Dec. 20, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
What in the heck has Marci accomplished her many years in office?
Mostly damage control-- about all that can be expected in a legislature dominated by nutjobs.
Thanks for asking why they voted the way they did, Scott!
Marci is voting more red all the time. Seems like she is starting to get it. Now we have to get Davis to start thinking about working people.
Marci merely recognizes the quixotic nature of being a sane person serving with a bunch of extremely ideological partisans, and does the best she can to limit the damage then can inflict on the state of Kansas.
State Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence: Very very very very lame, Marci. If you weren't surrounded by an ocean of nut cases you would not keep getting re elected. Believe me, when I voted for you I was voting against your opponent.
Why is the LJ World ignoring National politics with the exception of opinion pieces? The Sequester went into effect last Friday and Washington is on fire over it. It's the biggest piece of political news to come out of DC since the Iraq War over a decade ago and there isn't a peep about it. In fact, the ONLY article about the Sequester was a piece on how it was going to cost KU millions in research funds and that was before it took effect. Does anyone have any idea how that is going to effect Lawrence itself and the economy of the town? Do they care?
I don't expect Pulitzer Prize level in depth analysis. But there IS a whole country out there outside of this town. And what happens in the capitol of the country of that town effects it. I understand that the owner of this paper hates the current president and would prefer to just ignore him. But that doesn't mean there isn't still some journalistic responsibility to actually report the news.
So my best friend's husband works at Fort Leavenworth. He will be furloughed one day/week. Because of that they are not going to buy the new car the were planning on buying, which means a salesman, a dealership and a car factory will lose money. Oh, and bankers, too.
Oh, and there has been a hiring freeze. They have been at bare bones for workers for a couple of years. And no raises. So it is a cut.
In order to be kept informed the LJW is not the one and hasn't been for many decades.
Therefore citizens must undertake the responsibility.
KKFI-FM 90.1 ( Mon – Fri 8AM-10AM )
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS - http://http://www.ucsusa.org
FRONTLINE - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/
THE NATION - http://www.thenation.com/
Democracy NOW - http://www.democracynow.org/
IN THESE TIMES - http://www.inthesetimes.com/
COST OF WAR - http://www.costofwar.com/
JIM HIGHTOWER - http://www.jimhightower.com/
MOTHER JONES - http://www.motherjones.com/
ALTERNET - http://www.alternet.org/
DOLLARS AND SENSE - http://www.dollarsandsense.org
COMMON DREAMS - http://www.commondreams.org/ REPRESENTS AT LEAST 80 NEWS SOURCES
LAW AND DISORDER - http://lawanddisorder.org/
LAURA FLANDERS - http://www.lauraflanders.com/laura/pages/radionation.html
HUFFINGTON POST - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
ANTI WAR - http://antiwar.com/ = MULTIPLE WORLDWIDE NEWS SOURCES
CORP WATCH - http://www.corpwatch.org/ - WORLDWIDE COVERAGE
I'd like to know why Marci voted for SB 142, a truly vile and insane piece of legislation ("Wrongful Birth.").
I agree. I really want to know what she was thinking when she voted for it.
I may not live there anymore through circumstances outside of my control but I am the parent of three adult registered voters (with spouses) that still live in the district. I still have a dog in this hunt. They rely on me for information and advice when they vote. They may develop different opinions and vote against my advice; that's their prerogative (and I hope they DO educate themselves). But the fact remains I am a matriarch and I take that responsibility seriously.
This is the email response I received from her in relation to asking why she voted for SB142. Her answers still don't make much sense to me, and I really didn't appreciate her admitting that she was "confused" but still voted in favor. She made it sound like patients wouldn't have access to fetal testing without its passage, which is patently incorrect:
Thank you for letting me know of your concerns and objections to SB 142. I can often respond that I am in agreement with many of those who contact me; in this case I am not clear about the argument that you were making and was conflicted about my vote. I need to let you know that I voted in favor of the bill.
