WaPo: House committee votes to upend first D.C. law in 23 years

[mistertim]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/house-committee-votes-to-upend-first-dc-law-in-23-years/2015/04/22/3a59c722-e877-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html?hpid=z2
 

 

A House committee voted to overturn a new D.C. law on Tuesday night that would ban discrimination on the basis of employees’ reproductive decisions.

The rare congressional effort to turn back a local law pleased social conservatives who view the measure as a threat to religious organizations that operate in the nation’s capital. But it signaled a potentially perilous new chapter in partisan relations between the liberal city and its Republican overseers.
 
Over outbursts from activists for D.C. statehood, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 20-16, and along party lines, to block the law. To succeed, the repeal would still have to pass a vote of the full House and Senate, and President Obama would have to sign it within the next two weeks.

 
 
 
More in the link.
 
The party of less government intrusion into peoples' lives* is at it again. Of course this has no chance of passing the full House and Senate or Obama's veto pen, so it is just more grandstanding. Congress has turned into nothing but a running joke...and not even a funny one. It's downright embarrassing. 
 
 
 
*unless it involves a woman's uterus

[ExoDus84]

Good for them. Republicans are just narrowing their appeal to a smaller and smaller portion of Americans. A significant portion of the general electorate is in favor of tolerance and anti-discrimination laws. This won't help them going forward.

 

More and more it seems like the world is passing by Republicans and their antiquated priorities.

[tshile]

I don't understand....

 

they want to be able to not hire someone because they take birth control?

 

or because they had an abortion?

 

that's what I take away from it so far... where am I going wrong, or am I not?

[Larry]

I don't understand....

they want to be able to not hire someone because they take birth control?

or because they had an abortion?

that's what I take away from it so far... where am I going wrong, or am I not?

"Reproductive decisions" could mean having kids. Or abstinence, I suppose.

Maybe DC employers should start firing employees for not having abortions.

[tshile]

"Reproductive decisions" could mean having kids. Or abstinence, I suppose.

Maybe DC employers should start firing employees for not having abortions.

 

I just cannot fathom a group of people deciding that someone using birth control makes them unfit for employment.

 

Abortion I get only in the sense that people are very, very passionate about it (i otherwise don't get it either.)

 

The whole 'punish you for not sharing my morals' (or otherwise trying to force one's morals on another) is just not something i can easily wrap my head around. It leads to so many unnecessary issues.

 

There's part of me that can't help but wonder if the real agenda is linked to the ACA...

[Kilmer17]

Can a company in DC hire or fire a person because she has had an abortion? 

 

Before the DC council made that a law on Tuesday, it appears that they could (women who have had an abortion are not protected by employment discrimination laws, at least I don't think they are).  And this house committee overturned it (do they have that authority?).

 

It's all political grandstanding that no one outside the DC statehood folks do, or should, care about.

[balki1867]

It sounds like even birth control could fall under 'reproductive decisions'

 

Or being gay

Or being single

Or being married

Or proof of infidelity

Or any sex outside of marriage

[Larry]

It's all political grandstanding that no one outside the DC statehood folks do, or should, care about.

Obviously, 20 out of 20 Congressional Republicans thought it was important.

[Duckus]

DC has a lot of wealthy political active people.

 

If I was a rich and lived in DC, I would start a SuperPac to go after Chaffetz and any other GOP members who push this dumb ****. 

 

I am sure they are all in very safe GOP districts, so I would just primary the **** out of them. Give massive funding to all their primary opponents. The money would have won requirement - leave DC alone. Do what you want, be as wacko tea party as you want, but always leave DC alone.

Nothing a politician hates more than a very well funded primary. 

[Kilmer17]

Obviously, 20 out of 20 Congressional Republicans thought it was important.

Oh it's important as a political grandstand.

[balki1867]

Meanwhile in the rest of America, people are told nonstop about how corrupt Washington Insiders are interfering with their lives.  The irony.

[Bang]

I'll go ahead and say it.

If you vote for the GOP because you believe in personal freedom and as little government intrusion as possible, you are as dumb as a box of really stupid hammers.

If you vote for the GOP and you've ever once complained about the "nanny state", then you are so ****ing stupid your right to vote should be questioned.

 

If you are a true conservative, and you think the term "social conservative" is about as bass ackwards a concept as can be, then there's hope that you understand that these religious zealots have absolutely NO conservative values. 

All they have is an agenda, and their agenda is to put people they don't like under their heel.

And while you may not be gay, or smoke pot, or be muslim or liberal or any of their other current bugaboos like that... remember the wisdom of the past.

They came for my neighbor, and I said nothing because he is not like me.

Then they came for my other neighbor and i said nothing because she is also not like me.

Then they came for me..

 

America?

You still there?

 

~Bang

[balki1867]

Wow Bang, you're on a roll lately

[Pedro]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

 

 

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[Burgold]

I'll go ahead and say it.

