandatory

 

Would you be shocked to learn that Rep. Hagan is also pro-gun and pro-Trump?

https://mobile.twitter.com/RepHagan

[GreyhoundFan]

This is the county where I reside. We used to be a truly purple county, with mostly centrist representatives, both D and R. Well, now there is only one R left and he has decided to be the biggest prick possible. He's not my delegate, or I'd be camping in his office, giving him a piece of my mind. He'll likely be voted out in November 2019: "Virginia court system ‘crippled’ by political dispute over appointing judges"

Spoiler

A political stalemate in Fairfax County has left several local court seats vacant, delaying criminal ­cases and child-custody disputes in Virginia’s largest judicial circuit.

At the center of the controversy is Del. Tim Hugo (R-Fairfax), whose mostly western Fairfax district became an island of red in Northern Virginia after a wave of Democratic victories in 2017 that left Republicans with only slim majorities in the state Senate and House of Delegates.

Early this year, Hugo — the sole and, therefore, ranking Republican among Fairfax delegates — ended a bipartisan approach to selecting judges in the 19th Judicial Circuit and began nominating his own candidates, cutting out Democrats in a dispute where each side accuses the other of politicizing what should be a sober process of filling empty seats.

The battle will pick up again in January, when the General Assembly begins a new legislative session with three judicial vacancies in Fairfax and a fourth expected after Circuit Court Judge Jan L. Brodie retires at the start of the year.

Political analysts say the dispute could hurt Hugo politically heading into next fall’s elections, with Democrats eager to seize control of one or both chambers.

“This is the first year that there’s ever been controversy surrounding this process,” said Del. Vivian E. Watts (D-Fairfax), who has served two stints in the House of Delegates, from 1982 to 1986 and again since 1996. Watts accused Hugo of returning to “an old boys’ club” approach.

In Virginia, local judges are approved by both the Senate and House of Delegates. Each chamber typically defers to the lawmakers who represent the area in deciding the best candidates for seats in the circuit, general district and juvenile and family courts.

Most local delegations in the state allow whichever party is in the majority in Richmond to determine who gets approved, a process that has led to complaints about political cronyism.

In the late 1970s, when Democrats controlled the General Assembly, Fairfax’s delegation adopted a bipartisan approach that allowed each member a vote, regardless of party, after lawmakers interviewed candidates and reviewed their bar associations ratings.

That practice continued after Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2000, when Del. Dave Albo (R-Fairfax) became the ranking delegation member. In 2015, the Commission on Integrity and Public Confidence in State Government appointed by then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) called the Fairfax approach a model for eliminating politics from local courts.

Then came the 2017 state elections. Del. Kathy Tran (D) won Albo’s seat after he announced his retirement, while Del. Karrie K. Delaney (D-Fairfax) defeated incumbent Republican James M. LeMunyon.

Hugo reinstated the majority-party-rules method, arguing that the bipartisan approach was broken. He said Democratic lawmakers were not asking judicial candidates appropriate questions — a characterization that Democrats strongly dispute.

“They’re not talking about judicial temperament; they’re not talking about issues of the judiciary,” Hugo said. “Sometimes, they’ll come in and talk about political issues. This isn’t about me picking judges. This is about picking good judges.”

Currently, no judges are being seated, because Democratic state senators in Fairfax have refused to endorse Hugo’s choices, while calling on him to reinstate the bipartisan model.

“We don’t treat judgeships like political lollipops,” said Sen. Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax). “They may do that in other jurisdictions, but that’s not how we do it here. These are very important positions that, among other things, decide who children are going to live with.”

Two of eight seats are vacant in the Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, along with one of 11 in the General District Court. One of the 15 county Circuit Court judgeships will open up in January when Brodie retires, and the Fairfax Bar Association says there are more vacancies on the horizon.

The association called on lawmakers from both parties to find a solution to the standoff, saying the vacancies have “crippled” productivity as sitting judges take on more cases and legal disputes get delayed.

