• 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!

Was This Acceptable? [W:110]

Was confiscating feminine hygrene products acceptable in this case?


  • Total voters
    45
So, the story is going around, you probably have heard about it. Big abortion debate/vote in Texas yesterday, and on fears that some protesters might throw them into the assembly, tampons and pads where being confiscated before people could enter the viewing area.

View attachment 67150283

Supposedly the Texas legislature heard from somewhere that they might be possibly used to disrupt the proceedings. So my question is, do you find this action justifiable?

I think I don't want to meet the woman who uses CLIF bars as pads.
 
Guns are okay, but tampons aren't....interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/guns-get-a-pass-at-texas-capitol.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Imo, throwing the tampons would have been expression of free speech and the only way I would object is if the tampons had been used. I'm glad the optics of conservative men armed to the hilt confiscating tampons from unarmed women went viral. I don't think it will be forgotten in 2014.

That's why your opinion wouldn't matter in the real world. They rightly took away those that screamed and made a scene during the session, and they would have rightly arrested those who would throw the objects on the floor.

Order must be secured.
 
That's why your opinion wouldn't matter in the real world. They rightly took away those that screamed and made a scene during the session, and they would have rightly arrested those who would throw the objects on the floor.

Order must be secured.
Thats the thing about freedom and/or civil disobedience is that it doesn't require permission.
 
Thats the thing about freedom and/or civil disobedience is that it doesn't require permission.

It does when you are on the legislative floor.
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

Its not a first amendment right to throw **** at someone.

If so, please point out to me where in the 1st amendment it says, "The right of the people to throw objects at others with the intent to strike others for the purpose of addressing their greivences will not be infringed"

Thanks in advance.

No, throwing stuff at others isn't a First Amendment right. And the subject line of this thread is deceptive--it suggests that what this was about was feminine hygiene products when it wasn't. It was about the state police following a tip and searching protesters' bags for anything that could be used as a projectile.

I don't the DPS was thinking about what those products are used for; they were focused on preventing the senators or others from being assaulted. When women complained to Dem leader Kirk Watson and he then complained to the DPS, it reversed its decision. Oddly, this seems to be forgotten in the fauxrage over "tampon-gate."
 
It does when you are on the legislative floor.
The legislative floor isn't holy or sacrosanct....they could be standing in a barn for all that matters.
 
The legislative floor isn't holy or sacrosanct....they could be standing in a barn for all that matters.

Where they do the business, yes it is. If you don't think so, I would like to see you try it. See what happens. I bet you are escorted out at the very least.
 
No, throwing stuff at others isn't a First Amendment right. And the subject line of this thread is deceptive--it suggests that what this was about was feminine hygiene products when it wasn't. It was about the state police following a tip and searching protesters' bags for anything that could be used as a projectile.

I don't the DPS was thinking about what those products are used for; they were focused on preventing the senators or others from being assaulted. When women complained to Dem leader Kirk Watson and he then complained to the DPS, it reversed its decision. Oddly, this seems to be forgotten in the fauxrage over "tampon-gate."

Oddly enough, I would say the ones that forgot it the most were those who were supporting the tampon grab in the first place. The removal of the order was due to miscommunication and bad form, removing the order's good sense as a result.
 
Where they do the business, yes it is. If you don't think so, I would like to see you try it. See what happens. I bet you are escorted out at the very least.

The state troopers were there at the authorization of the Texas Senate for the express purpose of enforcing the Senate Rules of Conduct.
 
The state troopers were there at the authorization of the Texas Senate for the express purpose of enforcing the Senate Rules of Conduct.

Except this was an order rescinded upon complaint and miscommunication. The demand to remove all tampons could still be considered poor, whilst the mechanism to enforce the demands were still justified.
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

I don't know if it's acceptable or not, but the symbolism of confiscating feminine hygiene products at a senate debate on abortion was an outright media coup for Pro-Choice: the image that conservative men just want to control women's bodies is driven home rather effectively. The fact that the senate didn't seem to really consider the impact this would have only further establishes a general cluelessness on their part.

I think they pretty much confiscated everything that could be thrown though.

Someone just happened to take a picture of the tampon.
 
Except this was an order rescinded upon complaint and miscommunication. The demand to remove all tampons could still be considered poor, whilst the mechanism to enforce the demands were still justified.

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here.

But I do think that when it was pointed out to the DPS that some of the women needed these products, the reversal was accommodating.

What I think is stunning is the silly focus on the damned tampons and the sloganeering about it. The issue was the intent of some of the protesters to create mayhem and to assault their elected reps in the hope of once again preventing a vote. That's the outrage, and it should be non-partisan.

Doesn't matter what the issue is or who's side of what you're on: We don't actively try to prevent our representatives from doing their sworn duty.
 
So, the story is going around, you probably have heard about it. Big abortion debate/vote in Texas yesterday, and on fears that some protesters might throw them into the assembly, tampons and pads where being confiscated before people could enter the viewing area.

View attachment 67150283

Supposedly the Texas legislature heard from somewhere that they might be possibly used to disrupt the proceedings. So my question is, do you find this action justifiable?

If there was reason to believe it would be used inappropriately? Absolutely acceptable. Afterall, we do not have the right to bear tampons... ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: Was This Acceptable?

I think they pretty much confiscated everything that could be thrown though.

Someone just happened to take a picture of the tampon.

The lesson is that PR is important.
 
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here.

But I do think that when it was pointed out to the DPS that some of the women needed these products, the reversal was accommodating.

What I think is stunning is the silly focus on the damned tampons and the sloganeering about it. The issue was the intent of some of the protesters to create mayhem and to assault their elected reps in the hope of once again preventing a vote. That's the outrage, and it should be non-partisan.

Doesn't matter what the issue is or who's side of what you're on: We don't actively try to prevent our representatives from doing their sworn duty.

As I said before, unused tampons are going to be treated more carefully as a result of need and societal expectations for emergency use and privacy. Furthermore, once the order was removed, that should have sold it to anyone doubting the wrongheadedness of the original order to confiscate. However, despite the order being rescinded, folks here still argued that somehow this was a completely justified, not unreasonable demand, even though it was.

I agree, you shouldn't be allowed to disrupt legislative proceedings, and if you do, you should expect punishment. That being said, some orders are still wrongheaded.
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

The lesson is that PR is important.

Probably not in this case.

They collected what they could to avoid things being thrown. That seems to be what their actual policy was. If you're willing to ignore that and instead choose to believe they were only collecting tampons because evil men want to enslave women and their bodies or something equally ridiculous than it probably doesn't matter what policy they had in place. This topic is more of an issue of partisan hackery than anything else.
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

Probably not in this case.

They collected what they could to avoid things being thrown. If you're willing to ignore that and instead choose to believe they were only collecting tampons because evil men want to enslave women and their bodies or something equally ridiculous than it probably doesn't matter what policy they had in place. This topic is more of an issue of partisan hackery than anything else.

Considering that a **** storm ensued then to say that pr doesn't matter is demonstrably wrong.
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

Considering that a **** storm ensued then to say that pr doesn't matter is demonstrably wrong.

No, it just shows that you're very uninformed on this issue.

Virtually everything involving abortion has resulted in a **** storm since it became an issue and, regardless of their policy, this hearing still would have resulted in a **** storm. That's just the way it goes with this issue. There is not a PR firm in the world that could come up with a campaign that would have avoided the shirt storm.
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

I don't think you're supposed to like it if you're on the recieving end of the protest. But it's amusing that a Libertarian would be against the first amendment right to free expression.

Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

free expression, in no way, suggests a right to commit assault and battery.

Honestly, the entire notion is ****ing stupid, and it's amazing someone would try delivering such in a condescending tone
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

Considering that a **** storm ensued then to say that pr doesn't matter is demonstrably wrong.

The fact that people react to stupid **** doesn't grant the stupid **** some type of inherent merit.
 
Re: Was This Acceptable?

The beauty of the constitution is in it's simplicity and if it listed every known and unknown medium of free expression then it wouldn't be so simple now would it? So if you're looking for specifics you won't find it but you might find it in precedent, court rulings and writings of the fore father's intent.


NTL, I'd love to see some of those conservative bullies say they were assaulted by a tampon. lol

Your claim to 1st amendment rights of expression stop when an object thrown with the intent to strike another does so.

You have no right to throw things at people you don't like..... unless you are a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Quite childish if you ask me... and DEFINITELY not covered under the 1st amendment.
 
The legislative floor isn't holy or sacrosanct....they could be standing in a barn for all that matters.

And one still wouldn't have the right to throw objects at another as an expression of protest.
 
Here are additional details from the Houston Chronicle:

Texas Senate Administration chairman Kevin Eltife said Monday the Texas Department of Public Safety learned that some groups planned to heave projectiles into the Texas Senate gallery by monitoring online chatter in the days preceding Friday’s debate.

...He stressed that DPS officials had told him that the aggressors were not part of the anti-abortion or abortion rights movements, but “third party groups” who wanted to make a statement. “They specifically said it was not Planned Parenthood…but some third party groups trying to stir things up,” said Eltife.

DPS has been criticized for “confiscating” tampons, but Eltife said that action occurred after officers stopped a woman with a cache of “about 75″ feminine hygiene products attempting to enter the Senate Gallery. News reporters on Friday could not find a trooper who could personally verify that jars of urine and feces were confiscated. A DPS press release claimed that 1 jar of urine, 18 jars of feces and three filled with paint were found by officers.

Senator says “blogosphere” tipped DPS off to potential violence | Texas Politics | a Chron.com blog
 
but Eltife said that action occurred after officers stopped a woman with a cache of “about 75″ feminine hygiene products attempting to enter the Senate Gallery.

maybe it was a heavy flow day?
 
Back
Top Bottom