House Republicans Pass a Jobs Bill

Comments

1
Republicans are fucking monsters.
2
On the upside, they haven't tried decriminalizing domestic abuse. Yet.
3
Speaking of death, this turd is DOA in the senate.
4
Except in Topeka, Kansas.
5
Well, the Republicans can't call Democrats obstructionists, because 15 blue dogs voted for the bill. This will never pass in the Senate, but it should serve as a reminder why Democrats better vote.

@2 Topeka, KS supposedly does not have enough money to prosecute domestic abuse offenders.
6
@2 but the state lack of revenue due to their More Tax Giveaways for the Rich position means that prisons and courts for domestic abuses are, in fact, being cut.

So they ARE supporting domestic abuse.
7
In Topeka, Kansas they just recently did try to decriminalize domestic abuse.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/201…

Expect that as the next "cost control" from the Republican House.
8
>> President Obama has said he would veto the bill if it were to reach his desk. "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 358," said the statement of policy put out by the White House>>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/…

But would a President Romney? Who knows...
9
Lucky for Rick Santorum his wife already got her life-saving abortion.
10
@9, and they have it on the mantle of their fireplace. Priase the Lord!!
11
@8 Would President Romney authorize the assassination of a US citizen who hasn't been charged with any crime, far away from any battlefield, and with out even a hint of due process?

Would President Romney endorse the philosophy that in the midst of the largest recession since the depression, this is a time for austerity and balancing budgets?

Would President Romney set the clear precedent that presidents and their cronies are above the law by choosing not to investigate them when there's clear evidence they committed war crimes?

We only live in a lesser of two evils paradigm because so many of you people are too scared and unimaginative to try and find a way out. I'm done voting for evil, thanks.
12
Even if this bill were to die in the Senate or be vetoed by the President, it saddens me that it was even thought up and then passed (!) by the majority of congress. It must be nice living in their sheltered bubble.
13
@11 Sorry, some of us live in the real world, where unpleasant compromises have to be made because the majority are slack jawed drooling idiots and we're fucked over if we're not pragmatic.
14
disgusting. things are getting real scary.
15
Maddow did a piece on this last night. She ran a series of speaches given on the floor by Dems pointing out that this legislation is redundant, doomed [Obama has already promised to veto] and cruel.

Maddow pointed out that this is the seventh anti-abortion bill in this session [I haven't checked that] while two thirds of americans and the Democratic party would really prefer our legislators to be working on jobs bills.

It is an intentional move to please the bat-shit hard right, and stall anything that would actually achieve anything productive.
16
3 words... What The Fuck???!!! If this were the law in the UK one of my best friends might no longer be here.. As it was she lost her baby and one of her fallopian tubes due to an ectopic pregnancy and infection, but at least she lived and a year and a half later gave birth to a gorgeous healthy baby boy. This could put female reproductive health back decades...
18
*despairing*
19
@17, Sr. Mehlman, under what circumstances did the SC hold that a person can be compelled to incriminate themselves? As a lay reader, I like reading about SC findings, and that's a new one for me. Thanks.
20
@19, "incriminate" in the sense that you can be compelled to provide DNA samples, hair samples, etc. (I believe there's even a case requiring someone to provide bite marks).
21
Just when I thought I couldn't get any angrier at Republicans...

23
Well at least there is some good news from MO.

Kansas City Bishop Is Indicted for Failing to Report Abuse

The Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City, Robert Finn, and the diocese he leads have been indicted by a state grand jury on a charge of “failure to report suspected child abuse” in the case of a priest who had been accused of taking lewd photographs of young girls.
The indictment is the first ever of a Catholic bishop in the 25 years since the scandal over sexual abuse by priests first became public in the United States.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/us/kan…
24
What a waste of time, and by extension, money. It's such a tragedy that so many will still vote for these fucking parasites, simply because they don't know how insanely cynical they are, how willing they are to screw over the nation to further their own careers, and how disrespectful they are toward the very constituencies they supposedly serve.
25
Ah, yes. And those conditions where doctors can "exercise their conscience" are undoubtedly if the mother is too young, too unmarried, or too slutty.

Because such obscenities cannot go unpunished!
26
This bill is crazy. They'd rather let the mother die than give her an abortion? Why is the life of a fetus more important than the woman who's carrying it?
27
On top of everything else, unless the mother is in her third trimester and a medical professional is there to cut the baby out after she dies, this legislation isn't even going to save any fetuses. If you let a pregnant woman die, you end up with a dead woman *and* a dead fetus. But at least everyone can go home with a clear conscience, knowing that no sinful abortions were performed.
28
@11 I tend to live in the real world too where I see Obama as a complete asshole. You presume we don't get fucked over if we're pragmatic. But the Great Pragmatist Era 2009-2010 showed us that Democratic pragmatism was really watered down Reaganism at best. So, either way we're fucked. You might as well get fucked with principles if you've got 'em. For all the so-called liberal scorn of OWS, the one thing they've been unwilling to do is give up. They're showing far more intestinal fortitude than most pragmatists can dream of.

