on this resolution, I have been working with the Senator from California, and I appreciate her cooperation as well as the cooperation of the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, in trying to come up with a resolution that we can support. I am talking about people of different views on different sides of the abortion question. I think we have come to agreement, and I appreciate their cooperation. When we originally looked at the resolution as introduced, it left a lot to be desired, and my original thought was that we could not support it. Since then, I think we have made some improvements, and I might just mention those. Originally the resolution stated that 'persons exercising their constitutional rights and acting completely within the law are entitled to full protection from the Federal Government.' Now, that might sound good. But we have left that out because it can be misleading. Some people might misinterpret that, so now that is not included in the resolution. We offered to say that they would be entitled to 'equal protection,' we did not reach an agreement on that. So now that particular segment is not included. Also, the original resolution stated that 'the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 imposes a mandate on the Federal Government to protect individuals seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services.' That is now deleted. It was deleted, in my opinion, for a good reason--because it is not correct.…
Don Nickles: “on this resolution, I have been working with the Senator from California, and I appreciate her cooperation as well as…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing amendments to a resolution related to abortion rights and federal protection.
Share
More from Don Nickles
I have a couple comments. Again, I compliment my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator DeWine. They have been steadfast in their advocacy. Senator DeWine is right, he and Senator Kennedy introduced this a long time ago. If I am correct…
I do not defend 199, period. I think Congress--when you are rewriting the tax code, you should have a uniform corporate rate, not a lower rate for manufacturing.
I am not sure it is written that way. I am not sure it is a requirement that an employer has to give the money immediately to a service man or woman. I suspect that is your intent. I don't believe that is the way the amendment is written…
Lowering the threshold required for cloture, in my opinion, would be a mistake, because that is a threshold that almost by definition requires bipartisan involvement.





