• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House votes to strike down D.C. law banning reproductive discrimination

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Apparently, anti-abortion moves are seen as less harmful to Republican interests than anti-gay actions

House votes to strike down D.C. law banning reproductive discrimination

A divided House of Representatives voted along party lines late Thursday to strike down a D.C. law on ideological grounds for the first time in almost 35 years.

Republican opponents of the measure, which bans discrimination over employees’ reproductive decisions, said it constituted a liberal attack on antiabortion groups in the nation’s capital.

The effort, begun by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) in the days before he launched his presidential campaign, sparked a fierce debate on the floor of the House late Thursday, with Democrats blasting the Republican move as an outrageous infringement on women’s reproductive rights and privacy.
 
Congress can run D.C. anyway Congress wants to. It's one of their explicitly enumerated powers.

Congress could, under article I, section 8, ban all elective abortion in all federal territory, including D.C.

Could, and should.
 
Congress can run D.C. anyway Congress wants to. It's one of their explicitly enumerated powers.

Congress could, under article I, section 8, ban all elective abortion in all federal territory, including D.C.

Could, and should.

and you label yourself "Libertarian" without seeing the contrast in your stated positions on this forum and what is seen as Libertarianism in other countries. The American version seems to favour Christian theocracy, government control of women's decisions and the oppression of minorities when a state or town wants to do it.
 
and you label yourself "Libertarian" without seeing the contrast in your stated positions on this forum and what is seen as Libertarianism in other countries. The American version seems to favour Christian theocracy, government control of women's decisions and the oppression of minorities when a state or town wants to do it.

Yes, a respect for human rights and equality are very much "libertarian" qualities.

In this case, we should respect property rights, freedom of contract and freedom of association.

I would not want to employ someone known to have killed other human beings in cold blood. No rational employer would unless their business model somehow required selfish and savagely destructive employees.

Indeed, it would be far better for such scum to be in prison.
 
Last edited:
and you label yourself "Libertarian" without seeing the contrast in your stated positions on this forum and what is seen as Libertarianism in other countries. The American version seems to favour Christian theocracy, government control of women's decisions and the oppression of minorities when a state or town wants to do it.

That is either a flat out lie or unbelievable ignorance. Being for human liberty does not equal being for anything you just mentioned. If one believe that life begins at conception and that the proper role of government is to secure the rights of all living humans, then of course a libertarian position could very easily be for the elimination of the abortion procedure. Why cant you liberals wrap your heads around such a simple formulation?
 
How anyone can look at this and not see that the people of DC need to be governing themselves, out from the thumb of elected leaders from other states, is crazy. DC needs to be a state. The land on which the three main government buildings sit can stay federal land, but the people of the city need the same rights and representation as the rest of the nation.

That is either a flat out lie or unbelievable ignorance. Being for human liberty does not equal being for anything you just mentioned. If one believe that life begins at conception and that the proper role of government is to secure the rights of all living humans, then of course a libertarian position could very easily be for the elimination of the abortion procedure. Why cant you liberals wrap your heads around such a simple formulation?

You might start by recognizing that your beliefs don't get special privilege and don't get to be enshrined in the law over anyone else's. You want to make laws? Then you need facts and not beliefs.
 
How anyone can look at this and not see that the people of DC need to be governing themselves, out from the thumb of elected leaders from other states, is crazy. DC needs to be a state. The land on which the three main government buildings sit can stay federal land, but the people of the city need the same rights and representation as the rest of the nation.
How does a person who defends every act of intrusion into state matter by the federal government say such a thing with a straight face?



You might start by recognizing that your beliefs don't get special privilege and don't get to be enshrined in the law over anyone else's. You want to make laws? Then you need facts and not beliefs.
Then perhaps you might use some facts here rather than simply regurgitate your own stale beliefs and pretend they have standing. There are few things more annoying than a one-size-fits-all liberal demanding independent action. Snap out of your leftist coma dude.
 