The claim is being made that SB 142 would “allow doctors to purposefully withhold medical information about serious issues with a pregnancy in order to influence their patients’ decisions”. “Claim of wrongful birth” means a cause of action brought by a parent, legal guardian or other individual legally required to provide for the support of a minor, which seeks damages, whether economic or noneconomic, as a result of a physical condition of such minor that existed at the time of such minor’s birth and which is based on a claim that a person’s action or omission contributed to such minor’s mother not obtaining an abortion.” I do not understand how eliminating the right to make this claim changes the obligations of doctors to provide medical information or prevents other civil actions that can be taken against them. Women can still obtain the tests they want to get information about the health and genetic makeup of a fetus prior to making their decisions.
I think that the concept of “wrongful birth” is awkward; I am hopeful that we can find ways to adequately address this issue without using language that is inflammatory to individuals who are against abortion. I think that this bill takes one step towards that.
I have been a consistent supporter of women’s rights, and have spoken out about problems I see with many of the bills dealing with abortion that have been debated in the Kansas Senate. I have stood firm when my vote counted. I will continue to address specific concerns within the bills and present logical arguments and would certainly appreciate any further comments you may have. If you have any suggestions for amendments I would be pleased to share them with legislators in the House.
Kansas Senator, 2nd District
Personally, I think this was the result of a political deal (i.e. "I'll vote for this if you vote for that.") and all of this double speak is an attempt to cover her rear. The only other explanation is that she was confused and had no idea what she was voting on. I have a hard time believing that because it would mean she doesn't even talk to the other people in her own caucus.
Where, in her reply, does she say she was "confused"?
You type a lot faster than I, valgrlku. I posted this later on today. Not trying to steal your thunder! ;)
The reason was stated pretty clearly in the article-- namely, the Brownback administration was already conducting such tests, and this law would limit the way any such testing can be done, and make it harder to be used as a punitive measure.
I don't like the law, either, and would prefer that it wasn't there at all. But based on marci's normal operating procedure, there was something to be gained (from a progressive or moderate standpoint) to voting for it rather than against. Quite possibly because she was able to get changes made to the law that made it much less onerous than it might otherwise have been.
I'm guessing this isn't about the "wrongful birth" legislation.
No-- that isn't mentioned in the article, so not sure why it was brought up in this thread.
OK, here's what she told me in an email, in which I sent her my name on the petition to stop SB 142. It's long, it's convoluted, and it's very hard to understand that a Democrat could take this tack.
"The claim is being made that SB 142 wiukd "allow doctors t purposefully withhold medical information about seerious issues with a pregnancy in order to influence their patients' decisions." "Claim of wrongful birth means a couse of action brought by a parent, legal guardian or other individual legally required to provide for the support of a minor, which seeks damages, whether economic or non-economic, as a result of a physical condition of such minor that existed at the time of such minor's birth and which is based on a claim that a person's actions or omission contributed to such minor's mother not obtaining an abortion." I do not understand how eliminating the right to make this claim changes the obligation of doctors to provide medical information or prevents other actions that can be taken against them. Women can still obtain the tests they want to get information about the health and genetis makeup of a fetus prior to making their decisions.
"I think that the concept of "wrongful death" is awkward; I am hopeful we can find ways to adequately address this issue without using language that is inflammatory to individuals who are against abortion. I think that this takes one step toward that.
"...I have stood firm when my vote counted..."
Ok, that's her explanation. I'll leave it to your to shred these arguments. As for myself, I may have a difficult time voting for her in the future. With this vote she seems, to me, to have abandoned the ideals which got her to her position in the first place.
Heard of the 4th Amendment?
So, you're in favor of unreasonable searches?
as long as they can have their guns screw the other amendments in the bill of rights
Then, let's test all others who receive business assistance and support such as farm assistance, grants of all types or deduction, loopholes from their taxes. (Granted, much of this is federal.) While we're at it, let's just test the entire population! Let's destroy all chance of freedom to be stupid and use drugs!
