POL - and they do something right!! TWICE

[Flasch186]

Good for the house!! They stood up for ethics and backbone. We should all rejoice in the transparency that they know we all want.

House Votes to Reverse GOP Ethics Rules

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House, with grudging Republican support, voted Wednesday to reverse GOP ethics rules that Democrats charged were designed to protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Republicans heeded Speaker Dennis Hastert's call for a retreat to end a deadlock that has kept the evenly divided ethics panel from functioning. The vote was 406-20, with all votes against the resolution cast by Republicans.

An early job for the committee may be an inquiry into whether a lobbyist financed DeLay's foreign trips in violation of House rules. The majority leader has asked to appear before the panel to clear his name, and told reporters Wednesday he was pulling together travel records going back a decade.

In debate, Democrats continued to attack DeLay's conduct. Republicans countered that they didn't make a mistake but accepted political reality: In a committee with five members of each party, Democrats would not supply any votes to let the committee operate without a reversal of the rules.

"We were absolutely right," insisted Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. countered, "When they thought no one was looking, they passed a package that effectively neutered the committee ... to protect one man from investigation."

The committee's chairman, Rep. Doc Hastings (news, bio, voting record), R-Wash., said, "The Democrats remain absolutely unwilling to compromise. It is severely damaging to this institution for the other side of the aisle to keep the doors locked on the ethics committee."

Senior committee Democrat Alan Mollohan of West Virginia argued that the Republican rules would have seriously damaged the committee's ability to conduct investigations.

"What is at issue is ... whether the House is going to continue to have a credible ethics process. Nothing less than this is at stake here tonight."

Hastings tried to assure the House that there would be no partisanship in any decision to investigate DeLay or any other member.

"No investigation has ever been taken by the committee without bipartisan support," said Hastings, who last week offered to investigate DeLay in a futile effort to break the deadlock.

The Republican lawmakers had endured weeks of intense Democratic criticism — and hometown editorials — complaining that the GOP rule changes were an attempt to protect DeLay from further investigation.

DeLay, R-Texas, was admonished by the committee on three matters last year.

Republicans leaving their weekly meeting in the Capitol basement Wednesday morning generally praised Hastert for pivoting on the issue. DeLay seemed annoyed at the crowd of reporters.

"You guys better get out of my way," he said. "Where's our security?"

Several hours later, DeLay seemed to be in a jovial mood at his weekly news conference, where he pledged to support the reversal and said he was pulling together 10 years of travel records for a voluntary submission to the ethics committee.

He denied playing any role in the partisan rules changes that passed the House in January or in the reversal Wednesday.

"This has been the speaker's project all along," he said.

The rules in effect before January allowed investigations to begin if the ethics chairman and ranking minority member failed to act on a complaint in 45 days and no other member requested full committee consideration. The Republican changes provided for an automatic dismissal in case of a tie, a procedure that Hastert said was needed to avoid keeping members in limbo.

In a letter to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Hastert wrote that the changes pushed through in January were an attempt to correct inequities.

Given Democratic opposition, he proposed reverting to the old rules, "leaving the unfairness inherent in the old system in place."

At the same time, he said he hoped the ethics committee could recommend changes for the future.

Rep. Joel Hefley (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., who supported the Republican retreat, said the GOP move "doesn't mean Democrats will stop going after DeLay."

Hefley was dumped by Hastert as chairman of the evenly divided committee after the panel admonished DeLay. He has been one of the few Republicans who opposed the rule changes from the beginning.

Republican lawmakers, who would not be identified by name because their meeting was closed, said some GOP congressmen didn't want to stop the fight, believing the party could still win the political battle.

Lawmakers said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio, backed Hastert in the meeting and noted that a functioning ethics committee wouldn't only open the door for an investigation of DeLay. It would also permit further action on an ethics complaint filed last year against Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott (news, bio, voting record) of Washington.

McDermott is accused of violating House rules by leaking to reporters a taped telephone conversation.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the committee, said, "To this point the speaker's actions have been positive. The proposal will be considered and evaluated by the bipartisan yardstick."

At the same time, Mollohan and aides to Pelosi insisted that committee staff must be hired on a bipartisan basis. Republicans early this year unilaterally fired two holdover staff members.

Pelosi said the Republican reversal was "a victory for the American people. Americans understood what was at stake — the integrity of the House — and in one voice demanded that the House return to a credible, viable and nonpartisan ethics process."

Hastert bristled at talk of Democrats dictating committee staffing. "If they get one thing, they'll want another," he said in a brief interview.

[Flasch186]

DOLA

And I agree with the right on this one too!!!


House OKs Bill Toughening Abortion Consent

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House passed a bill Wednesday that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions, the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections.
ADVERTISEMENT

By 270-157, the House sent the bill to the Senate, where the policy has new momentum as an item on the Republicans' top 10 list of legislative priorities.

