Brink

President and Sutherland announce education plan

President Tyler Grayson and Speaker of the House Andrew Sutherland have announced their plan for something that President Grayson spent a considerable amount of time campaigning on, education.

The duo announced the 21st Century Education Investment Act. The legislation would seek to "better educational opportunities for America". The bill is somewhat comprehensive and puts a lot of money and investment into education. It creates a supply tax credit for teachers, a classroom technology grant program, puts more investment into Head Start programs, and other things. Also interesting to note, the legislation has cost offsets including decreasing the federal employee travel budget, making the mortgage interest deduction only applicable for a homeowner's primary residence, and sell unused federal properties. 

Their bill comes well after the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development announced that America's reading proficiency dropped 20 points in reading proficiency in a six year period from 1994 to 2000. Their bill also comes after Republicans unveiled their Academic Achievement for All Act at the Path Forward Rally. The bill never gained traction in the House or Senate however, making many wonder if Washington was ever interested in making the improvement of education a priority. 

At the Rose Garden speech announcing the legislation, Speaker Sutherland said it is time to put education on the frontburner.

"But today we put our children’s education back on the forefront of our minds," Sutherland said. "Today, we state that the federal government will take steps to properly invest in our education system, not try to undercut it and starve schools. Instead, we make a new investment in schools throughout this country that have been ignored for far too long."

The President also stressed bipartisanship in this process in the Rose Garden.

"This issue must transcend politics for the good of our children we must come together. If we truly want to get our schools back on track there can be no one party solution to fix our schools we must work together compromise and agree to set aside partisan attacks for the good of our children," President Grayson said.

Democrats have seemed to come out in favor of this bill so far, including Representative Samuel Fitzgerald of Texas.

"This bill is a great development for both our nations' rural and urban schools," Fitzgerald said. "I am quite pleased to see the president holding true to his campaign promises and will look forward to voting for this bill."

Also supportive of the legislation was Colorado Senator Benjamin Hernandez.

"I believe this bill is a solid first step in the longterm goal of reestablishing the United States as a leading force in educational innovation, and while there is much more to do to achieve that goal ultimately, I am supportive of this plan to level the playing field for all students in Colorado and elsewhere," Hernandez said.

Some Republicans were not so keen on his call for bipartisanship on the legislation and questioned whether he wanted to work with Republicans on the issue, such as Senate Majority Leader Miriam Schultz.

"President Grayson famously challenged Charles Fong to hammer out a bipartisan education bill on the national stage," Schultz said. "He now had a chance to make good on that desire and he seems to have chosen to shut us out. The President didn't reach out to any member of Republican Leadership and simply expects us to rubber stamp his legislation."
 

Schultz also mentioned a desire to see the issue of school choice be a part of any bipartisan education compromise.

Other Republicans questioned the President's desire to "throw money at the issue" including Jack Terrus, Carlos Rodriguez, Jim Smith, and May Baudin-Whittaker.

"However, the answer to the problem is not the solution that President Grayson has proposed," Rodriguez said. "President Grayson’s is to throw a bunch of money at the problem and hope that the problem goes away, that is further failing our children as the education system won’t improve and we will leave them strapped with debt."

Republican Congressman Carl Davis of Texas and others even seemed to suggest that the federal government should send education back to the states.

The American public however, would rather see Republicans and Democrats come together on one piece of legislation rather then see them split apart.

"Neither of the Republican or Democrat education bills are going to be able to be passed," teacher Alan Harper said. "It would be nice if we could see both sides come together to pass an education bill that they can both agree on together, rather then the rhetoric and chest-bumping we are seeing right now."

How long it will take for a compromise to come together is to be determined, as issues such as the Panama Canal and infrastructure have almost stolen the Washington spotlight. 

I am officially back, first article will be the President's education bill.

2 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

UGGGGHHHHHH Chair mods please in Policy. 

Granted.  

1 hour ago, Terrus said:

And remove mine right back in turn, please.

Done.  

@Bella

8 hours ago, Terrus said:

Pursuant to House rules, I've become chair of the House Policy Committee. I've posted a docket, but cannot actually move the threads necessary to commence debate at the moment. Could I be granted moderator powers so I can complete the process?

You are good for mod powers.

LOA today (besides the bio I just approved), winter is coming. 