If you vote for the GOP because you believe in personal freedom and as little government intrusion as possible, you are as dumb as a box of really stupid hammers.

If you vote for the GOP and you've ever once complained about the "nanny state", then you are so ****ing stupid your right to vote should be questioned.

 

America?

You still there?

 

~Bang

This was my first thought.

[tshile]

 

If you vote for the Democrats because you believe in fairness and that everyone just needs a hand, you are as dumb as a box of really stupid hammers.

If you vote for the Democrats and you've ever once complained about the 'religious right' forcing their morals on others, then you are so ****ing stupid your right to vote should be questioned.

 

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think the Democrats are that much better.

 

Let's not forget some of the key leaders of the democrat party were ****ting all over gay marriage not too long ago. You know, when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

I get the GOP has a real issue in terms of its social platform right now. Even as I read what I just wrote, "real issue" seems to be putting it lightly.

 

I just have a hard time accepting the idea that the Democrats aren't just as ridiculous as the GOP. They just currently have a better marketing department and their minions rule social media and thus have had good success lately in their marketing strategy.

[ExoDus84]

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think the Democrats are that much better.

 

Let's not forget some of the key leaders of the democrat party were ****ting all over gay marriage not too long ago. You know, when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

I get the GOP has a real issue in terms of its social platform right now. Even as I read what I just wrote, "real issue" seems to be putting it lightly.

 

I just have a hard time accepting the idea that the Democrats aren't just as ridiculous as the GOP. They just currently have a better marketing department and their minions rule social media and thus have had good success lately in their marketing strategy.

 

Please. The Dems are far from perfect, but their priorities as a party seem much more in line with public opinion and common sense. I mean, what is the Republican priorities? No rights for LGBT Americans. No rights for the poor. No reproductive rights for women. Tax cuts for the wealthy. War. Guns. Lots of guns. Today's sorry excuse for a Republican party would be perfectly suited for 1800's America. Unless you are rich or fanatically Christian, there's really no reason to vote Repub.

 

Dems aren't perfect. I'm liberal, but I don't want anybody that's far, far left, and unwilling to compromise. Honestly, the country would be better off with a third, "Independent" party, that isn't beholden to anybody on the far left, or far right.

 

All I'm saying is that today's Republican party has such steaming turds as Palin, Bachmann, Cruz, Perry, and Mike Huckabee at the top. It's a disgrace.

[Burgold]

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think the Democrats are that much better.

 

Let's not forget some of the key leaders of the democrat party were ****ting all over gay marriage not too long ago. You know, when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

I get the GOP has a real issue in terms of its social platform right now. Even as I read what I just wrote, "real issue" seems to be putting it lightly.

 

I just have a hard time accepting the idea that the Democrats aren't just as ridiculous as the GOP. They just currently have a better marketing department and their minions rule social media and thus have had good success lately in their marketing strategy.

I think the difference you need to take into account is when events move from rhetoric to legislative action. Look at what the GOP is voting on, passing, and signing their names to. This is the anti-nanny state, small government GOP? I think it would be tough to find bills of this sort where the Democrats are voting to subvert a city or state's self-rule or even an individual's rights.

 

I'm not sure why my employee should have any say over my body... What's next? Can they fire me for getting a cancer screening, for wearing a condom, for taking too many vitamins? Can they refuse to hire me if I refuse to describe my sexual practices or if I've ever been snipped or taken one of those pills?

 

So no, the parties are not the same. One party is acting. The other may whine, but on the local, state, and now federal level we see actual votes. This, as Peter may point out, may never pass out of Committee, but the fact that it passed committee... something that hasn't happened to DC for decades must be big. Otherwise, it would happen far more regularly.

 

So much for states' or locality's rights, huh?

[tshile]

Burgold, I don't disagree with your gripes about the GOP. It's basically the exact reason I haven't voted for them lately.

 

I'm simply saying that, as I see it, the Democrats aren't nearly as enlightened as they seem to think they are, when looking at the whole picture. The fact that they don't even realize it is a whole other issue/indictment.

 

I have a real hard time trying to understand how anyone can sit back and watch either party and be happy with what is going on.

[tshile]

Please. The Dems are far from perfect, but their priorities as a party seem much more in line with public opinion and common sense.

 

This is that marketing thing I was referencing.

 

Their biggest, current prize is Obama, the guy that was against gay marriage in 2008 to get elected the first time, for it the second time. His big epiphany? His daughter asked him why. If my eyes rolled any harder they'd come out of socket.

 

Do we need to go over the list of campaign promises he hasn't fulfilled? Probably unfair to not give him his whole second term first.

 

The people that railed against the Patriot Act when Bush signed it didn't bat a ****ing eye at the NDAA when Obama signed it.