Where's the freedom to screw up? Where's small government? Let's support your interpretation of the Bill of Rights and take away all other freedoms that you don't like.
Beside the fact that it costs a lot of money we already don't have...there is one provision about illegal searches and seizures in the constitution right?
Well, my take on it is that when you enter an employment contract, you are agreeing to do a job (to the best of your ability) for a determined amount of pay. That being said, the employer would be responsible for any physical harm you may do to yourself and/or others on the job. I believe pre-employment drug tests to be more about liability than employment.
Drug testing anyone who has had the priviledge of being laid off or can't find a job that pays more than $7.25 an hour seems a little punitive. Assuming they are more likely to be drug abusers would seem to be stereotypical profiling. Spending more money on testing them would also be a waste of already stretched resources. That's just my take. See cait's response below.
If you otherwise qualify for a government benefit, then it is the government's responsibility to provide that benefit. An employer has no responsibility to provide a job even if you are qualified.
If the government has a responsibility, then it must meet that responsibility. In order to meet that responsibility (welfare or whatever) a person must apply. Searching a person because they apply for a benefit the government is otherwise obliged to furnish is patently illegal as applying for a benefit is not sufficient probable cause for a search.
Also, it is a violation of a person's right to not incriminate themselves. While not a criminal punishment, basing any government action such as not providing benefits otherwise qualified for on the citizen's refusal to be tested without a warrant violates 5A.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Your wording is a bit wonky with the double negatives. But I can tell you that statistically they won't. When Florida was doing across the board testing of all applicants, they had a failure rate of just over 2%. The vast majority of those that did test positive were for marijuana. When the state worked out the cost of testing, it was determined that it cost the state over $40,000 per positive test (cost of total number of tests divided by number of positive tests). Given that each one of those test failures would have received, at best, around $6,000/year in state funds it wasn't exactly "cost effective".
I don't have it bookmarked but there was a huge article in the Tampa Bay Times about it. It's worth a Google search.
To quote my nephew, "It's one of those things that looks good on paper to those people that think the poor are the enemy." Wise boy.
While being poor is not illegal, receiving government benefits is not a "right" either, not in the traditional sense. Not like speech, religion, press, etc. It's more like operating a motor vehicle, a privilege, one that can have reasonable conditions attached to it. The question then becomes what is reasonable? That is something for the courts to decide and while courts have already made certain decisions, we all know that A) courts change their minds from time to time, B) different courts rule differently, even when the facts are the same and C) the legislative branch is well within their rights to seek legal loopholes in any court decision.
The answer to your questions are a definitive, maybe.
Tuition assistance - To those previously convicted of violent felonies? To those who cheated while in high school? To those dishonorably discharged from the military? A definitive maybe, if you ask me. But I'd have no problem denying those people tuition assistance.
Social Security - To those previously convicted of cheating in order to get benefits? Maybe. Wasn't there a story just a couple of days ago, I believe out of Leavenworth, of a woman who cheated to get disability and was convicted of a crime. Shall she be denied Social Security? Maybe. Violent felons? Career criminals? I'd have no problem denying Social Security to those people.
Medicare - The same. People who have defrauded the government in the past denied future benefits? Maybe. Again, I'd have no problem placing significant and additional restrictions upon those individuals.
This isn't like speech, where we have to tolerate fools and idiots. This isn't like religion. We're not talking about freedom of the press. In my opinion, it is much more like driving a car. That privilege has conditions placed upon it. As long as the courts rule they are reasonable, I'm fine with it.
However, every one of those you have listed would not violate anyone's 4th amendment rights by restricting access. Defrauded, convicted, felon...everone one of those examples have had due process.
Here we are talking about forcing someone to undergo government testing just to prove they are innocent. Zero due process and an implication of guilt.