High Speed Rail legislation passes the House

Just as infrastructure talks are soon to begin at the White House, legislation to invest in high-speed rail has passed the U.S. House.

The High Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001 passed the House of Representatives in a 374-50-11 vote today. One prominent legislator who reportedly led to the 50 votes against the proposal was Republican ranking member of the House Policy Committee, Jack Terrus.  

The legislation, which was introduced by Florida congressman Juan Torres, allows a limited tax credit on holders of Amtrak bonds and requires the Secretary of Transportation to personally approve of Amtrak projects which are funded by the Amtrak bonds.

"I also proposed the High-Speed Rail Investment Act, in light of last year's constitutional amendment here in Florida," Torres said in a press release announcing the bill. "As now required by state law, we will be constructing a high-speed rail network sometime in the near future here in the Sunshine State. The Investment Act will provide federal assistance to Florida to spur construction and progress on a statewide high-speed rail system."

The piece of legislation was one of the first pieces of legislation to be docketed for House debate in the 107th Congress. Therefore, it did not go through a committee before it was considered by the full chamber.

Debate started off with Representative Mark Anderson of Ohio calling for unanimous consent for the legislation, which would be objected to by the aforementioned Terrus.

The Michigan Republican felt that Amtrak has gone way past what it was originally meant to be.

"The federal government created AmTrak as a temporary measure to ease the shutdown of passenger rail in the United States," Terrus said. "Several decades and several tens of billions of dollars later, AmTrak still exists, a testament to the inability of this Congress to ever shutdown any program once its begun. There is one area in this country where passenger rail is cost-effective -- New England. Elsewhere, it is a money losing mess, and this Congress should stop subsidizing it at taxpayer expense."

Torres came to the floor and mentioned how the bill also helps provide for the development of high speed rail all across the country.

"My esteemed colleague and friend from Michigan would be correct to raise these concerns, if this bill were merely expanding just current operative rail systems in the United States. However, the purpose and vision of this proposal is to assist Amtrak and state projects for the development of high-speed rail in advantageous locations across America," Torres said. "High speed rail is the wave of the future for mass transportation. It is both energy efficient and cost-effective."

After that, another Republican, this time Ron Hatfield of New Hampshire, announced his opposition to the high speed rail legislation. Hatfield had two points for Congressman Torres.

"First, if high speed rail is the wave of the future for mass transit, shouldn't we allow the Market to build these transit options as time goes on," Hatfield asked. "Second, the Congressman rightly pointed out that states must chip in to rebuild and upgrade the railways.  How is it just to order the creation of a railway that states cannot reject, and then force them to pay for the costs of upgrades in the future?"

Torres pointed out to Hatfield soon after that "the highway system, roads, and airports are all built with federal, state, and local funds", and also asked if Hatfield would support abolishing the Department of Transportation. Hatfield replied that he would "certainly" recommend reigning in the Department of Transportation's spending. With that, he introduced balanced budget requirements to the legislation. His amendment would require that for every dollar this bill spends, that the Transportation Department loses 50 cents in the next budget.

Democrats, including Samuel Fitzgerald of Texas rose up to oppose that amendment, citing that other parts of the transportation infrastructure may suffer if his amendment were to pass.

"I would like to rise today to voice my objection to such an amendment," Fitzgerald said. "It may look good on paper, but it seems that the good gentlemen from New Hampshire has forgotten that the DoT [Department of Transportation] handles many other issues besides high speed rail. If such an amendment passes, our railways may be improved, but at the cost of risking multiple lives as our roads and airways will continue to deteriorate."

The bill moved to final vote afterward, where both Republicans and Democrats did not fall nicely into two different camps. Some Democrats like Stetson Webb voted against the legislation, as did the aforementioned Ron Hatfield, and fellow Republican Carlos Rodriguez. However, the defections against the bill were not enough, as it passed 374-50.

The bill now will make it's way towards the Senate where many have seen flaws in it, whether this vocal minority will become a vocal majority as the bill moves down the legislative process is to be determined. Another thing that should be watched is whether something like this lands in a transportation compromise that the White House and Congress are currently trying to negotiate. Either way, the infrastructure issue is slowly rising to prominence in this 107th Congress.

The following players have been signed out for inactivity:

Ervald

Ashcroft

MikeFL

apocolypse101

The following player is being warned for inactivity:

@Macmillan

What do you think of the President's education announcement and legislation?

