• 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!

New rule allows newborns on Senate floor

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,581
Reaction score
19,331
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From United Press InternationalNew rule allows newborns on Senate floor

April 18 (UPI) -- Newborn babies will be allowed on the Senate floor, following a request from Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who gave birth last month.

The Senate had previously banned children from entering the Senate floor. But Duckworth -- the first sitting U.S. Senator to give birth -- asked the rule be changed so she can attend to both her mother duties and senatorial duties.

"By ensuring that no Senator will be prevented from performing their constitutional responsibilities simply because they have a young child, the Senate is leading by example and sending the important message that working parents everywhere deserve family-friendly workplace policies," Duckworth said in a statement. "These policies aren't just a women's issue, they are a common-sense economic issue."

[COMMENT]

This sort of reminds me of a situation that arose in the Commons in Westminster when the first blind MP who used a guide dog took their seat with the dog sitting in the aisle beside them. There was, naturally, a "NO Animals" rule and one of the other MPs rose to complain to the Speaker about the presence of the dog. The Speaker's response was to rise, slowly scan the seated chamber, look straight at the dog for some period of time, then turn to the complaining MP and say "I don't see any dog.". (Since that day there have been no "assistance dogs" seen in the House of Commons.)

Of course the "Speaker" in the House of Commons performs a slightly different role than the "Speaker" in the House of Representatives in that the "Speaker" in the House of Commons is (unlike in the House of Representatives) a NON-political position (despite the fact that the person elected to that position also has to get elected as an MP [sitting "Speakers" frequently run unopposed by any of the major parties]), is (unlike in the House of Representatives) required by tradition to vote to "maintain the status quo" should any vote result in a tie, has (unlike in the House of Representatives) nothing whatsoever to do with deciding what legislation the House of Commons debates or when it debates it, and doesn't (unlike in the House of Representatives) "caucus" with anyone.

Is that better or worse? How about we leave it at "It's just different.".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From United Press InternationalNew rule allows newborns on Senate floor

April 18 (UPI) -- Newborn babies will be allowed on the Senate floor, following a request from Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who gave birth last month.

The Senate had previously banned children from entering the Senate floor. But Duckworth -- the first sitting U.S. Senator to give birth -- asked the rule be changed so she can attend to both her mother duties and senatorial duties.

"By ensuring that no Senator will be prevented from performing their constitutional responsibilities simply because they have a young child, the Senate is leading by example and sending the important message that working parents everywhere deserve family-friendly workplace policies," Duckworth said in a statement. "These policies aren't just a women's issue, they are a common-sense economic issue."

[COMMENT]

This sort of reminds me of a situation that arose in the Commons in Westminster when the first blind MP who used a guide dog took their seat with the dog sitting in the aisle beside them. There was, naturally, a "NO Animals" rule and one of the other MPs rose to complain to the Speaker about the presence of the dog. The Speaker's response was to rise, slowly scan the seated chamber, look straight at the dog for some period of time, then turn to the complaining MP and say "I don't see any dog.". (Since that day there have been no "assistance dogs" seen in the House of Commons.)

Of course the "Speaker" in the House of Commons performs a slightly different role than the "Speaker" in the House of Representatives in that the "Speaker" in the House of Commons is (unlike in the House of Representatives) a NON-political position (despite the fact that the person elected to that position also has to get elected as an MP [sitting "Speakers" frequently run unopposed by any of the major parties]), is (unlike in the House of Representatives) required by tradition to vote to "maintain the status quo" should any vote result in a tie, has (unlike in the House of Representatives) nothing whatsoever to do with deciding what legislation the House of Commons debates or when it debates it, and doesn't (unlike in the House of Representatives) "caucus" with anyone.

Is that better or worse? How about we leave it at "It's just different.".
Click to expand...

It's definitely different from the way it was when the Senate convened for the first time.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From United Press InternationalNew rule allows newborns on Senate floor

April 18 (UPI) -- Newborn babies will be allowed on the Senate floor, following a request from Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who gave birth last month.

The Senate had previously banned children from entering the Senate floor. But Duckworth -- the first sitting U.S. Senator to give birth -- asked the rule be changed so she can attend to both her mother duties and senatorial duties.