@17 But is the President the proper venue for "legal decisions?" I thought that's what courts are for? Yes, the law is complicated but there's certainly the quaint notion a) that rights should be absolute and that b) we'd like to have some fucking proof that a moderate Muslim who posted videos on YouTube was an "imminent danger" so that we had to kill ENTIRELY innocent people many times before we hit him. And that's just to name one crime. I'd say not prosecuting wars of aggression is another crime in itself. And yes, I even think we could let that go if we had some sort of "Truth and Reconciliation" commission but Obama was too afraid to even do that because it would be a distraction from his bold (hahahahaha) agenda. What an asshole.
29
Oh, and about the charges that Republicans haven't been effective with a jobs bill. Let's also highlight that Obama effectively pushed George Bush's free trade deals through Congress A-OK. See, he can really get stuff accomplished if he lobbies for it a long time! Too bad it's an anti-American-jobs bill. Obama and the Dems: Pragmatic Fucking-over You Can Believe In!
30
#25: Don't let's forget the finely-honed consciences formed by the Church of Creativity, Christian Identity, Salafism, and the fucks to whom Baruch Goldstein was listening.
32
@31 I specifically meant assassinations without any due process of law.

Let's talk about Cheney or Bush. Ok. Let's not prosecute anyone. First of all, Article VI makes it pretty clear that we're subject to the Geneva Conventions, at least since 1996 when it was incorporated into the US Criminal Code. If Obama doesn't prosecute war crimes, he himself is a war criminal. The failure to punish war crimes is simply a crime and Obama is compelled by our law to do so--I don't think that's within his discretion. But nobody really cares about those things nowadays and it's among many things we don't observe as law when it doesn't suit our imperial needs.

Tossing that aside there could have still been a political remedy that would've satisfied examining the crime. By allowing war crimes to go completely unexamined, we've simply opened the door for far more egregious violations, like assassinations of American citizens without due process of law or any proof of criminality, preventive detentions that will start with Muslims but will soon be used on other Americans, and other forms of once illegal surveillance, violence and murder.
33
If Obama opposes it so much, then he had better darn well veto it.
34
Wait wait wait, I just figured it out.

The Republicans passed this bill SO THAT Obama would veto it.

Look at it this way, they had the gall to call it the "Protect Life Act," which is a simple, deceptive name. It's going to resonate with their voters and enrage pro-choice people (and a bunch of anti-choice people too, you know, the ones who are actually pro-life).

If Obama vetos it, then they downplay the more dangerous parts of the law and paint Obama as an ultra-liberal baby killer. If Obama fails to veto it, then his own (ex-)supporters will paint him as a craven weakling (because it would be true).

Either way, they can go back to their constituents and say how much they did to protect helpless little babies, strategically neglect to mention the women bleeding to death while their doctors nurse their deluded "consciences," and claim that it only failed to pass because of that wretched, out-of-touch Obama.
35
To me this underscores how, after almost a hundred years of women having the right to vote, utterly dependent on men they are in the U.S. from the votes in Congress, to President Obama's veto.

With only 17% in total representation from both houses. Don't like this law getting passed? Why not ensure laws like this never get written in the first place. But not with 17% representation for 50% of the population. Discussions of the partisan chess game makes women off to be political chattel, still after almost a century.

How many women reading this would consider running for public office?

Over 30 years of my life and this shit, every day. How much longer will I have to see this crap?
36
@35 I think we need proportional representation at least. But I actually think there should be gender parity in Congress or rotating 49/51%, or reserved seats that can only be filled by women. Yes, I know, it sounds like affirmative action but grow up America.
37
@1 pics or it didn't happen
38
Completely and totally false. I suggest you idiots get someone to read the damn bill for you - you obviously can't read yourself.

Knock the crap out of your heads and try thinking for yourselves you freaking brainwashed jackasses...
39
This almost makes me ashamed to be a funeral director. This absolutely disgusts me.
40
Time to pass a bill on this corruption: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2LpLhOs…
41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2LpLhOs… <--an atrocity against men
42
This story is a complete fabrication. Read the bill. It makes exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. Nowhere does it say they can let women die. Read it, I dare you.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c1…
43
@38, 42: Why yes, the bill DOES make exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. Of course, those exceptions do not mean what you think they mean!
See, I read the full text of the bill, as well as the nonpartisan summary of the bill assembled by the Congressional Research Service. And here's the juicy bit that matters, down in 2.(a).(3):
Special Rules Relating to Training in and Coverage of Abortion Services- Nothing in this Act [the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the Protect Life Act modifies] (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of or access to abortion services or to allow the Secretary or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion services.’
Basically, this bit prohibits the Federal government from requiring insurance companies or healthcare providers to allow coverage of or access to abortions. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS LISTED HERE. This means that if a pregnant woman wishes to have an abortion, the hospital can turn her away, and there is nothing that Uncle Sam can do about it, even if she dies as a result.
Well, where are those exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or risk to the mother? Well, they are down a little further in 2.(a).(4):
No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)...may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except--
‘(A) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Okay, then, that's settled. The exceptions aren't there about a woman's right to a lifesaving abortion! They're there to protect government funding for such lifesaving abortions! If a woman is in danger of losing her life if she doesn't have an abortion, government-subsidized health care can still cover her, sure, BUT, there is nothing to stop a hospital from refusing to perform the abortion and leaving her to die.
DO. YOUR. FUCKING. RESEARCH. Your move, bitch.