“The problem will only compound itself as additional vacancies continue to open,” the bar association’s president, Christie A. Leary, said in a statement.

Hugo, who won his 2017 election by 106 votes, appears vulnerable next fall, when he is being challenged by Democrat Dan Helmer. Sen. Tim Kaine (D) won the legislative district by 18 points this month, and Gov. Ralph Northam (D) won by 11 points last year.

Hugo’s critics say his position on judgeships is an example of him going against the region’s interests in favor of what GOP leaders want. They say Hugo did the same thing in April, when he joined the Republican majority to vote against $30 million in tax increases meant to help fund Metro, a move that also drew criticism from some local Republican lawmakers.

“This is part of a consistent pattern,” Helmer said. “He is playing politics with the lives of our families and children.”

Hugo said he’s open to changing the process to make it more fair. He wants the entire process of selecting judges to be transparent, eliminating closed-door votes on the candidates. Democrats say the closed-door process is needed so lawmakers can discuss confidential information shared by the candidates.

Hugo also said he offered to allow Surovell and state Sen. J. Chapman “Chap” Petersen (D-Fairfax City) — both practicing attorneys in Fairfax — to determine the best candidates.

Both declined the offer, saying it would leave other delegation members disenfranchised.

“I told him I was uncomfortable with that,” Petersen said. “I’m just one of 25 members in the delegation. I don’t want to be in a position to select judges.”

Quentin Kidd, director of Christopher Newport University’s Wason Center for Public Policy in Newport News, said Hugo needs to do away with such controversies and focus more on constituent services to keep his seat in November.

“The legal community spans across the political spectrum,” Kidd said. “If you cross the legal community, you’re probably going to cross your base in the district.”

Albo agreed that Hugo is in a tough position but said he understands why the legislator would want to try to ensure that there is still a strong Republican voice in judicial appointments.

“I liked the system where we all had one vote,” said Albo, adding that he kept it intact out of a sense of fairness and gratitude to Democrats who included him when his party was in the minority.

But “it’s a different world now,” he added. “Because Tim is the only Republican left.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

I got nothing 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I've seen/read many people floating Kasich as an R to compete with Dumpy in the 2020 primaries. I'm sorry, I don't think he's any great shakes. He's done the women of Ohio no favors. I'm glad I don't live there, especially with their ridiculous new law, since I'm a woman in my mid-50s who is childfree. In their eyes, I'm breaking their law.

[fraurosena]

If you dare to speak the ugly truth, your mic will be turned off and your turn given to someone else. Democracy? Bah, humbug!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[CTRLZero]

@GreyhoundFan - I just noticed your post on three Kansas republicans switching over to the democratic party.  Thank you!  I found an article on CNN with further explanation.  It seems the decisions of the three legislators included a mixture of wanting to be more moderate and differing viewpoints on the Kansas education system.  I wonder if this sort of thing is happening elsewhere as the republican party gets darn weird.

Kansas republicans switch over to democrats - CNN article

 

[AmazonGrace]

It's not a bug it's a feature 

 

[Cartmann99]

 

Quote

The bill proposed by Griffin is similar to other legislation proposed elsewhere, in that all computers and other devices that can access the internet, like tablets and mobile phones, sold in Arizona would have mandatory blocker software pre-installed.

Any distributor who fails to do so would  be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.

Arizonans who wished to access pornographic material online would have to make a request to do so, prove they are at least 18 years old, acknowledge they understand that removing the blocking software will expose them to obscene material and pay a one-time $20 fee to the State of Arizona, plus whatever fee the company who installed the blocker requires.

Okay, I'll play along for shits and giggles.

Exactly who will determine if something is pornographic? Are paintings and sculptures featuring nudity porn? If I do a search for information about the proper way to do a breast exam or a testicular exam, I'm eventually going to find pictures and videos of unclothed people demonstrating what to do. Is this pornographic material,  or is it medical information? If I own a website that  sells women's bras, can I show pictures where you can kinda see nipples, or do I need to have the models wear nipple covers under the bras so that I'm not considered a porn site?