20 minutes ago, DMH said:

The RNC Chair would choose a replacement for a player senate seat. That's how it was last session.

Yeah, as it is a player seat, the RNC Chair would get to select the replacement. If it was a NPC seat, then the governor of the state would have the ability to decide, yes.

Sources: House Republicans 'furious' with the President

Just this week, President Tyler Grayson announced bipartisan talks on the issue of infrastructure. Now, House Republicans are reportedly unhappy over the President's decision to leave out one prominent Republican from the process.

According to sources within the House Republicans, the frustration is over the reported snubbing of House Minority Leader and former Vice Presidential candidate B. Byron Baudin. 

In Grayson's announcement of the talks, he sent public invitations to the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, and the chairman and ranking member of the House Policy Committee to join him to work out a formal agreement on the issue.

“Investing in this nation and its infrastructure was a key point in my campaign and an issue where Democrats and Republicans can come together," the President said. "Our nation’s infrastructure has fallen behind in recent decades and by investing our nation we can create new jobs and prosperity in this nation. As President Eisenhower once did we need to revitalize our nation’s infrastructure. I hope we can reach a quick agreement and that these negotiations mark the first step in a de-escalation of the partisanship we have seen in Washington.”

One congressman in particular told us that he was extremely frustrated that House leadership was being left out of the process on negotiating infrastructure.

"Apparently the president has already given up on the era of bipartisanship and is locking out the GOP," the source told us. "It’s absolute horse-you-know-what that this president lectures us on cooperation when he refuses to reach out or invite our leadership to even sit down to discuss policy.”

We have reached out to the House Minority Leader who's office told us that while they stand by their representation at the talks, Michigan's Jack Terrus, that the President needs to remember that Baudin represents the caucus as a whole.

"The House Republican Conference is united and stands behind Congressman Terrus in the negotiations at the White House," Baudin's office said. "The office of the Minority Leader would remind the White House, however, that Congressman Baudin represents the conference as a whole."

Meanwhile, Terrus, the ranking member of the House Policy Committee issued a press release on the matter where he was honored to be accepting the invitation to be in the infasturcture talks.

"I am honored by the opportunity to take part in what I hope will be the first of a series of successful bipartisan ventures to tackle the challenges facing America today," Terrus said.

In his press release, there was no mention of frustration that the House Republican leadership was being left out of the process.

While the House Republican caucus appears to stand by Terrus, there are still some private frustrations about Baudin not being invited to the talks. Of course, whether this has any impact at all is contingent on how the infrastructure talks go.

I am back.

The following players are being warned for inactivity:

@Ervald

@Ashcroft

@apocolypse101

@MikeFL

LOA through Saturday at least.

I have been kind of on an unannounced LOA from the boards since yesterday. I am back now and plan to get back to outstanding requests soon!

Note this does not include Commerce, which has yet to be announced.

A member of your staff hands you this.

((This is free to use as you see fit.))

Inauguration puts a wrap on an odd transition period

((Keep in mind that I wrote this before I was aware Grayson had posted his cabinet.))

President Tyler Grayson was sworn into office this weekend, becoming the 43rd man to serve in the office of United States President. However, how has done so far as President-elect and now President, has been called into question.

Grayson has had an unusually quiet transition and first few days in office. Grayson has only issued one executive order so far, which had to be corrected after errors were found. On things such as the cabinet, there has been radio silence from the White House. Republicans, including Senator Jim Smith of Kansas, have started calling attention to this.

"Honestly, I am surprised the President remembered to show up [to the inauguration]," Smith said. "That is the first time we have seen or heard from the President since he was elected. This 'behind closed doors' administration is beyond ridiculous and failing the American people. Even since the inauguration, we don't have any indication of cabinet members or indication of a path forward."

In the only public appearance the President has had so far, he gave his inaugural address. This speech is considered important as to determining what a President is going to do for the next four years.

Grayson started off his speech by mentioning recent flare-ups of partisanship and saying that those times are now over.

"Today marks the beginning of an era of progress and the end of this era of partisanship," Grayson said. "The past four years have been characterized by gridlock, division, and inaction as our government has halted to a stop."

Grayson tries to strike a unifying tone by discussing the Cherokee word Currahee and the spirit of America. He then makes a line about not wanting to be a Democratic or Republican President.