"By ensuring that no Senator will be prevented from performing their constitutional responsibilities simply because they have a young child, the Senate is leading by example and sending the important message that working parents everywhere deserve family-friendly workplace policies," Duckworth said in a statement. "These policies aren't just a women's issue, they are a common-sense economic issue."

[COMMENT]

This sort of reminds me of a situation that arose in the Commons in Westminster when the first blind MP who used a guide dog took their seat with the dog sitting in the aisle beside them. There was, naturally, a "NO Animals" rule and one of the other MPs rose to complain to the Speaker about the presence of the dog. The Speaker's response was to rise, slowly scan the seated chamber, look straight at the dog for some period of time, then turn to the complaining MP and say "I don't see any dog.". (Since that day there have been no "assistance dogs" seen in the House of Commons.)

Of course the "Speaker" in the House of Commons performs a slightly different role than the "Speaker" in the House of Representatives in that the "Speaker" in the House of Commons is (unlike in the House of Representatives) a NON-political position (despite the fact that the person elected to that position also has to get elected as an MP [sitting "Speakers" frequently run unopposed by any of the major parties]), is (unlike in the House of Representatives) required by tradition to vote to "maintain the status quo" should any vote result in a tie, has (unlike in the House of Representatives) nothing whatsoever to do with deciding what legislation the House of Commons debates or when it debates it, and doesn't (unlike in the House of Representatives) "caucus" with anyone.

Is that better or worse? How about we leave it at "It's just different.".
Click to expand...

As more women become politicians this was bound to happen.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From United Press InternationalNew rule allows newborns on Senate floor

April 18 (UPI) -- Newborn babies will be allowed on the Senate floor, following a request from Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who gave birth last month.

The Senate had previously banned children from entering the Senate floor. But Duckworth -- the first sitting U.S. Senator to give birth -- asked the rule be changed so she can attend to both her mother duties and senatorial duties.

"By ensuring that no Senator will be prevented from performing their constitutional responsibilities simply because they have a young child, the Senate is leading by example and sending the important message that working parents everywhere deserve family-friendly workplace policies," Duckworth said in a statement. "These policies aren't just a women's issue, they are a common-sense economic issue."

[COMMENT]

This sort of reminds me of a situation that arose in the Commons in Westminster when the first blind MP who used a guide dog took their seat with the dog sitting in the aisle beside them. There was, naturally, a "NO Animals" rule and one of the other MPs rose to complain to the Speaker about the presence of the dog. The Speaker's response was to rise, slowly scan the seated chamber, look straight at the dog for some period of time, then turn to the complaining MP and say "I don't see any dog.". (Since that day there have been no "assistance dogs" seen in the House of Commons.)

Of course the "Speaker" in the House of Commons performs a slightly different role than the "Speaker" in the House of Representatives in that the "Speaker" in the House of Commons is (unlike in the House of Representatives) a NON-political position (despite the fact that the person elected to that position also has to get elected as an MP [sitting "Speakers" frequently run unopposed by any of the major parties]), is (unlike in the House of Representatives) required by tradition to vote to "maintain the status quo" should any vote result in a tie, has (unlike in the House of Representatives) nothing whatsoever to do with deciding what legislation the House of Commons debates or when it debates it, and doesn't (unlike in the House of Representatives) "caucus" with anyone.

Is that better or worse? How about we leave it at "It's just different.".
Click to expand...

I couldn't bring my newborns to work with me. The overwhelming majority of mothers can't bring their newborns to work with them. Sorry, Senator Duckworth. I empathize with you, but don't know why your job is special.
 
tres borrachos said:
I couldn't bring my newborns to work with me. The overwhelming majority of mothers can't bring their newborns to work with them. Sorry, Senator Duckworth. I empathize with you, but don't know why your job is special.
Click to expand...

May be she can't afford a sitter. Poor dear.
 
tres borrachos said:
I couldn't bring my newborns to work with me. The overwhelming majority of mothers can't bring their newborns to work with them. Sorry, Senator Duckworth. I empathize with you, but don't know why your job is special.
Click to expand...

Her job is so special because it only takes her to get 50 of her colleagues to agree to her proposed change of the work rules. She also represents the citizens of Illinois.

It doesn't cost me anything to let her have her child on the floor.
 
tres borrachos said:
I couldn't bring my newborns to work with me. The overwhelming majority of mothers can't bring their newborns to work with them. Sorry, Senator Duckworth. I empathize with you, but don't know why your job is special.
Click to expand...