If a resident of Arizona has a subscription to a streaming site like Netflix, would they have to pay the 'porn tax'? They have content featuring naked people doing naked things rather nakedly on those sites, just like they do on the dedicated porn sites.

Anyhoo, you can see where I'm going.

If you want to pay extra for filtered internet because you don't want content that you consider pornographic in your home, that's great, but can't you just do that and leave everybody else alone?

[fraurosena]

Good news! Does this have any impact on you, @GreyhoundFan?

 

[GreyhoundFan]

40 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Good news! Does this have any impact on you, @GreyhoundFan?

It is good news. It doesn't impact me directly as my district wasn't one in question, but it's better for the state to have fair districts for all.

[AmazonGrace]

Are you male or a natural receptacle for male donor sperm? 

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[onekidanddone]

7 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

The (Trump) train it won't stop going No way to slow down
He sees his children jumping off
At stations, one by one

Ian Anderson (the bold is my own)

[AmazonGrace]

All aboard the Trump train! 

 

[onekidanddone]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

All aboard the Trump train! 

 

? Welcome aboard The Trump Train  Casey Jones will be your engineer today

Edited January 29, 2019 by onekidanddone

[GreyhoundFan]

Because of course: "A GOP lawmaker wants to repeal child labor laws in his state. He employs hundreds of minors."

Spoiler

Under Indiana’s child labor laws, minors can work for a limited number of hours: 18 hours a week for those ages 14 and 15 and 30 hours a week for 16- and 17-year-olds. Working more than that and into late-night hours requires parental consent. A six-hour work day must include 30-minute breaks.

A new bill would scrap these rules, a move that opponents fear would enable bad actors who expose minors to excessively long working hours. But there’s another factor that has raised concerns: The bill’s author, Republican state Sen. Chip Perfect, owns a ski resort — and he employs hundreds of minors — which has led to questions about his motivations.

“My concern is: Does their business interest undermine their ability to fulfill their responsibility to their constituents?” said Abe Schwab, an ethics expert and philosophy professor at Purdue University in Fort Wayne, Ind. “Their judgment isn’t supposed to be one that represents themselves. ... If they sponsor legislation that clearly favors themselves, then there’s reason to worry that their judgment has been compromised.”

Perfect, who owns Perfect North Slope in his district in southeastern Indiana, said in a statement that he had requested the Senate Ethics Committee to rule on whether a conflict of interest exists. All members, Republicans and Democrats, found it doesn’t, Perfect said, though he didn’t explain why. He said he also consulted with the former chairman of the committee when he began thinking about sponsoring the bill and was told there was no conflict of interest.

State Sen. Liz Brown (R), chairwoman of the ethics committee, declined to comment, saying ethics hearings are confidential.

So is it a conflict of interest? Indiana law says it’s up to the legislators.

The state’s ethics rules don’t prohibit legislators from sponsoring or voting on bills that would personally or financially benefit them. Instead, they give legislators discretion in deciding whether their stake in a bill amounts to a conflict of interest.

“It’s really just a system of self-policing,” said Julia Vaughn, policy director of Common Cause Indiana, a government watchdog group. “Obviously, the individuals have widely varying abilities to police this ... widely varying in their sensitivity to what constitutes a conflict or not.”

“In their mind, they’re protecting the institution in that way,” Vaughn added. “I think, long term, just the opposite happens. The institution is hurt when we constantly have these kinds of situations when everybody outside the statehouse seems to see a conflict of interest, but nobody inside the statehouse can see it.”

A politician sponsoring a bill that would affect his business is hardly uncommon, experts say, particularly in a state where legislators only work part-time and have day jobs outside of government. Legislators are often assigned to committees related to their areas of expertise, said Andy Downs, a political science professor at Purdue University. Teachers are assigned to education committees, farmers to agricultural committees and attorneys to help revise the criminal code, for example. Perfect, a business owner, is the chair of the Senate Commerce and Technology Committee.

