Let’s move to this thread, since the size of the previous live-blog thread is slowing down BMG.
They have now started debate on a motion to discharge the health care amendment from committee, which is a necessary precursor to voting on it. A 2/3 vote will be required to do this. It’ll be a short debate. Tolman has argued in favor of discharge. Here comes Sen. Moore arguing against discharge.
Rep. Wallrath also argued against discharge. Sen. Jehlen is up now to argue for discharge, and she reminds the convention that a vote is constitutionally required under the SJC’s decision. Now Montigny is up arguing for discharge. He’s done, and Tolman is adding the constitutional argument again, saying that the SJC has required a vote on the merits, so discharge is required.
UPDATE: Debate is over, and they’re voting on the discharge. From the Senate vote, it sounds pretty even, which means they won’t get the 2/3 they need to get it out of committee. What a horror show that would be.
Overheard on the open mike: as the Senate clerk records Sen. Spilka‘s “no” vote to keep the amendment buried in committee, Trav said “good girl.” Nice, on so many levels.
UPDATE: the vote is in: 92-101, not close to the 2/3 needed to discharge the amendment from committee. So there will be no vote on the merits of the health care amendment.
What a disgrace.
“Let the Legislators vote!”
The same arguments that “forced” the vote on the gay marriage amendment goes for this one too. If they skip the vote on the health care amendment, that just proves the hypocrisy that this was more about gay bashing then “process”
Healthcare isn’t such a hot button issue (even though it is arguably far more important since it affects everyone) when compared with same sex marriage. So you won’t see anyone protesting in the street on this one.
<
p>
But you’re right. Insider politics continues to prevail on the Hill.
HCA also deserved a vote, and for the very same reasons.
I agree 100% that they should have voted.
Vote the anti-gay amendment into a committee and leave it there. Seems to work.
to see if will be discharged from committee.
You may have something there. Who has the power to get it sent to committee forever?
I believe the only action allowed on the next session’s consideration of the marriage amendment is an “up or down” vote – no amendments, no other actions allowed.
<
p>
And even if there are other options, the guy with the gavel can squash any of them as we have just witnessed.
I think the Health amendment is history in this session, just a matter of how.
it’s all about fucking the faggots after all then, isn’t it. HC is not discharged from committee. thanks everyone.
(Sorry. I know you’re disappointed. I’m disappointed. I just have this sense of humor, you see, which irrepressibly pops out. Wordiness, too. I’m terribly, terribly wordy!)
Isn’t there something fishy going on when it takes a 25% vote to approve the same-sex marriage ban, while a vote of 1/3 +1 is enough to bury the health care amendment? So it’s OK to kill a petition by burying it in committee but not OK to kill it by adjourning the session? The process liberals were abused; the SJC’s dicta were selectively followed, which means it was in fact a political question in every sense. In my long experience of advocating for the GLBT community it has never ceased to amaze me how rules others take advantage are denied to us selectively.
because even though I don’t consider myself a liberal, I always argued (here in elsewhere) that both amendments should be taken up, even though I supported the first though not the second.
<
p>
Outcome-wise I am happy with what happened today. Procedurally I am sickened. It was a shameful display and all those who voted to keep it in committee should not be allowed to take a new oath tommorrow.
I have not felt more defeated and disenchanted with government in a long time. What are we to learn from what happened here today? Should we learn that the legislature was more concerned about getting out from under the heat of the whole gay marriage issue than it was about following some determined principle of article 48? Should we learn that the legislature was not going to let there be any interference on its own agenda related to the provision of healthcare? Should we learn that Travaglini was more interested in showing Deval Patrick just how powerful he is than in really thinking about the issues of gay marriage or healthcare. (the rumor has been that he plans to retire in the next few months.)
<
p>
The most positive note of the day, for me, came from our new governor, who took a stand when he didn’t have to say anything at some potential cost. Kudos to our new Governor!
You have every right to feel the way you do. While I don’t understand the technical nuances between the “died in committee” approach and the adjournment strategy (would love an explanantion if anyone can provide), it is clear our elected representatives are devoid of conscience and integrity. The clear intent of Article 48 is to have an up or down vote on the merits of a petition. Far too many of the players on Beacon Hill feel bullet proof vis a vis the electorate. We are essentially a single party state and that, even if it happens to be your party that is in power, is not good for all but a select few of us. Massachusetts continues to slip further into the abyss.
That it is still in committee means it’s round for the next session. I think.
Go to http://www.mlri.org/… Judith Meredith, the long-time legislative activist wrote this guide. When I started the hot fire fight on indigent defense in 2003, this guide is ALL I had, and I mean that.
<
p>
Wanna clear up the “How it works” confusion? This book REALLY is your best bet.
<
p>
Remember my “Room 348” rant, guys and gals? Been there. Seen it. Been pissed so long it is hard to stay pissed and ready to fight [sadly].
(aside from a passed amendment).
of having to live as a citizen in this Commonwealth where backroom “be a good girl” politics continue to rule the day.
<
p>
the HC amendment is dead. it was launched from the grassroots 4 years ago by activists who care passionately about the health and well-being of all in our Conmmonwealth as well as carrying a deep sense of obligation to set clear and enforcable standards for responsible and prudent use of state and private health care dollars. the HCA is dead due to the sneaky tactic (“Rule F”that was snuck in below the public radar) that allowed lege “leaders”/aka corporate power brokers to kill it by sending to a sham study cmte.
<
p>
the anti-equal marriage vote result sickens me; there is much work to do to move at least 12 votes to the side of equal rights before the 2nd concon vote is taken.