15 votes

Rand Adding Definition of When Life Begins to Flood Insurance Bill

Floods and abortions are distinctly different topics — except to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who is trying to attach an anti-choice amendment to the Senate’s flood insurance bill.

After years of delay, senators recently came to an agreement over the flood bill and were set to vote on it this week.

But now, Paul is threatening to hold up its final passage by adding an amendment defining when life begins.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/26/506564/rand-paul-...

I really don't understand this haha



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

interesting tactic

i personally would have gone for the marijuana legalization amendment though!

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

tasmlab's picture

Why isn't this tactic wide-spread?

Why don't republicans always add a poison pill that democrats will hate to every bill they don't want to pass?

And the dems do the same?

Couldn't Rand put in something preposterous into bills he wants to be voted down. E.g., "Everybody must eat their own feces" added to every bill and just freeze the passage of all legislation?

Anyone have a technical answer? i don't understand procedure of the Senate.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

It IS wide-spread,

and it has been going on for many years.

Both sides of the aisle use it.
The reason why it isn't done in every bill is because many bills have bipartisan support, with only minor quibbling.
And the amendment has to get accepted, which isn't always possible.

fireant's picture

On federal flood insurance:

It encourages development in risky areas, usually resulting in backstopping wealthier constituants.

Undo what Wilson did

I'd rather see him fight FASCISM than some social issue

abortions are awful but what about the bigger issues facing the world?

Well, I guess he ain't all bad

Very smart way to hold up useless legislation.

reedr3v's picture

I'd like to think your spin is correct.

Sadly I'm afraid it exhibits his slimy state-religious agenda.

Wait. Let me get this

Wait. Let me get this straight.

Ron Paul pro-life = good.

Rand Paul pro-life = bad.

Gary Johnson pro-choice = bad.

Right?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

JustLiberty4US's picture

Wow. I love seeing this sort

Wow. I love seeing this sort of thing. If people want to live in flood zones, they need to be responsible for taking the risk; it's not the government's job to subsidize insurance. Very smart move Rand.

Actually a brilliant move

on Rand's part.

The government has NO authority or Constitutional requirement to provide FLOOD insurance at any point, in any capacity. If people choose to build in a flood zone, or right on the beach in a hurricane prone area, well...that's thier choice. It's not MY or YOUR responsiblity to have to foot the bill when (not if, but when) a big hurricane comes along and wrecks thier property.

So, he inserts this amendment virtually guaranteeing that the bill will never see a vote and die. Great! This is a win-win; he's demonstrating where he stands on "when life starts", and making sure we dont' have even more pointless laws going into effect that further the breadth and scope of what the Leviathan of State are trying to do.

Oh, and the weenies at thinkprogress are just AGHAST and besides themselves at how EVIL Rand is, for both stomping all over a woman's right to CHOOOOOOOOOOOSE, and for not wanting to help those poor, poor flood victims. The cognitive dissonance there, about how this is often going largely to help the 1% they claim to despise as the root of all evil in the world when thier million dollar beach vacation homes get messed up by hurricanes is simply lost on them.

Smart move!

Predictably, some here on the DP can't understand it.

I didn't click the link to "thinkcommunist.org".
No need to give them any traffic.

What hypocrisy! Complaining

What hypocrisy! Complaining that an amendment has been attached to a bill that has nothing to do with the bill. Isn't this they way 99.9% of all pork is slipped through? If funding for a bridge to nowhere was amended to this bill it would have been accepted and not a word about it. God forbid Rand added something of substance and not pork!

Rachel Maddow ripped Rand Paul for trying to

include this on a bill pertaining to flooding!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_madd...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

We don't want flood insurance, we want life protected.

Protecting life is the responsibility of government.

Flood insurance is not. That is for the private sector to do without government interference.

Sounds good to me.

.

is this a religious issue, or

is this a religious issue, or is he making a point about "the role of govt" and he was throwing a wrench in the mix kind of?

He threw the wrench consistent with our views.

That is what matters.

Rand realizes that these bills are already totally screwed up.

So why not screw them up some more, but this time do it in our favor and consistent with fighting for the constitution.

That is what he has done and it is brilliant. He is reverse engineering their bills taking them back to nothing.

Because his amendments screw up the bad compromises already agreed to by big spenders on both sides.

In this case they choose to protect life or stop spending on key pet projects.

Brilliant!

.

What is the Gov't Doing in Insurance Anyway

Anyone read the bill, or its summary? Is it the insurance FEMA has been offering to insure people when they build their homes right next to the ocean in a hurricane prone area?