Maybe congress is leading the way for once?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
This sort of reminds me of a situation that arose in the Commons in Westminster when the first blind MP who used a guide dog took their seat with the dog sitting in the aisle beside them. There was, naturally, a "NO Animals" rule and one of the other MPs rose to complain to the Speaker about the presence of the dog. The Speaker's response was to rise, slowly scan the seated chamber, look straight at the dog for some period of time, then turn to the complaining MP and say "I don't see any dog.". (Since that day there have been no "assistance dogs" seen in the House of Commons.)
Click to expand...

That is a great story, thanks for sharing it.
 
tres borrachos said:
I couldn't bring my newborns to work with me. The overwhelming majority of mothers can't bring their newborns to work with them. Sorry, Senator Duckworth. I empathize with you, but don't know why your job is special.
Click to expand...

Because she must be present to vote.
 
Carleen said:
Because she must be present to vote.
Click to expand...

Yes. And? They can vote in absentia these days.

A woman can be present to perform her job as a cashier for WalMart, or a salesperson for Oracle, or a policewoman in San Diego, if she could bring her newborn too. Too bad the overwhelming majority of women in this country are prohibited from bringing their newborns to work.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Her job is so special because it only takes her to get 50 of her colleagues to agree to her proposed change of the work rules. She also represents the citizens of Illinois.

It doesn't cost me anything to let her have her child on the floor.
Click to expand...

Well it's a good thing you posted this, because I was on the edge of my seat wondering and worrying about how much this was going to cost you.
 
tres borrachos said:
I couldn't bring my newborns to work with me. The overwhelming majority of mothers can't bring their newborns to work with them. Sorry, Senator Duckworth. I empathize with you, but don't know why your job is special.
Click to expand...

The whole point is to change the mentality that all jobs should ban children, especially newborns, when some mothers are able to fully function in their capacity at work while still tending to a newborn. This is especially true with certain programs such as in-business daycare centers.
 
Anagram said:
Not arguing against your overall point, but I'm pretty sure that's not true.
Click to expand...

I know they can vote in committee in absentia. Not sure about a roll call vote.

Someone can show up for an hour to vote and get a nanny or a sitter. Again, like the overwhelming majority of women in this country have to do if they need to work with a newborn.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes. And? They can vote in absentia these days.

A woman can be present to perform her job as a cashier for WalMart, or a salesperson for Oracle, or a policewoman in San Diego, if she could bring her newborn too. Too bad the overwhelming majority of women in this country are prohibited from bringing their newborns to work.
Click to expand...

You just named a bunch of jobs though that require complete undivided attention to various physical tasks. Being a politician does not require that same type of work. Therefore, if it is feeding time, and she is breastfeeding (which is the only reason I can think to have a newborn out there), then there is no reason that shouldn't be acceptable. Honestly, I think many businesses, especially office jobs, should have inhouse daycare setups.
 
tres borrachos said:
Well it's a good thing you posted this, because I was on the edge of my seat wondering and worrying about how much this was going to cost you.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't react well to disagreement. Unfortunate that you think this Senator has to live her life based on your past hardships. Maybe if you had more than half your workplace to change the work rules, you could have had your newborns with you at work too.

Can I say something bad about Trump to make you feel better?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm sorry you don't react well to disagreement. Unfortunate that you think this Senator has to live her life based on your past hardships. Maybe if you had more than half your workplace to change the work rules, you could have had your newborns with you at work too.

Can I say something bad about Trump to make you feel better?
Click to expand...
I rarely agree with tres but in this circumstance she has a valid point. I would also add that the workplace is an inappropriate environment for babies or small children. This woman should either take a leave of absence or resign. She does not have the right to disrupt everyone's worplace.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I rarely agree with tres but in this circumstance she has a valid point. I would also add that the workplace is an inappropriate environment for babies or small children. This woman should either take a leave of absence or resign. She does not have the right to disrupt everyone's worplace.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I never said that her point wasn't valid but she did ask why this Senator was special. She is special because she contributes to how her workplace functions and they could probably all go topless if 51 Senators voted to so do.

I'm sure the procedures will be refined over time. If Schumer or McConnell are speaking and the child is screaming, they may have to come to an accommodation with a further adjustment of the rules.
 
how about military folks bring their kids into combat; how's that gonna work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom