WA Dems Try to Take Advantage of Nursing Mom in Gun Control Vote

[ZigZagZeke]

"I think it is shameful for them to make her choose between being on the floor and voting and nursing her child. This caucus, which presents itself as being the caucus of families, would willingly drive a wedge between a mother and her infant?" Republican Senator Ann Rivers said. "I think that is shameful. Just shameful. And deeply disappointing."

WA State Dems Take Advantage of Nursing Mother to Rush Vote on Bill

Read More

 

[Oklahomie]

That is the dirtiest thing I have ever seen... that is a diabolical trick.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Turns out it wasn't a gun control vote. Apparently, I didn't read closely enough and got it confused with another article. But it COULD have been a gun control vote. It is illustrative of the kind of tactics WA Democrats will stoop to. I have no doubt they would do it to further a gun control bill.

 

[Oklahomie]

Regardless of the intention its still a messed up move.

 

[Ralgha]

Like the Republicans wouldn't have done the same thing given the chance. Both parties are corrupt to the core, it's nothing new.

 

[duane black]

This is so messed up. WTF are they doing in Olympia ?

Sent from my Nexus 4

 

[3MTA3]

Like the Republicans wouldn't have done the same thing given the chance. Both parties are corrupt to the core, it's nothing new.

...So, after the bank was robbed, the policeman came up to me and asked me to point out the robber in a line up. I fingered the guy who did it, but then pointed at another guy in the line up (that I didn't like) and said "He would have done it if he had the chance". Both were arrested, tried and convicted. The judge in the case was very impressed that I could identify the perpetrator of a crime before it happened...

 

[Jamie6.5]

...So, after the bank was robbed, the policeman came up to me and asked me to point out the robber in a line up. I fingered the guy who did it, but then pointed at another guy in the line up (that I didn't like) and said "He would have done it if he had the chance". Both were arrested, tried and convicted. The judge in the case was very impressed that I could identify the perpetrator of a crime before it happened...

:applause:

 

[oknow]

Like the Republicans wouldn't have done the same thing given the chance. Both parties are corrupt to the core, it's nothing new.

they haven't yet, so that says something that the dems can't say.

 

[Misterbill]

First of all, this is grandstanding by the GOP. There is nothing at all to indicate the vote was called BECAUSE the legislator in question was breast feeding, as opposed to simply leaving the floor.

Second:

Breastfeeding mothers are protected under state anti-discrimination
law, and can breastfeed their children in places of public accommodation
such as restaurants, pools, theaters, government buildings, museums,
libraries, buses, or parks.
(RCW 49.60.030 and 49.60.215)

So she didn't HAVE to leave the floor to nurse the child. Particularly not if she expected a roll-call vote the minute she left the chamber. As it turns out, they got her and she voted and nothing happened.

This is plain politics. Much as I'm happy to bash WA Dems I'd just as soon it be over something real, not a piece of parliamentary procedure that both sides use made up to be about something it was not. This is a non-story. And as the OP mentioned, it didn't even relate to gun control.

 

[Misterbill]

they haven't yet, so that says something that the dems can't say.

Really? You checked the parliamentary logs of the Senate for the last 20 years and the GOP has never pulled the same kind of stunt?

This is parlimentary procedure. She shouldn't have left the chamber at the time she did. No harm done, they went and got her and she voted.

the WA Dems are so screwed up and full of so many ninnies it's not hard to find things to not like about them. But this is silly.

 

[3MTA3]

So she didn't HAVE to leave the floor to nurse the child.

So, just because she COULD she is REQUIRED to nurse in public? Run that one past you wife, but make sure you are wearing a hard cup first.

Particularly not if she expected a roll-call vote the minute she left the chamber.

Didja even read the article?

"As soon as she was off the floor, Democrat Sen. David Frockt immediately began a push for a vote on a bill that was not up for discussion. "

The roll call vote wasn't planned. As soon as the Democrats saw that she left they rushed it in attempting to take advantage.

Listen, I don't have a beef with the Democrat party or Democrats in general. What I loathe are the snakes. A snake is a politician that will do whatever it take to take and hold power. If you are a snake, what party would give you the best opportunity to get elected on the west coast? Republican? Heck no. You don't want to have to fight general perception and the mainstream media, its too hard. If you are a West Coast snake, there are too many positives about being a Democrat to ignore, so that's where they flock. Your average Democrat is a hard working decent person that's usually too durn busy to pay attention to politics and the character of the people they vote into office. Republicans are no different, but at the moment only have the snakes too stupid not to be Democrats to deal with. Frankly we are screwed unless we make like St. Patrick and get rid of the snakes.

 

[Misterbill]

So, just because she COULD she is REQUIRED to nurse in public? Run that one past you wife, but make sure you are wearing a hard cup first.

My wife doesn't see nursing in public as something objectionable in any way. If you're so sensitive about it you can't bear the thought, pump and bottle feed like any woman that has her kids in daycare, or take a leave of absence. The Senate could always change its rules of parliamentary procedure based on the fact that one of their members is nursing, but they haven't.

Didja even read the article?

"As soon as she was off the floor, Democrat Sen. David Frockt immediately began a push for a vote on a bill that was not up for discussion. "

Again, a longstanding tactic of parliamentary procedure. Procedures that have been in place since before there WAS a USA.

This is old-time parliamentary wrangling. It's not new, it's not slimy, it's not "snake-like."

The Senate can change it's rules of procedure anytime they want to. As for the tactic, if it was a bill mandating constitutional carry in Washington would you still be so outraged? There is a reason the Senate hasn't changed this rule. Because it's sometimes useful getting past a majority.

If you want to play in the big leagues, this is what you deal with. It's not new, it's not evil. Both sides DO do this stuff. They keep the rules the way they are because they WORK, for BOTH parties.

And again, they didnt' do it because she was BREASTFEEDING. They did it because she left the floor.

 

[3MTA3]

I'm OK with breastfeeding in public, but I don't think we should force a mother to not breastfeed, nor should we force her to breastfeed in public. I do not believe that Senator Frockt knew why she left, just that he took advantage of her being absent.

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. It's called ethics, something we should value in our representatives.

 

[Misterbill]

I'm OK with breastfeeding in public, but I don't think we should force a mother to not breastfeed, nor should we force her to breastfeed in public. I do not believe that Senator Frockt knew why she left, just that he took advantage of her being absent.

Just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it. It's called ethics, something we should value in our representatives.

First, every mother I know except for stay-at-home moms breast-pumps and has the daycare bottlefeed. So I'm not sure why the an elected official should be treated any different. No one forced her to do anything. If you aren't familiar with breast-pumps, look it up.

Secondly, there is nothing unethical about using the existing parliamentary rules to your advantage.

Adj. 1. unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior

As I pointed out, the Senate has had the opportunity for a long time to change its rules. They have decided not to. Ergo; calling the vote was not unethical.

The reason the GOP is making hay is that it's political theater, nothing more.

And as my wife pointed out when I read her your post, She missed a great opportunity for political theater herself. she should have come back to the floor with the baby on her breast and voted, thereby sending the message that whatever the National party's reputation may be, WA republicans are pro-woman.

Political theater is meant for people who don't understand how the system works and why. It's used to manipulate the ignorant.

You are not ignorant, so don't fall for it.

 

[Ralgha]

they haven't yet, so that says something that the dems can't say.

They probably have, I just don't care enough to search all the records of all 50 states and the feds as far back as they go.

My point is that both parties are corrupt, and people need to stop saying Democrats are going to take all our guns and Republicans are going to save us. If you blindly support only Republicans in Washington and Oregon, you're going to lose, because too many people have been fooled by the political theater that the Republican/Democrat duopoly put on. Democrats are usually going to win these states for the foreseeable future, but that DOESN'T mean that they have to be anti-gun.

Forget party lines and stereotypes. Vote for the individuals who will uphold our rights, promote Democrats in the primaries who will compete with the likes of Ginny Burdick, THAT'S how we will win. The sheep are going to vote Democrat (or Republican) as they're told to, so make sure the Democrat (and Republican) option is pro-gun.

 

[3MTA3]

You can look up and quote definitions all day long:

eth·i·cal
[eth-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

If you need a dictionary to tell right from wrong you are never going to get it.

 

[oknow]

They probably have, I just don't care enough to search all the records of all 50 states and the feds as far back as they go.

My point is that both parties are corrupt, and people need to stop saying Democrats are going to take all our guns and Republicans are going to save us. If you blindly support only Republicans in Washington and Oregon, you're going to lose, because too many people have been fooled by the political theater that the Republican/Democrat duopoly put on. Democrats are usually going to win these states for the foreseeable future, but that DOESN'T mean that they have to be anti-gun.

Forget party lines and stereotypes. Vote for the individuals who will uphold our rights, promote Democrats in the primaries who will compete with the likes of Ginny Burdick, THAT'S how we will win. The sheep are going to vote Democrat (or Republican) as they're told to, so make sure the Democrat (and Republican) option is pro-gun.

Very convincing

 

[Norm0931]

Secondly, there is nothing unethical about using the existing parliamentary rules to your advantage.

This quote just made me shake my head at how far our country has fallen. Mister, it's nothing against you personally, it just blows me away that you would be OK with this kind of thing by ANYONE for something like politics. They weren't on a battlefield or trying to stop a terrorist. They were our supposedly "responsible and ethical" elected representatives that are charged with trying to safeguard our freedoms and uphold and defend the Constitution.

Honestly, how could anyone, regardless of political affiliation, think the best way to conduct yourself is to look for every way possible to cheat the political system? There are flaws in any system and some will always find ways to cheat the system but, those people should not be celebrated or tolerated. They should be punished or at the very least scorned for not doing what would be ethically right. I hope people in Mr. Frockt's district vote him out of office in favor of someone who still represents their political views and also has some sense of morality.

 

[Misterbill]

This quote just made me shake my head at how far our country has fallen. Mister, it's nothing against you personally, it just blows me away that you would be OK with this kind of thing by ANYONE for something like politics.

So you're not OK with senators using senate rules they themselves have the power to change at any time?

The Senate rules allow for exactly this kind of thing. I can guarantee you both sides use this rule on occasion. BECAUSE it is a rule, which the Senate can change if they wanted to, using that rule is not unethical. It conforms completely with existing rules.

SHE left the floor. SHE was presumably aware of the rules. SHE is a member of a body which can vote to change its rules anytime it wants to.

By your standards, Rand Paul's recent filibuster was unethical. After all, he was taking advantage of a Senate rule to block a vote based on something which had nothing to do with the bill up for vote. Was he "unethical" for doing this? I don't think so.

And when you say "something like politics," as though it was something unimportant, you reveal a misconception about politics. It's the most important thing we do as a society. Politics determines who lives or dies, who goes to jail, whether we go to war and on and on, to EVERY significant issue any civilization faces.

But back to ethics, this is a known, accepted and democratically agreed to rule. The Senator used it to his advantage and presumably the advantage of his constituents. Using Kantian ethics, this passes the test in every way. Using Utilitarian ethics, it passes the test. In other words, it is NOT unethical.

You just don't like it, which is not the same thing as unethical. You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion does not equate to the standard by which ethical behavior is judged.