While seeking someone’s expertise has some advantages, it also raises questions about whether legislators are acting in their constituents' interests or their own. But in a conservative state like Indiana, concerns over a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of it, are usually overlooked if, for example, the legislation would help small businesses, Downs said.

“Given the political culture of the state of Indiana, we accept a certain amount of what some might consider to be corruption,” Downs said. “Government exists to help move economic interest.”

Perfect told the Indianapolis Star that his ski resort employs up to 400 minors. Because his bill would scrap limits on the hours that minors can work, it would allow businesses such as his to have minors working as late as midnight without their parents' consent. Perfect North Slope is open until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays.

The bill would also scrap work permit requirements — regulations that those who favor the legislation saw as antiquated. Matt Eckert, chief executive of Holiday World, has testified that work permits only create an administrative burden, the Star reported. Under current laws, minors have to have permits, signed by their parents or guardians, before they can work.

In his statement to The Washington Post, Perfect said the legislation “includes positive reforms to the system, while still maintaining adequate protections for the Hoosier workforce.”

But critics say the bill would leave very little protections for minor employees and no leverage for their parents. Indiana would still be covered by federal child labor laws, but critics say they’re comparatively lax, particularly for older teenagers. Federal laws allow teenagers ages 16 and 17 to work for an unlimited number of hours.

“It would just really open things up with no oversight of employers,” Terry Spradlin, executive director of the Indiana School Boards Association, said of the proposed bill. “So those bad apples that currently violate the system or violate the laws would have no regulation or oversight that would prohibit them from doing so.”

According to state Department of Labor data cited by the Star, child labor penalties were nearly $1.5 million last fiscal year. The agency’s spokeswoman told the newspaper that Perfect’s business did not have violations from its most recent inspection last year.

School performance and academic achievement also could be affected, Spradlin said, especially if students have to work late-night hours and go to school early the following day.

Under the bill, the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles would no longer be required to revoke or suspend the driver’s license or learner’s permit of a student who had failed or dropped out of school. This means students who would rather drop out so they can work full time can keep driving to work, and their parents wouldn’t have a say, said Shawn Christ, secretary and treasurer of the Indiana State AFL-CIO, a trade union.

“My son wanted to drop out of high school when he was 16, but I had some leverage on him. He can’t have his driver’s license and I won’t sign off on his work permit,” Christ said. “My kid decided to stay in school, and now he’s in his second year of college.”

But if the bill becomes law, Christ said, “you can keep kids working at 2 a.m., and there’s nothing parents can do about them.”

 

[AmazonGrace]

Must be true because lab coats

[Cartmann99]

The meat of the story:

Quote

House Bill 1100 to allow liquor sales on Sundays was introduced in the House by State Rep. Richard Pena Raymond, D-Laredo. The bill looks to add convenience for shoppers by extending store hours Monday through Saturday. 

*  The bill allows liquor stores to be open noon to 10 p.m. on Sunday.

*   Liquor stores would still be closed on New Year's Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.

*  The bill also extends the regular Monday through Saturday liquor stores hours, now 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., by two extra hours. The new operating hours would be 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. with the exception of Sunday.

*   It adds Sundays to the days that wholesalers are allowed to make deliveries to retailers. Christmas would be the only day that wholesalers can't make deliveries as the bill is written now.

If passed, the law would take effect on Sept. 1.

I'm curious to see how my representative, aka Bang-Bang, votes on this bill. He sent out Christmas cards last year for the first time ever, and they were pretty snazzy with multiple Bible verses,  higher quality card stock, and a good picture of his family. My first thought when I saw it, was that he had decided to run for a higher office. John Cornyn is up for reelection in 2020.

Bang-Bang is Catholic, so he doesn't have a religious objection to folks drinking, but there's a good number of Southern Baptists among his current constituents who will be unhappy with him if he votes in favor of this bill. Voting to loosen up the liquor laws could be helpful to Bang-Bang in a statewide race though, if he decides to represent himself as more of a pro-business Republican than a "bathroom bill" Republican.

I'm just gonna watch to see how this plays out.