"Therefore, as I take office I solemnly swear not to be a Democratic President or a Republican President but an American President," Grayson said.

Grayson starts discussing the education issue and talks about how children must be America's first priority, that the success of children in schools needs to transcend politics, that teachers need pay raises, and more. Grayson also ties the issue to carrying on America's legacy into later generations.

Grayson then moves into a section about the economy. Grayson touts how the current economy is as strong as ever as he comes into office. He stressed that America can keep it's current surplus and create a debt-free future for children by way of responsible governance. 

"In this time of economic strength, we have been given the opportunity to create an economy where all Americans succeed," Grayson said. "We can make the American dream the American reality. Our Government must lead our people as an instrument of good to ensure that our economy works for all Americans. Government can help our nation come together and ensure that no one gets left behind."

Meanwhile, the speech moves into Grayson spouting off a list of policies that he thinks he can make happen in his presidency. Those include raising the minimum wage, investing millions in infrastructure, and "ensure[ing] that a woman has the same opportunities as a man". He mentioned two executive orders that he will issue which will help women.

"To move us closer to reality as I reach the White House I will sign two executive orders one which closes the wage gap for women in the federal government and will expand paid leave for mothers working in the family government," Grayson said.

The 43rd President's final part of his first inauguration speech was on foreign policy, where he mentions issue in Africa as seemingly his biggest foreign policy point.

"In the 21st century, new challenges arise as we must lead to help Africa break off the changes of imperialism and join the modern world," Grayson said. "As the world’s strongest nation, it is our duty to help those less fortunate nations who struggle with poverty rampant disease. We must provide aid, provide debt relief, and ensure that those who truly need medication can afford it."

The fact that the President seems to mention Africa as his top foreign policy priority is considered odd, especially with more recent tensions at the Panama Canal and in the Middle East.

He wraps up the speech about where he started it, he discussed that governing should not be defined by which party a politician is a member of, and that current issues "transcend politics". He seems to suggest that the parties should come together, but he never directly challenges anyone to.

"We can ensure a brighter future if we come together to use our government as an agent of good to ensure no American is left behind," Grayson said.

Grayson also calls this upcoming time the "Bipartisan Era".

"In this moment of insurmountable opportunity, I humbly take this mantle of leadership in the Bipartisan Era," Grayson said.

Many political observers felt it to be interesting that while Grayson mentioned and wanted bipartisanship in his speech, he never directly challenged anyone to cross the aisle. Many saw it as attempting to unify the country, but it didn't completely make it. 

Republicans were pretty harsh on the inauguration speech, bringing up concerns about the foreign policy issues he did not mention..

"I'd add that his complete lack of emphasis on pressing foreign policy issues like Iraq and the Panama Canal was disheartening," Senate Majority Leader Miriam Schultz said.

Schultz also felt that Grayson's inauguration speech sounded more like he was on the campaign trail.

"The President made his usual campaign speech, a lot of promises with little substance," Schultz said. "He continues to claim he desires a debt-free America while also wanting the government to spend more taxpayer dollars in other areas like infrastructure, education, and aiding other nations. More spending doesn't lead to a balanced budget without cuts to the budget. The President's inability to state whether or not he wishes to cut funding in the budget for certain departments is a problem.

Democrats, on the other hand, seemed to enjoy his speech and were very ecstatic. Those included Florida Representative Tyler Swanson.

"President Grayson came out and laid forth his image for the country," Swanson said. "An image that puts the working and middle class of this country at the top of his priority list. Seeing the comments by members of the Republican Party is disheartening. The American people have spoken, and they choose Tyler Grayson to be our President. The least they can do for their constituents sake is give him a chance to lead."

When it comes to the American public, opinions are closer to the middle. Many Americans were confused by parts of the speech, especially about Africa being his top foreign policy issue, and a lack of discussing how he plans to get many of his issues through a Republican Senate. Even Democrats are unsure how Grayson will be able to secure pay raises and training for teachers. Grayson went more for the unifying approach in his speech, however it just did not make it to that peak.

People did at least appreciate the President's attempts at bipartisanship, regardless of the fact that he did not go all in.

It also does not help that the President had a radio silent transition period. Some people are concerned about the lack of public transparency when it comes to the transition. 

