House Dems have a bill to make grooming a crime, but Republicans aren’t signing

[neurosis]

Someone is going to have to explain this one to me?  I would think that the Republicans would be happy to jump on board with a bill that makes "grooming" illegal? Is there more to this story than meets the eye?

This story feels like a bit of a hit piece, but for those who follow Michigan politics, why would Republicans oppose this bill?

https://michiganadvance.com/2022/06/17/house-dems-have-a-bill-to-make-grooming-a-crime-but-republicans-arent-signing-on/

[pmartin]

They'll have to pry my comb from my cold, dead fingers!


No? Not that kind of grooming? My bad.

[Jim at Gentex]

Not sure about the specifics here, but IN GENERAL, both parties like to pack bills with goodies that often don't have anything to do with the issue at hand, then they scream bloody murder when the other party opposes it. 

Nothing to see here.
Politics as usual on both sides...

They all need to go...

[Tim Johnson]

Someone is going to have to explain this one to me?  I would think that the Republicans would be happy to jump on board with a bill that makes "grooming" illegal? Is there more to this story than meets the eye?

This story feels like a bit of a hit piece, but for those who follow Michigan politics, why would Republicans oppose this bill?

https://michiganadvance.com/2022/06/17/house-dems-have-a-bill-to-make-grooming-a-crime-but-republicans-arent-signing-on/

There may have been more than one proposal that would have killed the bill. The dems could then use the media to state that Republicans want to "keep the grooming" when in fact the dems want to keep the primary school children grooming to go on.

[RobertELee]

Remember when the Dims had the "American Rescue Plan" that Biden pushed and was so packed full of pork it was unreadable? Buried deep inside it was a part about more funding for the police. The Repubs shot the entire bill down and then the Dims started chanting from the rooftops that the Repubs were the ones for defunding the police. That's the bullshit these lying pony faced soldiers do to get ahead.

[Incogneeto]

House Dems have a Bill.

Ok I shut it down right there.

Any Questions??

[neurosis]

Well here is the entire text of the bill, so, where is the pork?   

February 17, 2022, Introduced by Reps. LaGrand, Yancey, Neeley, Scott, Steckloff, Coleman,
Camilleri, Clemente, Hope, Ellison, Koleszar, Tyrone Carter, Stone, Sabo, Lasinski, Brenda
Carter, Sowerby, Brabec, Cynthia Johnson, Rabhi, Brixie, Hood, Breen, Pohutsky, Puri,
Young, Garza, Haadsma, Manoogian, Weiss, Morse, Kuppa, Thanedar, O'Neal, Rogers and
Aiyash and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled
"The code of criminal procedure,"
(MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 27d to chapter VIII.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

CHAPTER VIII1
Sec. 27d. (1) In a criminal action in which the defendant is2
accused of an offense involving a violation of chapter LXXVI of the3
Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a to 750.520o,


evidence of the defendant's past actions involving the grooming of1
the victim is admissible for the purpose of demonstrating that the2
victim did not consent to the sexual penetration or sexual contact.3
(2) This section applies to prosecutions commenced on or after4
the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section.5
(3) As used in this section:6
(a) "Grooming" means a pattern of behavior by an individual7
with either authority or influence, through age or other means, who8
engaged in a course of behavior designed to normalize unwanted9
sexual advances or contact.10
(b) "Sexual contact" means that term as defined in section11
520a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a.12
(c) "Sexual penetration" means that term as defined in section13
520a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a.

[Incogneeto]

Well here is the entire text of the bill, so, where is the pork?   

February 17, 2022, Introduced by Reps. LaGrand, Yancey, Neeley, Scott, Steckloff, Coleman,
Camilleri, Clemente, Hope, Ellison, Koleszar, Tyrone Carter, Stone, Sabo, Lasinski, Brenda
Carter, Sowerby, Brabec, Cynthia Johnson, Rabhi, Brixie, Hood, Breen, Pohutsky, Puri,
Young, Garza, Haadsma, Manoogian, Weiss, Morse, Kuppa, Thanedar, O'Neal, Rogers and
Aiyash and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1927 PA 175, entitled
"The code of criminal procedure,"
(MCL 760.1 to 777.69) by adding section 27d to chapter VIII.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

CHAPTER VIII1
Sec. 27d. (1) In a criminal action in which the defendant is2
accused of an offense involving a violation of chapter LXXVI of the3
Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a to 750.520o,


evidence of the defendant's past actions involving the grooming of1
the victim is admissible for the purpose of demonstrating that the2
victim did not consent to the sexual penetration or sexual contact.3
(2) This section applies to prosecutions commenced on or after4
the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section.5
(3) As used in this section:6
(a) "Grooming" means a pattern of behavior by an individual7
with either authority or influence, through age or other means, who8
engaged in a course of behavior designed to normalize unwanted9
sexual advances or contact.10
(b) "Sexual contact" means that term as defined in section11
520a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a.12
(c) "Sexual penetration" means that term as defined in section13
520a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.520a.