That is either a flat out lie or unbelievable ignorance. Being for human liberty does not equal being for anything you just mentioned. If one believe that life begins at conception and that the proper role of government is to secure the rights of all living humans, then of course a libertarian position could very easily be for the elimination of the abortion procedure. Why cant you liberals wrap your heads around such a simple formulation?

You have basically zero credibility pretending you hate big government if you support it sticking its nose into a women's uterus.
 
You have basically zero credibility pretending you hate big government if you support it sticking its nose into a women's uterus.
I support the government defending human rights. That means there are numerous ways in which the government must 'stick its nose' into what we do. But go ahead and pretend that your leftist demands for the state to stick it nose in virtually every other aspect of life gives you an ounce of credibility to denounce it here.
 
How anyone can look at this and not see that the people of DC need to be governing themselves.

With policy like this, it is clear they are unfit to do so.

You might start by recognizing that your beliefs don't get special privilege and don't get to be enshrined in the law over anyone else's. You want to make laws? Then you need facts and not beliefs.

Human rights are more important than your individual belief. Human rights should not be put to a vote.
 
You have basically zero credibility pretending you hate big government if you support it sticking its nose into a women's uterus.

All "small government" types must be anarchists opposed to all laws against killing because you say so?

Yeah, okay. :roll:
 
You might start by recognizing that your beliefs don't get special privilege and don't get to be enshrined in the law over anyone else's. You want to make laws? Then you need facts and not beliefs.

You need to take your own advice. DC is a district with the House running the show since the very first of our nation. It is enshrined by law and constitution. The reasons are provided by the founders themselves, and they are very good reasons. I suggest you read a little of our history and acquaint yourself.
 
I have no idea what Congress 'struck down'.

I am waiting for Congress to strike down Congress.
 
You need to take your own advice. DC is a district with the House running the show since the very first of our nation. It is enshrined by law and constitution. The reasons are provided by the founders themselves, and they are very good reasons. I suggest you read a little of our history and acquaint yourself.

They are actually crap reasons. They were predicated on a much smaller congress that would get along a lot more, and that they would all be living in the district. Neither of those are true. The notion of congress getting together and turning DC into a playground for themselves is nonsense. That would never happen, and hasn't been a feasible reality since perhaps the 1830s. The country is just too big and there's too many people with too many differing ideas to agree on anything like that. Plus... they almost all don't live in the district. They live in nice Maryland or Virginia suburbs. DC is instead populated by regular working people, often not even the high powered lawyers, lobbyists, and political actors - they mainly live in those suburbs, too.

The fears about DC being subject to government collusion may have been a reasonable fear in 1789, but in 2015 it's completely absurd. It's not some kind of "government home team" place. It's a company town, and for some reason, working for the federal government is somehow viewed as reason for stripping people of basic rights. It's nonsense.

Keep your federal district. It can span a city block or two. Six hundred thousand people (larger than the populations of two states) don't need to not have their own state. There's nothing gained by that.
 
You have basically zero credibility pretending you hate big government if you support it sticking its nose into a women's uterus.



The far right evangelicals would like to get the U.S. government off of Wall Street's back and into every American bedroom, controlling every American's private life.

Not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time,GOP
 
With policy like this, it is clear they are unfit to do so.



Human rights are more important than your individual belief. Human rights should not be put to a vote.

Does that apply to SSM?
 
So, in your view every reservation, every bit of federal land, should be granted statehood. You do realize it would take a constitutional amendment to achieve that, right?
 
They are actually crap reasons. They were predicated on a much smaller congress that would get along a lot more, and that they would all be living in the district. Neither of those are true. The notion of congress getting together and turning DC into a playground for themselves is nonsense. That would never happen, and hasn't been a feasible reality since perhaps the 1830s. The country is just too big and there's too many people with too many differing ideas to agree on anything like that. Plus... they almost all don't live in the district. They live in nice Maryland or Virginia suburbs. DC is instead populated by regular working people, often not even the high powered lawyers, lobbyists, and political actors - they mainly live in those suburbs, too.

