As I understand it, they were proposing silly amendments hoping that one would pass, which would force the reconciliation bill to go back to the house. Some of the silly amendments had the side benefit of being easy to campaign on since most people are fucking idiots who get all of their information about candidates from campaign commercials…but what are you gonna do?
You’re fucking kidding me right?
Not to mention that the Democrats can put together their own bill addressing any difficult votes and pass it. If the Republicans try to stop them then everyone gets a “SO AND SO VOTED AGAINST KEEPING VIAGRA OUT OF THE HANDS OF PEDOPHILES” ad. Winners all around!
He is. Yeah, this is all about making lemonade out of lemons right now for the Republicans. “Democrats want sex offenders to get free, Government, Viagra! Call your congressman now and tell him what you think!”
The entire point of that amendment was to have Dems smack it down (so they wouldn’t have to vote again), and then the Republicans can later say in attack ads that Democrats want YOU, the taxpayer, to cover the costs of giving convicted pedos 4-hour boners so they can rape your innocent children repeatedly.
It’s not reasonable. It’s a petty tactic to gather chips for election-year grandstanding.
No. Someone explain to me (in the apparently small words I need) why, once you’ve been convicted of a sexually based offense, it’s utterly unconscionable to believe you might be denied access to drugs designed to medically induce a state of sexual readiness.
If you want to argue that sex offender laws need an overhaul (presuming you’re not arguing they go away entirely), I’ll throw in with you there. And if that’s the basis of the objection, then I understand. But I suspect it’s not; that somehow this is seen as an egregious abridgement of some right that I wasn’t aware I innately posessed, and that I’m not at all sure I would retain after abusing it in such a way that I was convicted of a felony and placed on a sex-offender registry.
If felony conviction can remove your voting rights, I’m not particularly incensed by the idea that a specific conviction could remove your raging stiffy rights. That seems a much more inalienable right as a citizen, and yet we seem to be okay with that removal.
(Mind you I’m not saying that removing access to Viagra would help in any way either; just that I’m not seeing the harm done by it that apparently you guys are.)
Denying people medicine their doctor has prescribed sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me.
The whole concept of post-prison (or post-parole/post-probation/post-whatever) permanent restrictions on sex offenders is frankly cruel and unusual as far as I’m concerned.
Because “sex offender” is an incredibly broad category that ranges from eighteen year olds who sleep with their sixteen year old girlfriends to guys who got caught having anal sex before it was legalized to guys who got caught making coffee naked in their own house while the neighbors happened to be peeping into their windows. Also because people aren’t all recidivists and shouldn’t be punished in excess of their fine or jail term for the rest of their life. And also because the entire concept of a “sex offender” designation exists solely to serve as a punching bag for fear-mongering politicians who want an easy target to beat up on every time they want to appear “tough on crime.”
If felony conviction can remove your voting rights, I’m not particularly incensed by the idea that a specific conviction could remove your raging stiffy rights. That seems a much more inalienable right as a citizen, and yet we seem to be okay with that removal.
Well thanks for determining what the people posting in this thread are ok with. Two wrongs don’t make a right?
I actually think it’s not a bad idea myself, Mouselock, but not right now. This is just one of a few hundred amendments being tossed at this bill to slow down or derail passage. I’m sure there are lots of other good ideas myself but the real goal here is even in failing to stop Healthcare reform to come up with political soundbites to campaign on.
Edit: After reading extarbag’s post and thinking about it a little I have to agree it’s not a good idea. At least not written with such a broad brush.
The government creating a special shitty health care system for felons is even more problematic than taking away their voting rights. That way lies organ harvesting.
More practically, though, it’s such transparently silly election bait.
Come on, 15 years ago if you couldn’t get it up you just lived with it. Now because of a couple of drugs (which have some pretty gnarly potential side effects) getting a hard-on is “health care”? Really?
I guess I just don’t see the huge downhill slope from “Can’t get a stiffy if it’s not naturally induced” to “They’re taking my kidneys, doc!”.
More practically, though, it’s such transparently silly election bait.
Indeed, my question was “Why not acquiesce to the reasonably harmless ones to blunt that attack.” Apparently my appraisal of “reasonably harmless” is far out of sync with the left. (And the right… and much of the middle… so it goes.)
Cubit
3012
Whether you’d like to admit it or not, mouselock, ED and other sexual ailments are legitimate medical issues that are covered under health insurance.
Cubit
3014
The Georgia House is looking to impeach their Attorney General because he didn’t sign on to the lawsuit challenging the health care bill brought by the other states.
Didn’t care for any of the other reasons, then?
Indeed, my question was “Why not acquiesce to the reasonably harmless ones to blunt that attack.” Apparently my appraisal of “reasonably harmless” is far out of sync with the left. (And the right… and much of the middle… so it goes.)
Not that I think it’s really either, but your initial assessment of that amendment was “completely reasonable,” not “reasonably harmless.”
Well, the argument that the sex-offender category is overly broad is one that I’d already included, and I agree with. I’m kind of curious as to whether folks (say, you) would support an amendment that said something like “Prevents prescribing ED drugs to convicted rapists, serial rapists, pedophiles, and serial pedophiles.” I get where you’re coming from, in that the laws are stupidly broad and end up labelling people that are ridiculous.
Not that I think it’s really either, but your initial assessment of that amendment was “completely reasonable,” not “reasonably harmless.”
Fair enough. Though I tend to mentally draw a line in terms of what I think is reasonable expectations for innate “rights” (in this case the right to medical care) and for whatever reason there’s a qualitative difference between “Right to have a punctured lung fixed before I bleed out” or “Right to have a leg set so that I don’t walk with a limp the rest of my life” and “Right to have ED treatment” or “Right to have prescriptions for treatment of mild anxiety disorder”. I suppose that’s more that I’m not a big fan of the whole, current “Better living through chemistry” motif currently going on in society, though, so it’s probably more my personal viewpoint than anything else.
I don’t want to get in a big, long, drawn-out debate though. I believe different things than others. Big shock there. The joy of our society is I can do that, you can have your beliefs, and we still function as a whole (until congress gets even more polarized and completely gridlocks, at least). And I’ve been given both answers to the explicit and implicit part of my question, plus something to think about,so it’s all good there.
An 18-year old porking his 16-year old girlfriend is both a rapist (statuatory rape) and a pedopile (sex with a minor).
Athryn
3018
Not necessarily. In the state of California:
If convicted of violating 261.5 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse, misdemeanor or felony, you will not be required to register as a sexual offender in the state of California.
This obviously varies by state.
Porking? I thought we stopped doing that in like the mid-'80s. Likewise schtupping.
I demand your euphemisms be up to code!
