Paperwight's Fair Shot: Follow the Buzzword

I'm sure anyone reading me at this point has already seen the Raw Story report of the apparent Republican childishness happening in the House Judiciary Committee. I've reproduced the actual language below the jump, merely because I think that it should be recorded in as many places as possible.

What many of you may not know is that "Abortion Clinics cover for Child Rapists" is a standard Republican Anti-Choice talking point. For example, we learn from Thoughts from Kansas that Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline has subpoenaed reproductive health clinics in Kansas on the general theory that any records concerning abortions provided to women under the age of consent or after the "late term" threshold were evidence of a crime:

Kline's subpoena ordered the complete, unedited medical records be delivered to Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson by October 2004. Kline subpoenaed records of females who sought abortions at least 22 weeks into their pregnancy.

Under the order signed by Anderson, the records would include each patient's name, medical history, details of her sex life, birth control practices and psychological profile.
The attorney general wants to look at the records to search for evidence of crimes defined by laws that limit late-term abortions and require mandatory reporting of suspected child sexual abuse.

State Sens. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, and Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, released a statement Wednesday afternoon supporting Kline's efforts.

"If a child the age of 10, 11 or 12 years of age seeks an abortion in Kansas, by law that child has been raped, and we believe the state has the obligation to investigate that rape, bring the rapist to justice and prevent further exploitation of the child," the statement read.

In June 2003, Kline tried to require all of the state's health care providers to report any knowledge of sexual activity of girls under the age of 16. That's the legal age that a girl can consent to sexual relations in Kansas.

And the basis on which Kline did this? Well, that would be a bogus "sting" operation by Life Dynamics, an anti-choice group operating out of Texas (I'm not going to link to Life Dynamics's home page; they're easy enough to find).

So Republican Fundamentalist James Sensenbrenner's rewrites weren't just childish retribution against Democrats for having the temerity to even offer amendments to a Republican Fundamentalist bill (remember, the Republican Extremist want to rule, not govern). It was a writing into the Congressional Record, the record of the people's house, one of the most vile slanders slung about by the Republican anti-choice zealots, as if it were an admission of evil by the Democrats.

Any time you see Republicans using language that seems juvenile or inexplicable, plug it into Google. It usually comes from one of only a few sources: anti-choice zealots, corporate think-tanks, or dominionist preachers. All of this information is out there; these people haven't been hiding their agenda.

The Republican-written rewrites, along with the Democratic description of the amendments, follows. RAW STORY has also learned that Republicans have not rewritten similar amendments in the past. A copy from the Congressional record in 2002 is included below, showing the "neutral" language used in a previous Congress.

###

The following amendments were offered and voted down by recorded votes in the Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 748-The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA): DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION IN HOUSE REPORT 109-51

DEMS: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state’s parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)

GOP REWRITE:. Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Nadler amendment to exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions in the bill (no 12-19)

GOP REWRITE: Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment to exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill (no 13-17)

GOP REWRITE: Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment that would have limited criminal liability to the person committing the offense in the first degree (no 12-18)

GOP REWRITE:. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted from prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated

DEMS: a Jackson-Lee amendment to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from the penalties in the bill (no 13-20)

GOP REWRITE. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor, and would require a study by the Government Accounting Office. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the amendment was defeated.

###

The following statement was issued by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee.

"The Rules Committee discovered yesterday that the Judiciary Committee Report on this very bill, which was authored by the Majority Staff, contained amendment summaries which had been re-written by committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent of the authors.

"This Committee Report took liberty to mischaracterize and even falsify the intent of several amendments offered in Committee by Democratic Members of this body.

"At least five amendments to this bill, which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under this bill, were rewritten as amendments designed to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the original intent of the authors. The thing is, sexual predators were not mentioned anywhere in any of these amendments. I asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this deception yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee hearing.

"And instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer...The Chairman stood by those altered amendment descriptions.

"He made very clear to the Rules Committee that the alterations to these members' amendments were deliberate.When pressed as to why his committee staff took such an unprecedented action, the Chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose this unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today.

"In fact...He said, and I quote..."You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill."

###

Comments

This is really gross. *Sigh*.

Re: The failed Scott Amendment. Does this mean that the bill, as it is now written, would render those in the business of professional transport liable even if they have no intent to transport the minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. I mean, will Greyhound be liable for every kid who buys a bus ticket to New York to get an abortion?

Posted by: Abby | Apr 28, 2005 at 04:58 PM

There's an intent requirement, but it's not clear how strong it is.

Posted by: paperwight | Apr 28, 2005 at 05:25 PM

It seemed like there would have to be some intent requirement if they're going to hold these people criminally liable. I wonder whether it would hold up under judicial review.

But then, of course, if that provision got overturned, it would be yet more fuel for the wingers fire to rally the fundy anti-abortion troops.

Posted by: Abby | Apr 28, 2005 at 05:36 PM