Reflecting rising public support for requiring parents' involvement in their pregnant daughters' decisions, the bill would impose fines, jail time or both on adults and doctors involved in most cases where minors were taken out of state to get abortions.

In a statement,
President Bush praised the House for passing the measure. "The parents of pregnant minors can provide counsel, guidance and support to their children and should be involved in these decisions," Bush said. "I urge the Senate to pass this important legislation and help continue to build a culture of life in America."

This was the third time since 1998 the House has approved such a measure sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla. The Senate has never taken it up and no vote has been set, but Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., expects to bring up a similar measure this summer, according to spokeswoman Amy Call.

In another sign of the measure's new support, Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri, who staunchly favors abortion rights and voted against the measure in the past, voted for it on Wednesday. Clay said he switched in response to an outpouring of support for the bill from constituents in his St. Louis district.

"This bill simply says that a parent has a right to know if their child is having surgery," Clay said.

Voting for it were 216 Republicans and 54 Democrats. Voting against it were 145 Democrats, 11 Republicans and 1 Independent.

If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, the policy would represent the fifth measure since Bush took office in 2001 aimed at reducing the number of abortions.

Senate abortion opponents prevailed last month in preventing Democrats from restricting the rights of abortion clinic protesters in bankruptcy court.

Tempers flared in the House even before the emotional floor debate.

Democrats complained that their efforts to soften the bill, for example, by exempting from prosecution adult siblings and grandparents who help pregnant minors, were described in the GOP-authored committee report as efforts to protect "sexual predators."

Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who authored the panel's report, defended its language, saying the Democratic amendments would not have specifically excluded child molesters from protections.

"Perhaps these amendments were not properly drafted by the authors when they were submitted in the committee," Sensenbrenner told the House. "That's not the fault of the majority, that's the fault of the people who drafted the amendment."

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., called the report by Sensenbrenner's committee "a rape of the rules of this House."

"Would it be fair for an official report of this committee to call this entire bill the 'Rapists and Sexual Predators Right to Sue Act?'" Nadler asked rhetorically.

Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. It also decided to deny federal funds to state and local agencies that act against health care providers and insurers because they don't provide or pay for abortions.

In 2003 it outlawed what critics call partial birth abortions, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being aborted. A year earlier, lawmakers amended the legal definitions for person, human being, child and individual to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure.

The bill defines a minor as anyone "not older than" 18. More than 30 states have parental notification or consent laws.

The measure provides certain exceptions to a mandatory waiting period and punishments, such as when the abortion would save the life of the mother. Also excepted are any physician presented with documentation showing that a court in the minor's home state waived any parental notification requirements. In addition the bill makes an exception for minors who have signed a written statement saying that she is a victim of sexual abuse by a parent and can back it up with documentation of having reported that abuse to a state authority.

The House rejected two Democratic amendments that would have added immunity from prosecution and civil suits confidants of the minor who help transport her — such as grandparents and clergy — and others involved in the violation, such as taxicab and bus drivers.

Opponents say any gains the bill might make would be dwarfed by health, abuse and legal problems that pregnant girls and their well-meaning confidants might suffer.

Bebe J. Anderson, a lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said it would produce "a confusing maze of requirements ... designed to isolate some teens and leave others with no safe options."

"No matter how few people it affects, it's an important bill on the principles," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican who is looking at seeking his party's presidential nomination in 2008.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Ok, this is not a trolling question - But are you seriously pleased with this, or are you just being sarcastic?

[Flasch186]

Ok, this is not a trolling question - But are you seriously pleased with this, or are you just being sarcastic?


Heck yeah....

If a child is getting preggo than I think it is the parents right to be involved in the decision making process of what to do. Until a child is over 18 (in most states) a crime had been committed. If I read that correctly it addressed my big concern the last time this came up which was what if the Parent/Child relationship is so toxic that to go to that parent would be un-doable thus poossibly forcing the child to seek help perhaps underground. A child can go to the courts to get a "pass", lets call it from this. I dont think a minor should be adult in one legality and not another, NOW if they lower the age to where we consider someone a child, than thats different but for now, Im ok with this.

[judicial clerk]

Thank you Flasch, for showing some objectivity. I am pro-choice, but I don't think minors should be getting any surgery done without the knowledge of their parents. Given the sensitive and unique nature of the abortion issue, I also agree that there should be a process to bypass parental notification. This seems like a reasonable restriction to me.

Farrah may disagree, and I bet she could make thoughtful, compelling arguments against this bill, but generally speaking, I find that people are so afraid of "chipping away" of a right that they hold dear that they are unwilling to consider reasonable restrictions on that right. An example for conservatives would be the NRA reflexivly fighting against reasonable gun restrictions.

[Flasch186]

i think it should apply to breast implants if it doesnt already. OBVIOUSLY, cases where the preggo could die should be exempted too. Im ok with this and Im pro-choice for adults.