(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kentucky Republican nominee for United States Senate Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:
“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”
“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.
“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.
“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.
“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.
“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.
“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Leading Pro-Life Group Outraged by the Defeat of Pro-Life Amendments in Senate Finance Committee
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, in a vote of 10-13 in the Senate Finance Committee, the Hatch Amendment #C14 was defeated. The amendment would have explicitly prohibited federal funding and coverage of abortions. The Committee also voted down an amendment by Senator Hatch that would have prevented discrimination against any individual or entity who refused to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life recently met with the White House to discuss conscience protection and the lack of explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage in health care reform.
Dr. Yoest said that the defeat of these important amendments illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:
"President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform. Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action. The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform."
Here are the defeated pro-life amendments voted down in the Senate Finance Committee:
Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:
No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the
policy.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of
conscience
Description:
Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience
(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or
local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-
1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to
discrimination, or
2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) DEFINITION.-In this section, the term "health care entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life recently met with the White House to discuss conscience protection and the lack of explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage in health care reform.
Dr. Yoest said that the defeat of these important amendments illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:
"President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform. Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action. The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform."
Here are the defeated pro-life amendments voted down in the Senate Finance Committee:
Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:
No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the
policy.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of
conscience
Description:
Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience
(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or
local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-
1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to
discrimination, or
2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) DEFINITION.-In this section, the term "health care entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Judicial Watch Raises Ethics Concerns about Judge Sotomayor Prejudicial Statements, Discriminatory Affiliation and Improper Political Activities
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it sent a letter of complaint on July 7 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) expressing concern that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct through her statements and behavior and
is therefore unfit to serve on the High Court.
According to the letter signed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
"I write to you out of concern that out-of-court statements and activity by Judge Sonia Sotomayor violate various provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges ("Code of Conduct"). In fact, Judge Sotomayor may be in violation of the Code of Conduct as a result of the following:
· Repeated prejudicial and racist comments.
· Recent membership in an organization that
practices "invidious discrimination" based on sex.
· Improper political activity.
The Judicial Code of Conduct notes that the duty to "act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias."
Judge Sotomayor's statements and activities, Judicial Watch contends, have repeatedly violated this and other canons of the Code of Conduct. Among the evidence presented by Judicial Watch to support its contention:
Sotomayor's Prejudiced and Racist Comments: During an October 2001 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Sotomayor said the following: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Judge Sotomayor has also promoted the idea that "gender and national origins" of judges "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Sotomayor's Membership in an Organization That Practices "Invidious Discrimination" Based on Sex: According to Canon 2 (c) of the Judicial Code of Conduct: "A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor recently resigned her membership from the Belizean Grove, a private organization consisting entirely of professional women that claims
to represent the counterweight to the "elite old boys' network." In her recent Senate questionnaire Judge Sotomayor wrote the following with respect to her organizational affiliations: "None of the above organizations, other than the Belizean Grove, discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor stated that the group does not "invidiously" discriminate but the evidence seems otherwise.
Sotomayor's Improper Political Activity: On April 17, 2009, Judge Sotomayor made a political speech to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association. Among the statements made by Judge Sotomayor during that speech: "The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America's first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the
passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals... Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence."
Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct plainly states that "A judge should refrain from political activity," and that a judge should not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
"Judge Sotomayor seems to be in violation of the ethical guidelines that governs the conduct of judges. Frankly, this apparent misconduct ought to give the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate further reason to reject her nomination for the High Court," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
is therefore unfit to serve on the High Court.
According to the letter signed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:
"I write to you out of concern that out-of-court statements and activity by Judge Sonia Sotomayor violate various provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges ("Code of Conduct"). In fact, Judge Sotomayor may be in violation of the Code of Conduct as a result of the following:
· Repeated prejudicial and racist comments.
· Recent membership in an organization that
practices "invidious discrimination" based on sex.
· Improper political activity.
The Judicial Code of Conduct notes that the duty to "act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias."
Judge Sotomayor's statements and activities, Judicial Watch contends, have repeatedly violated this and other canons of the Code of Conduct. Among the evidence presented by Judicial Watch to support its contention:
Sotomayor's Prejudiced and Racist Comments: During an October 2001 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Sotomayor said the following: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Judge Sotomayor has also promoted the idea that "gender and national origins" of judges "may and will make a difference in our judging."
Sotomayor's Membership in an Organization That Practices "Invidious Discrimination" Based on Sex: According to Canon 2 (c) of the Judicial Code of Conduct: "A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor recently resigned her membership from the Belizean Grove, a private organization consisting entirely of professional women that claims
to represent the counterweight to the "elite old boys' network." In her recent Senate questionnaire Judge Sotomayor wrote the following with respect to her organizational affiliations: "None of the above organizations, other than the Belizean Grove, discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor stated that the group does not "invidiously" discriminate but the evidence seems otherwise.
Sotomayor's Improper Political Activity: On April 17, 2009, Judge Sotomayor made a political speech to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association. Among the statements made by Judge Sotomayor during that speech: "The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America's first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the
passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals... Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence."
Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct plainly states that "A judge should refrain from political activity," and that a judge should not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
"Judge Sotomayor seems to be in violation of the ethical guidelines that governs the conduct of judges. Frankly, this apparent misconduct ought to give the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate further reason to reject her nomination for the High Court," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, June 29, 2009
Judicial Watch Statement on the Ricci Reversal
/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the reversal of a decision that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge:
The Ricci decision today is further confirmation that Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Judge Sotomayor helped uphold an action that was in violation of our nation's anti-discrimination laws. The question for the United States Senate is whether to confirm someone who thinks it is appropriate to discriminate based on race simply to protect oneself from a lawsuit. Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that New Haven firefighters have "a right to demand...evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them." Judge Sotomayor did not apply our nation's anti-discrimination laws in an evenhanded way and her confirmation should be
rejected.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Ricci decision today is further confirmation that Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Judge Sotomayor helped uphold an action that was in violation of our nation's anti-discrimination laws. The question for the United States Senate is whether to confirm someone who thinks it is appropriate to discriminate based on race simply to protect oneself from a lawsuit. Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that New Haven firefighters have "a right to demand...evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them." Judge Sotomayor did not apply our nation's anti-discrimination laws in an evenhanded way and her confirmation should be
rejected.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)