Restricting access to what, becomes the big question. If it was to a "right", like speech or religion, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But we're not talking about that. Each person when asked to submit to the drug testing can simply refuse and walk away.
"While being poor is not illegal, receiving government benefits is not a "right" either"
If you qualify for a benefit the same as other applicants, it is a violation of the 14th amendment to deprive you of that benefit. It is not a right, but if you are going to deprive the crackheads of a benefit, you have to deprive everyone.
Some [not all] who object to the proposed Kansas law to drug test welfare recipients is that they do not understand that the Kansas law currently under debate does not call for all who apply and/or receive benefits to be drug tested. The proposed Kansas law is much more narrow, and only applies where there is "reasonable suspicion" of drug abuse. "Reasonable suspicion" testing is targeted to those cases where there are specific and articulable facts and evidence, followed with rational inferences from those facts, that suggest that substance abuse is present. In other words, before a recipient or applicant is required to take a drug test, government officials will have to document a really good reason that justifies said testing for that specific case. This pretty much overcomes any argument of an "unreasonable search."
The Florida law which is failing in the courts required testing of all applicants and recipients. Because there was no showing that all persons receiving assistance from the state were at any particular risk of substance abuse, there was no particular justification for the blanket search [drug test] policy.
A search requires probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.
In the case of criminal proceedings, you are correct. In the case of administrative action [such as denial of a benefit] probable cause is not the standard. For example, O'Connor v. Ortega allows the search of government employees with reasonable suspicion, as long as no criminal prosecution is contemplated.
That's a very complex and interesting case.
First, it was a 5-4 decision by the SC, reflecting serious disagreement among the justices. Then, even though it established some sort of guidelines, it couldn't apply them to Ortega, and kicked his case back down to lower courts. Litigation continued for many years, and he eventually prevailed.
When the chance came for the SC to clarify the issue with another case, they refused to do so.
Yes, and it is. There are other examples of searches where the "reasonable suspicion" standard applies, again in non-criminal matters. Search of the belongings of a student is permitted with reasonable suspicion. [See New Jersey v. T. L. O.]
That's a scary case for me.
First, the students were allowed to smoke, just not in the bathroom. Next, they were caught by a teacher in the act, so there was no real need to search the purse.
The 4th amendment doesn't say protection against unreasonable searches and seizures for criminal matters, but not for civil ones. And, we had a long history of requiring "probable cause" and warrants for searches.
It seems clear to me that the intention of the 4th amendment was to limit governmental power - weakening those protections defies the intent of the founders.
Did you notice the part where Ortega won his case? That suggests that the actions of his employer violated his rights.
Yes, TLO is a strange case. In the early 80's, some schools did have student smoking lounges.
"The 4th amendment doesn't say protection against unreasonable searches and seizures for criminal matters, but not for civil ones." I agree with this statement. The question at hand has to do with the word "unreasonable."
As it stands, to my understanding, what is unreasonable in a criminal matter is different from what is unreasonable in noncriminal matters.
The Constitution is not vague about this. It say's all searches require probable cause.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Actually, I'm not sure that's as definitive as you think.
It's warrants that require probable cause. Much of the weakening of 4th amendment protections has involved "warrantless" searches that are deemed to be reasonable.
Very unfortunate, in my view.
What would be the difference between an employment contract where random testing is mandatory, and a contract with a benefit recipient that makes random testing mandatory?
The party of big government while boasting to be for less government just put more big government in the lives of many.
Oh yes about the other big government and since some have inquired.
20% Pay Cut for Congress - NO Golden Parachutes for Mismanagement
The 32 Dumbest And Most Devastating Sequester Cuts
I'm not totally against this bill, since they can only be tested if there is a suspicion. They aren't going to test every single person on welfare, which Florida did, and spent a whole lot of money.
If you replace "suspicion" with "probable cause" I'd be happier.
Come to the light Marci
I agree with and support Marci's vote on this issue, and I'm a Marci supporter already.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·