Grayson can still make gains, however he has gotten off to a slow, and quiet start. He will have to pick up the pace in the first weeks of his administration to overcome the quietness of the last few weeks.

^ Above says it all.

Republicans unveil their "Path Forward"

The Republican Party has announced their new policy initiatives for the 107th Congress, and more importantly the beginning of the Grayson Administration in a "path forward" event held at the Lincoln Memorial days before the Inauguration.

Republicans were looking to target conservative activists, disenfranchised democrats, independents, and moderates in their rally.

The "Path Forward" is actually a document that at least seven major Republicans have signed onto which will define their policies they look to push in a Democratic Administration. The beginning of their document cites outcry regarding the future of America.

In response to recent outcry regarding the future of our country, America demands bold leadership in our new millennium," the document reads. "Together, with the American people and those that wish to join our fight for America, we propose a different approach to our deepest problems."

While outcry sentiments are not widespread as of this point, many conservatives still do feel sour over Fong losing the state of Oregon. There is also some talk of concerns about a lack of a public transition by President-elect Grayson.

They also announce "truths to be self-evident" and these truths are ones in which the Republican Party in their minds will take first and foremost when they consider and write policy. Those are listed below.

Quote

• The Free Market is the Cornerstone of America and her prosperity.
• The Federal Government serves the American voter, not the other way around.
• Our national identity must be saved and preserved.
• The United States of America is divinely ordained. We must defend freedom with a clear mission and endgame.
• Any improper funds collected by the Federal Government must be given back to the American people.
• The Rule of Law is the law of the land. It is integral to any society, and must be upheld regardless of circumstance.

The specific polices that Republicans are pushing in their new path forward include campaign finance reform, improvementRMC at the Veterans Affairs Department, putting a $220 billion investment into transportation, a "serious" investment into AmTrak, flexibility in education funds, banning partial birth abortions (already being considered in the Senate), concealed carry, eliminating "wasteful or useless" spending, amending the tax code, a balanced budget amendment, economic freedom zones, and establishment of a war crimes tribunal against Saddam Hussain. 

New RNC Chairwoman Bethany Tyler Lincoln kicked off the event with a speech looking to build up conservatives.

"Now, with a lack of true leadership in Washington, with an abdication of responsibility and rampancy of corruption, we again need a plan," Lincoln said. "The Conservative movement has listened to the American people. Thanks to you, we have a plan. We have a Path Forward."

This line looks to separate the Republican Party from their past failures, such as the votes scandal with former Senator Rebecca Morris, and accusations of plagiarism by Michigan Senate candidate Ben Rinehart. The line also seemingly looks to attack the incoming White House for their lack of a public transition. 

From there, House Minority Leader B. Byron Baudin and Senate Minority Leader Miriam Schultz officially unveil the "Path Forward" document.

Minority Leader Baudin spoke of his new CLEAR Act which looks to invoke campaign finance reform and more transparency in government.

"The CLEAR Act is more than campaign finance reform, its comprehensive legislative and electoral reform," Baudin said. "By making governmental negotiations public, the people can be sure that their representatives in Congress are working for them."

New House Minority Whip Jerome Hooper of Colorado spoke after Baudin, and he would talk about the "Path Forward" agenda, and the fact that it promotes the american spirit, promotes giving power back to the states on education, and promotes Hooper's initiatives last session on the issue of military members voting with his Comprehensive Armed Services Voting Rights Act.

"This agenda is about fostering the American spirit - a spirit that recognizes a greater purpose, looks to the future, and respects those who have sacrificed for the sake of our country," Hooper said.

Michigan Representative Jack Terrus would discuss the infrastructure plank, President Pro Tempore Jim Smith of Kansas would talk about the partial birth abortion ban and building up the conservatives in the audience, Florida's Juan Torres would take up the foreign policy part of the event, and Senate Majority Leader Miriam Schultz would close the event.

The Schultz speech starts off discussing the choice of the Lincoln Memorial as a location for the event and how the Republican Party "charts forward a new course for our nation". Schultz continues on discussing how the Republican Party is the party who is wanting to make America right.

"The Path Forward identifies the Republican Party as the party that is truly dedicated towards both bringing these issues to the national focus and actually seeking to do something about them," Schultz said.

Schultz mentions how this Republican agenda is reinforced by specific policy proposals.

"Our foundation upon which we will govern in Congress is reinforced through actual concrete legislation that the American People can evaluate with their own eyes because we understand that vague promises cannot be depended on!," Schultz exclaimed. "Our proposed legislation is a culmination of the top minds of our party that seek to address a plethora of issues in Washington and within our society. The Republican Party remains 100% dedicated to fighting for the issues that matter to everyday Americans from the East Coast to the West Coast and everywhere in between!"

Schultz took a weird path in alluding to the days of Ronald Reagan's inauguration in 1981. It does slightly bring observers back to the moment in the Presidential debate where Fong invoked a classic debate comment by Reagan. It also is interesting how the Republicans are looking to separate themselves from their most recent past, but tie themselves to their historical successes. After this historical reference, Schultz returns to comments boosting the Republican Party's drive to fight for the country.

"The Republican Party is ready to pull itself up by the bootstraps and fight for the American People!" Schultz exclaimed. "The Path Forward provides a tangible platform by which we as a party can govern."

Schultz would wrap up the event with comments expressing a sentiment that the "Path Forward" is the future of America.

The event would catch fire with Democrats, many of which called out the event and called out the fact that they are "talking doom and gloom" and the fact that they have ran both chambers of Congress since the mid 1990s.

"If I'm going to be honest with you Aaron, this new Contract with America offered up by the Republican Party confuses me," DNC Chairwoman Lisette Egidia Tran told KGW 8 in Portland. "They are talking doom and despair and a failure of leadership in America that only they can fix, well didn't they just have control of both houses of congress for the last 4 years? The American people trusted in their leadership and it has gotten the country to where it is. Why are they attacking their own leadership and pushing for change they didn't pursue when they controlled congress?"

Florida Representative Tyler Swanson told local radio in Tampa that he wonders if the Republicans are having amnesia.

"It seems the Republicans have suffered from amnesia after these elections, because they speak of failed leadership when they have controlled both Houses of Congress since 1994," Swanson said.  "That is 6 years of Republican leadership that has given us nothing but gridlock and broken promises. The American people showed they want a change in direction this last election, and I am committed to working with my colleagues in the House on passing real, substantive policy."

Schultz would respond on KOIN 6 in Portland calling out what she feels is the difference between Democrats and the "Path Forward"

"Vague promises or concrete solutions? That's the difference between the Democrats and The Path Forward. The Democrats like to use catchy talking points without submitting any actual policy," Schultz said. "The Path Forward is a legislative agenda dealing with a plethora of issues like infrastructure and campaign finance reform with actual policy to back it. Republicans will not be taking a backseat this legislative session as much as Democrats would hope."

This event did very well with Republicans, especially with conservative Republicans who felt that the Republican Party has re-energized itself in American politics. The event itself also did well with moderates, however some do look at the Democratic attacks and question "why now?" Many do understand the fact that the Republican Party is trying to separate itself from the past, which they like.

Democrats were less receptive of the event. Liberals straight up thought that this event was an attempt to hijack Grayson's inauguration. More moderate Democrats are currently sympathizing with their Democratic representatives on this, however many are waiting to see Grayson's inauguration speech before they decide where they will fall.

http://virtualgovernment.us/topic/17-administrative-board-responsibilities/

((Michael could not post in here, so he sent the speech to me to post))

Partial Birth Abortion Ban being debated again

The contentious Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which passed the House last congressional session, but got stalled in the Senate, is once again up for debate in the upper chamber.

The ban would stop doctors from performing partial birth abortions under threat of jail time or fines. There would be a clause that provides extensions for mothers whose lives are endangered by illness, disorder, or injury. For example, if a pregnant woman is in a major car accident, a doctor could abort her child if it is believed to be necessary.

If a doctor is accused of aborting a baby for non-illness, disorder, or injury reasons, they can seek a hearing before the state medical board in which they are registered to. That medical board would review the circumstances and determine if those circumstances were in play.

Another clause in the legislation allows for the maternal grandparents of mothers who are below the age of 18 and have babies aborted to file for civil action and get restitution against the mother of the aborted fetus. However that would only be if the father and mother were married at the time of the abortion. An exemption to this would be if the pregnancy resulted from criminal action by the father in the relationship or if the father consented to the abortion. While many states require you to be 18 to get married, some states do have exceptions to the rule. For example, if you can find both parental and judicial consent, in Indiana you can get married at the age of 15 if the woman is pregnant.