[Bang]

I don't disagree with you, I just don't think the Democrats are that much better.

 

Let's not forget some of the key leaders of the democrat party were ****ting all over gay marriage not too long ago. You know, when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

I get the GOP has a real issue in terms of its social platform right now. Even as I read what I just wrote, "real issue" seems to be putting it lightly.

 

I just have a hard time accepting the idea that the Democrats aren't just as ridiculous as the GOP. They just currently have a better marketing department and their minions rule social media and thus have had good success lately in their marketing strategy.

Well, far from perfect isn't what I'm talking about.

The GOP is pissing on us and telling us it's raining.

 

Not being for gay marriage isn't even it. It's that they say all damn day they want to government out of our lives and they want to encourage personal responsibility and are all over freedom freedom freedom, get the nanny state out of our lives, and all they DO is find ways to put government in people's lives, dictate what people can and can't do.

 

Hell, some states are somehow even forbidding free speech if you mention Climate Change and work for the government.

(Honestly,, i don't see how they can, so i tend to not be so ready to believe that one,,)

 

In DC in just the last few months they threaten the new Mayor over the newly mandated marijuana decriminalization, and now they actively step in (in a city in which they are ALL TEMPORARY CITIZENS) and overturn the will of the people.

 

the democrats say "we want to use tax dollars for this. We want to tax and spend. We want to establish all sorts of social safety nets and assistances"

And lo, they try to.

 

the democrats are a bunch of rich white lawyers too. But at least they're up front about their platform.

The GOP platform says one thing, and their actions do the exact opposite.

 

Like i said above, the fact there's even such a term as "social conservative" is mind boggling.

Personal responsibility means no social re-adjustment. (Because let's face it..  the democrats idea social agenda and the GOP social agenda are about completely different things. the democrats say they want to try and even to the middle class, set up propgrams, etc. etc.  (Folks can argue all day whether they're successful or not, or whether they are corrupt in carrying it out or not.. Charlie Rangle, for example always champions the little guy, to the tune of how many tropical mansions?)

but the GOP social agenda is about establishing morality, and not just any old morality, but their morality, and only their morality. Do as i say.

 

as a person who self identifies as a conservative who is lost by what has taken over the party, it's not even close to the same.

 

it's about the core of the belief. 

As far as i always knew,, conservative meant three things.   you wanted as little gov't intrusion and taxation as reasonably possible, you wanted a strong well prepared military, and you wanted the chance to compete in the free market to get ahead. Personal responsibility

 

And none of that rings true. 

they invent ways to intrude. they attempt to dictate what people can and can't do. Rumsfeld sent the military to war unprepared and pinched pennies when it came time to armor them. The free market is completely corrupted, and they champion those who are the corruptors. 

the people tossed Eric Holder out, the investment firm immediately embraced him.

 

~Bang

[chipwhich]

Hate to break it to you Bang but those rich white lawyer democrats are just as intrusive.  It's funny when different peoples perspectives make them blind to what's intrusive.

 

The whole lawyer making laws that the common man can't even understand and all the slimy back door dealings....meh...the whole system is built towards the rich, whether for Dem or Repub.  Nobody in office is passing anything that hurts their bottom line.  They have the system beat, the rest of us are just puppets.

[Bang]

then it's as I always thought and we're up the river with no paddles in sight. It's the fault of no one and everyone all at the same time.

 

Dirty back room dealing is all any of them ever have ever done anyway. All of them, forever and ever have helped themselves and their buddies. that isn't what this is about. I'm not crying about a dirty politician. I'm crying that you can't claim to be conservative and

A/ pursued a social agenda beyond the barest rule of law, and

B/ use your muscle to clamp down on freedoms.

 

As a conservative, it's a WIN WIN to not do this. Get out of the affairs of the people who voted for it, prove that is what they're about.

Allow the opportunity for personal responsibility. if they are sinners, god will  sort it out. 

they threaten DC over marijuana.. something else the people voted for.
Get out. Do what you say you're for. Give them the personal responsibility to make their own choices.

But no, right out there in the open, the complete reversal of what they swear is a core plank in what has always stood for conservatism.

 

the "oh they're all the same dirty crooks" cop out isn't the point.

No ****. Every politician from Rome on down has been a filthy scumbag.

 

I guess it's too much to ask that when you say you're for smaller government and less intrusion, maybe you should actually DO SO when given a chance.

 

I don't recall the dems ever saying they are for smaller government.

 in fact isn't the complete opposite what thy usually stand on>?

 

 

~Bang

[Slateman]

Damn. I was hoping they'd overturn the gun laws.

[mistertim]

Damn. I was hoping they'd overturn the gun laws.

So you approve of the federal government deciding to arbitrarily override whatever local laws the current party in power doesn't like, even if those laws were voted on and supported by the local population? And please don't give me the "well DC isn't a state" semantics. The point is larger than that.