Rand is no dummy, maybe he'll win either way - get a pro-life thingy passed, or stop/alter a potentially bad bill.

Also, he could be twisting someone's arm in the public spotlight to get them to vote on something actually meaningful later. Don't forget that he's negotiating to get Audit the Fed passed in the senate, and he needs Democrat votes for it. Not all negotiations are private (or nicey-nice). Watch the list of Senate cosponsors in the next few weeks - see if any are added.

Remember last year or so that he held up some random gas pipeline vote and then magically just released his hold after some time had passed. What you don't see is what caused him to release it - my wager is he wanted to be paid a toll first.

Judas gets auto down vote

and I refuse to read it.

sovereign

Well

Thanks for the bump then?

Eric Hoffer

Anti-choice?

Why do those libtards hate children? If they're Illegal aliens, SURE!!!

If it's an unborn child who, THROUGH NO FAULT OF ITS OWN, was conceived by its biological parents, why does it have NO RIGHT TO LIFE according to these Abortionists????

https://twitter.com/#!/Agonzo1

you said it....Unborn.

If it's unborn...then it is not born. If it is not born, it is not a person yet, it is a fetus. When it is cut, detached, or ejected from the woman's body and takes its first breath, it is a living human person.

Technically...the answer is extremely simple AND clear-cut

This is one thing I've always laughed at on the topic of "when life begins." How is there even a debate on this? Even the dumbest individual can tell you what "life" is. Most democrats believe it is when the baby is "born". At the same time, most democrats believe far more in "science" (generalized term) than republicans. There is a clear contradiction.

Life does have a scientific definition. Life is literally anything with the "capacity for growth." As any of you scientists know, any organism is considered living as soon as it possesses the ability to develop or grow (which is directly when it is created or formed). So...why does everyone randomly consider it different with children? Simply because they don't want to feel conviction for it; they want to pick and choose to their benefit.

Like it or not, "life" exists as soon as something possesses a capacity for growth; which means in any stage of development it is obviously "living." A baby is constantly in a state of development and possesses the capacity for growth (and demonstrates such) upon the first point of recognition.

It baffles me how idiotic some individuals can be to pick and choose their definitions to suit them. Just like politicians "picking and choosing" the Constitution. It is what it is. You can debate whether you should like it or not, but it doesn't change the fact that "it is."

The question is not when "life" begins

But when HUMAN life begins(personhood)..we kill life everyday, intentionally or unintentionally, a plant, a bug, bacteria...etc. Thats the difference.

Well...

I guess some people do consider unwanted fetuses as useless as a weed, a mosquito, or some bacterial growth that is annoying "their" personal lives...quite a difference.

It is My Body

I am a human being with Free Will.
I take full responsibility for my own body.
I am not the Property of any other Person, State or Government.

Yes...

YOU are responsible, and will be held accountable as the responsible party, for all your personal actions. And therefore God, or karma, or nature itself, will see that you reap what you sow.
Abortion is a man-made violent assault against a natural occurrence within your body. It has consequences.
But thanks for accepting responsibility for your part not only in killing your own child - but in the consequences that it has on our nation as a whole. And if you think that your little ole abortion doesn't affect anyone but you - think again. And I'm not just referring to your unborn child - there's a long line of dominoes to fall.

distinct dna

Your body and it's components have YOUR DNA and no one else's. The pre-born child has his/her own DNA, distinct from yours. It is not your body, but your child's body.

Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Mary, Our Mother, protect us under your mantle.

Cry all you want

the fact is, the developing fetus is not a human until brain activity occurs which is about 12 weeks in the womb. So for all those pro-lifers out there, your best bet is to come to a more common sense postion. The human at conception position just isn't working nor will it ever.

Your argument would suggest

Your argument would suggest that anyone can destroy a fetus, as long as the woman is not harmed and the best you can do is charge that person with assault? Why? Cuzz the fetus does not exist. What kind of twisted logic is that? When women have a miscarriage, they don't cry because they lost some tissue or a fetus. They cry because they lost their potential baby.

You cannot violate the liberty of the mother OR THE FETUS which is a potential life. I would agree that the federal government should stay out of the punishment aspect of abortion. But you have to be very careful on this issue because you're dealing with the liberty of two individuals. Yes, the potential child is INSIDE the woman but that woman does not have anymore right to destroy that potential life than you or I do.

The fetus before brain activity does not have liberty

since it does not have human life. But after the line has been drawn you can easily make that argument. Though the argument about miscarriage is ridiculous..I know many mothers who have cried because of a miscarriage because they have imaginined there life having a human baby, but also I have met people who were happy to have a miscarriage.

So, its a moot point.