The fears about DC being subject to government collusion may have been a reasonable fear in 1789, but in 2015 it's completely absurd. It's not some kind of "government home team" place. It's a company town, and for some reason, working for the federal government is somehow viewed as reason for stripping people of basic rights. It's nonsense.

Keep your federal district. It can span a city block or two. Six hundred thousand people (larger than the populations of two states) don't need to not have their own state. There's nothing gained by that.


Thank you for you peevish, hand-waving argument about "crap reasons"--it shows the same quality we've come to expect from your arguments. Now all you have to do is get the Constitution amended to nullify the first part of Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17:

"[The Congress shall have power] to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district . . . as may . . . become the seat of government of the United States . . . ."


Or maybe, like Mr. Obama, you think that whenever any part of the Constitution presents an obstacle to a statist pipe dream, that part should just be ignored.
 
Thank you for you peevish, hand-waving argument about "crap reasons"--it shows the same quality we've come to expect from your arguments. Now all you have to do is get the Constitution amended to nullify the first part of Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17:

"[The Congress shall have power] to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district . . . as may . . . become the seat of government of the United States . . . ."

Or maybe, like Mr. Obama, you think that whenever any part of the Constitution presents an obstacle to a statist pipe dream, that part should just be ignored.

No, no alteration of the constitution is necessary. Only shrinking the size of the federal district and making a new state out of the remaining area. The white house, supreme court building, and capitol building can still be federal district land. Everything else belongs to the new state, which will then have the same autonomy and rights as every other state.

Seriously, do you have any other objection besides "the founders"? Everything they intended or wrote in the constitution was perfect, right? Like slavery and only men being able to vote. What's the possible reason to oppose these people having the full representation and rights of the American citizens that they are?

So, in your view every reservation, every bit of federal land, should be granted statehood. You do realize it would take a constitutional amendment to achieve that, right?

It would. Which is why that's not my view. My view is that THIS bit of federal land, which has a higher population than two states, be a new state. No amendment required. Just shrink the federal district and make a new state out of the remainder. And no, the people of DC don't want to be part of Maryland or Virginia. That's no more acceptable than ripping off any part of any other state to give it to another.

Stop relying on mischaracterizing people's arguments in order to oppose them. Deal with what I'm actually saying, instead of pretending I'm saying something else.
 
I would not want to employ someone known to have killed other human beings in cold blood. No rational employer would unless their business model somehow required selfish and savagely destructive employees.
What a moronic and ignorant thing to say. Considering the number of women who have had abortions and are employed, it is clear that rational employers do not share your extremist idiotic views.
 
If I understand the DC law correctly, Right to Life, as an employer, could not discriminate against in hiring/firing an employee who acted contrary to the very being of the organization. Likewise, the Catholic Church couldn't discriminate in the hiring/firing of a teacher in a Catholic school.

If I do understand it correctly, the law was likely unconstitutional and Congress saved the District a lot of time and legal fees by just canning it.
 
What a moronic and ignorant thing to say. Considering the number of women who have had abortions and are employed, it is clear that rational employers do not share your extremist idiotic views.

Thank you so much for sharing your radical, stupid, and hateful opinion that I don't care about one bit.
 
That is either a flat out lie or unbelievable ignorance. Being for human liberty does not equal being for anything you just mentioned. If one believe that life begins at conception and that the proper role of government is to secure the rights of all living humans, then of course a libertarian position could very easily be for the elimination of the abortion procedure.
That is because rational and intelligent people do not really give a crap what the ignorant believe. They tend to make decisions based on facts.
 
Thank you so much for sharing your radical, stupid, and hateful opinion that I don't care about one bit.
I could not care less what you care about. I was just pointing out the utter stupidity of your post and position. Naturally you would not like that.
 
I could not care less what you care about. I was just pointing out the utter stupidity of your post and position. Naturally you would not like that.

If by pointing out you mean just slapping negative adjectives on things you don't like, yeah, okay.

It's great talking to you like this, so productive. I sure hope you keep at this.
 
Back
Top Bottom