Also in the legislation is a clause to deny women being prosecuted for having a partial birth abortion under the scope of the legislation.

Last congressional session, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act languished in the Senate as Democrats and Republicans seemingly could not come together on a compromise. In the meantime, the House passed the Republican version of the legislation without rider. The ban passed the House 429-5 at that time.

The bill was featured in the recent Republican "Path Forward" rally. Therefore, Senate Majority Leader Miriam Schultz put the legislation on her first docket as leader for the 107th Congress. Freshman Senator Rachel Andrews of Pennsylvania started off the debate by asking if any of the concerns from last session for alleviated in the ban.

Former Senate Minority Leader, though still Democratic Senator from Connecticut, Anderson Sherman, noticed a flaw to him in the new legislation from the beginning.

"I want to sarcastically thank the GOP for undoing every amendment we made movement on last year. Again, treating women as property of their husbands," Sherman said on the Senate Floor. "Again, refusing to carve out simple objections for cases of rape and incest. This is a joke. I remain opposed until such a time as the Radical Right can undo their stranglehold on the Republican Party's Senate caucus."

Majority Leader Schultz came back with the argument that the House passed the same bill overwhelmingly last session.

"The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban passed the House with near universal support from both parties and was sponsored by Democrats," Schultz told local news outlet KOIN 6 in Portland. "The incoming Vice President even voted in favor of the bill yet their Senate Democratic colleagues only accuse Republicans of apparently not caring about women? When challenged on that obvious double standard they chose to continue to propagate their double standard. It's hypocritical on a level I can't even fathom."

Senator Andrews seemed to take those comments as to mean that Republicans believed that just because the House passed it, that meant the Senate was beholden to the other chamber.

"The only people I take orders from are the people of Pennsylvania who elected me. I promised them I would defend their rights," Andrews said. "I respect everyone's vote on this issue but we are the Senate, the most deliberative body in the world. The second we start taking orders from others we lose that title and what it means for our country. The House passes legislation all the time that the Senate than either ignores or passes a different version."

Schultz would mention how many, including the now Vice President, supported the legislation in the House. Andrews would retort asking why Senator Schultz even docketed the bill for debate in the Senate. At that point, President Pro Tempore Jim Smith of Kansas spoke.

"I am rather appalled of how quickly things have broken down in this chamber. The personal, vicious attacks being lobbed by the minority are rooted in the deepest of fear tactics and rooted in falsehoods... ," Smith said. "I am not saying we take the lead from the House, or the House controls us, so put down the pitchforks there. I am simply stating this is a bipartisan measure which garners support from both sides of the aisle and the American people."

Bickering would continue until Senator Andrews introduced an amendment to the legislation that would add to the situations in which a doctor could abort. Those would be in case of rape or incest.

So far, every Senator to vote on the amendment has voted for it. Whether this will be enough to Senate Democrats on board with the ban is to be determined.

Speaker Andrew Sutherland, the main Democratic supporter of the Partial Birth Abortion ban in the House last session, has come out and made a statement on the Senate debate on the issue. He calls for Republicans to compromise.

"We need to ban partial-birth abortions and if that means we pass some amendments to the legislation to get it out of the Senate then for god's sake Senator Schultz should heed that and compromise," Sutherland said. "Let's get this done. If the Senate can pass a compromise on the partial-birth abortion ban I will work to immediately bring it to the floor of the US House."

In another note, Michigan congressman Jack Terrus has introduced a Partial Birth Abortion Ban act in the House. All indications are that it is the same legislation as the Senate originally introduced.

Congressman Terrus promised to "fight hard" to pass "this monumentally important legislation" in a statement, saying that "the protection of unborn lives is one of the issues most dear to me." "There are legitimate disagreements to be had about the size, scope, and role of government, but there can be no question that the government should act to protect its citizens against violence, even when that violence takes the form of a doctor's actions," Terrus said, "just as we have banned murder, we must act to ban abortion, except in the limited circumstances where it is a medical necessity, and this legislation will take a major step towards doing just that."

Regardless of if this new legislation can even make it past the Senate, it looks like this will be once again a hot topic of discussion in the 107th Congress.

There is no evidence to suggest anyone did anything in malice.