Senators who voted to continue to fund Planned Parenthood

[rangerrebew]

Senators who voted to continue to fund Planned Parenthood
By T Grimsley on August 3, 2015 at 8:25 pm

 
The Senate voted today on a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, which has been in the headlines lately following the release of four undercover videos that reveal, among other horrors, the organization’s sale of fetal parts. The bill, which would have stripped half a billion dollars in taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood, fell short of the needed 60 votes and was defeated.

Even though we must hold accountable the 46 senators who voted against defunding, it is also important to thank those Senators (a bipartisan majority that included Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Joe Donnelly) who spoke out to stop funding Planned Parenthood.
 

Here is a list of the Senators who voted against defunding:

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)

Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE)

Senator Robert Casey (D-PA)

Senator Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Senator Al Franken (D-MN)

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)

Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Senator Angus King (I-ME)

Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Senator Edward Markey (D-MA)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT)

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Gary Peters (D-MI)

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI)

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)

Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT)

Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

NOTE: Senator Lindsey Graham “Not Voting”

Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/08/03/senators-who-voted-to-continue-to-fund-baby-killing-planned-parenthood/

[alicewonders]

Jamie Dupree ✔@jamiedupree

Sen McConnell switched his vote from "Yes" to "No" in order to force a re-vote at a later time

6:20 PM - 3 Aug 2015
   40 40 Retweets  21 21 favorites

[musiclady]

Jamie Dupree ✔@jamiedupree

Sen McConnell switched his vote from "Yes" to "No" in order to force a re-vote at a later time

6:20 PM - 3 Aug 2015
   40 40 Retweets  21 21 favorites

I heard that from my husband.

What does it mean.......... really? 

(I'm short on information as to how the parliamentary procedure works.  Any help I can get would be appreciated!)

[Bigun]

I heard that from my husband.

What does it mean.......... really? 

(I'm short on information as to how the parliamentary procedure works.  Any help I can get would be appreciated!)

Under Robert's Rules of Order one must be on the prevailing side of a vote in order to make a motion to reconsider.

Under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), the motion to reconsider must be made within a limited time after the action on the original motion: usually at the same meeting or, in the case of a multi-day session or convention, on the next day within the session or convention in which business is conducted.[2] Until the motion to reconsider is disposed of or lapses, the effect of the original vote is suspended, and no action may be taken to implement it.[3] This is in contrast to the motion to rescind, which may be made at any later meeting, but until passed, has no effect on the original decision.

Under Robert's Rules of Order and some other authorities, the motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted on the prevailing side in the original vote.[4] If another member disputes an assertion by the maker of the motion to reconsider that he voted on the prevailing side, the member moving to reconsider is to be believed unless the record of a roll call vote says otherwise.[5] The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, however, permits the motion to be made by any member and explains that this removes the incentive for a member to "switch sides" just in order to be eligible to move for reconsideration, and also preserves the secrecy of a ballot vote.[6]

Under Robert's Rules, the motion to reconsider is debatable to the extent that the motion being reconsidered is debatable.[7] Under the Standard Code, the motion is debatable only as to the reasons for reconsideration, and the original motion is opened for debate only if the motion for reconsideration passes.[8]

The making of the motion to reconsider takes precedence over all other motions and yields to nothing. It is not, however, considered at the time it is made if other business is pending, and the timing of its consideration depends on the ranking of the motion that led to the vote to be reconsidered.[9]

[bkepley]

Under Robert's Rules of Order one must be on the prevailing side of a vote in order to make a motion to reconsider.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Bigun]

Doesn't make much sense to me.

If members who were on the losing side of a vote could do that there would be nothing but motions to reconsider on the table.

[musiclady]

Under Robert's Rules of Order one must be on the prevailing side of a vote in order to make a motion to reconsider.

Under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), the motion to reconsider must be made within a limited time after the action on the original motion: usually at the same meeting or, in the case of a multi-day session or convention, on the next day within the session or convention in which business is conducted.[2] Until the motion to reconsider is disposed of or lapses, the effect of the original vote is suspended, and no action may be taken to implement it.[3] This is in contrast to the motion to rescind, which may be made at any later meeting, but until passed, has no effect on the original decision.

Under Robert's Rules of Order and some other authorities, the motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted on the prevailing side in the original vote.[4] If another member disputes an assertion by the maker of the motion to reconsider that he voted on the prevailing side, the member moving to reconsider is to be believed unless the record of a roll call vote says otherwise.[5] The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, however, permits the motion to be made by any member and explains that this removes the incentive for a member to "switch sides" just in order to be eligible to move for reconsideration, and also preserves the secrecy of a ballot vote.[6]

Under Robert's Rules, the motion to reconsider is debatable to the extent that the motion being reconsidered is debatable.[7] Under the Standard Code, the motion is debatable only as to the reasons for reconsideration, and the original motion is opened for debate only if the motion for reconsideration passes.[8]

The making of the motion to reconsider takes precedence over all other motions and yields to nothing. It is not, however, considered at the time it is made if other business is pending, and the timing of its consideration depends on the ranking of the motion that led to the vote to be reconsidered.[9]

Thank you VERY much, Bigun!

(I knew I could count on someone.......... probably you!...... to help me out).

It makes sense now.

[musiclady]

btw, what's with Mark Kirk?

His hands must be really, really dirty.

A pro-life Democrat I understand.

But a hard-core pro-death Republican?

Must have a lot of financial interest in the abortion industry.

[Bigun]

btw, what's with Mark Kirk?

His hands must be really, really dirty.

A pro-life Democrat I understand.

But a hard-core pro-death Republican?

Must have a lot of financial interest in the abortion industry.

He's up for re-election this year in a state where Cook County (Chicago) outvotes the entire rest of the state.

[musiclady]

He's up for re-election this year in a state where Cook County (Chicago) outvotes the entire rest of the state.

Oh yeah............. where they empty the cemeteries on election day.....