Just for the sake of argument shouldnt you put an explanation  of each code??

Some people would just say "Oh its a code Thats good"

The meat is in the pudding.

Kinda like the Dems saying."They refused this Bill Cause"?? Etc. Etc.

90% of the problem is the shit they try to slip past you.

And everyone else.

[neurosis]

Just for the sake of argument shouldnt you put an explanation  of each code??

Some people would just say "Oh its a code Thats good"

The meat is in the pudding.

Kinda like the Dems saying."They refused this Bill Cause"?? Etc. Etc.

90% of the problem is the shit they try to slip past you.

And everyone else.

It looks like a worthless bill to me. The bill is obviously written to make Republicans look bad. Maybe that's why they oppose it?  This looks like it was a spite bill.

[Jeff]

Someone is going to have to explain this one to me? 

Happens all the time. Put something juicy in there as bait, then backload it with stuff your party wants.
Then, when the opposing party shoots it down you scream that they are terrible humans.
Perfect timing for mid-term advertising.

[neurosis]

Happens all the time. Put something juicy in there as bait, then backload it with stuff your party wants.
Then, when the opposing party shoots it down you scream that they are terrible humans.
Perfect timing for mid-term advertising.

So basically, any time Republicans *or* Democrats put a bill on the table, the other side should automatically reject it because of what *might* end up in the bill?  And people wonder why our government is so broken.

I thought that it worked the other way around. They load the crap out of bills with nonsense and start removing stuff little by little while complaining that the other side is <enter criticism here>.

This bill looks like a jab at Republicans. Put your money where your mouth is or stop with the hyperbole. That's how I interpret it by the conversations I read.

[Jeff]

So basically, any time Republicans *or* Democrats put a bill on the table, the other side should automatically reject it because of what *might* end up in the bill?

Pretty much. They pack it with so much shit and clutter, so that when it's rejected they use that as ammo for re-election campaign tv ads.

[Jim at Gentex]

So basically, any time Republicans *or* Democrats put a bill on the table, the other side should automatically reject it because of what *might* end up in the bill?  And people wonder why our government is so broken.

I thought that it worked the other way around. They load the crap out of bills with nonsense and start removing stuff little by little while complaining that the other side is <enter criticism here>.

This bill looks like a jab at Republicans. Put your money where your mouth is or stop with the hyperbole. That's how I interpret it by the conversations I read.

Sometimes it is just a jab at the other party, and sometimes it's the other way around as you said.
Sometimes they stuff a bill with so much pork you almost have to reject it out of hand instead of trying to wade through the waist-deep bullshit.

Politics was always contentious, but now it has evolved into a blood-sport.
Back in the day the parties would bicker back and forth, and eventually reach middle ground on most issues.

Today it seems like it is all-or-nothing, with neither side willing to give an inch. 

I will say it again...both parties are corrupt, and they all need to go.

[ghuns]

Neither party brings forth any legislation to do anything good or right.

They only put forth proposals to make their opponents look bad and pander to their base so that they can get re-elected and do it all over again.

[neurosis]

Politics was always contentious, but now it has evolved into a blood-sport.
Back in the day the parties would bicker back and forth, and eventually reach middle ground on most issues.

I think I've brought this up before, but I was looking through the archives on CSPAN and watching old presidential debates.  I pulled up the debate between Regan and Carter. The amount of respect they showed each other even when they were in total disagreement was quite an eye opener after watching any of todays debates. It's almost like our politicians have devolved in to 5 year olds.

It seems like this downward spiral went hyper after the popularity of social media. 

That movie idiocracy may be more of a prophecy than they intended.     

To paraphrase Bill Maher, there is a reason that baby boomers are reluctant to turn the world over to the young, democracy dies In dumbness.