Search the Community

Sen. Jones Issues A Public Apology As Sen. Brandenburg Calls For Impeachment Written By Gabriel Stone, 24/06/2023 Senator Diana Jones has issued a public apology following an outburst on social media from Senator Andrew Brandenburg calling for her impeachment. The outcry comes after Jones, according to Brandenburg, "stepped on every rule and principle the Senate stands for" during a session held on the 23rd of June. Diana Jones, who is not the Chairman of the Committee, allegedly requested that Senator Rossi allow her to chair a session and had promised no votes would be held, but upon chairing the session held two votes. Furthermore, during these votes she had allegedly voted 'fraudulently' in Brandenburg's name, he says that a vote should note have been held at all as he had walked out of the session and therefore the senate had no longer been at a quorum. He also called Jones out on her supposed hypocrisy when discussing matters of senate attendance when she herself was absent for the majority of the previous year. He stated "Since the elections of 2022, Senator Jones has one of the lowest presence rates. Senator Jones disappeared for almost a year after the elections, leaving former Senator Luca Giraldi to deal with everything. Basically, she put Giraldi there to take the blame, while she was nowhere to be found almost the entire year." Tacked onto the end of his message is a warning "This is who and what you vote when you choose Democrat. Lies, deception, hypocrisy and violation of personal rights. Vote fraud is the new Democratic behavior." followed by an image showing Jones stating that she would not hold any votes during the session when messaging Rossi. Above: The message Jones sent to Senator Rossi. I met with Senator Jones to hear, in her words, what happened. She first explained that the topic of the meeting was Senator attendance and during this she had laid out all senator attendance in the last month. She states that attendance has been poor from all sides and that only twice, if counting the session in question, had a quorum been reached. A quorum being an attendance of half the members of a committee or the senate. She further elaborated that Brandenburg had chaired a meeting earlier this week where enough people had signed up but not enough actually attended to meet a quorum, which in turn meant a vote could not be held and the budgets for all major departments in the state were to be delayed as a result. She admits to telling Rossi that she would not vote, but claims this only referred to the outstanding resolutions such as the LGBT Pride Month resolution. She claims she didn't abuse the opportunity granted to her for political gain, and instead held votes to state the opinion of the committee. According to her these were as follows: "It is the position of the Committee of Rules, Ethics and Government that attendance is crucial to the operation of the legislature." and "Pursuant to the crucial nature of attendance, it is the opinion of the Committee of Rules, Ethics and Government that a total administration of senator attendance in the 2022 — 2023 must be compiled, reported and published." Jones states that "These are not partisan issues. These are not political topics. These are topics that we can all agree to, that I believe even Andrew Brandenburg would have agreed to, had he stuck around just a minute longer" Jones further stated that Brandenburg left without allowing her the chance to explain what was being voted on. She placed a vote of 'abstain' in Andrew's absence and she states "A vote can be yea or nay. Beyond yea or nay, representatives have the right -not- to vote. This is what we call abstaining from voting. "Abstain" is not a vote, "abstain" is just a way to let the chair know that you're not voting. Another way to let the chair know that you're not voting is by just not voting. What I did was administer the fact that Andrew Brandenburg did not vote." She further clarifies that she did not say that Brandenburg himself had spoken the word "Abstain" Jones then addressed the accusation that she had held a vote without a quorum present. She states that she did hold a vote without half of the members of the senate present but that it was not against the rules in any state. She states that the quorum of a session remains until the end of the hearing regardless of whether or not a senator walks out. Jones also makes note of a time this happened in the past with 'Senate Bill 108' in which former Senator Giraldi was expelled from a session leaving only two senators, Rossi and Brandenburg. "That was not a quorum. Andrew did not object then, and instead, a vote was held." Jones stated. When I asked Jones to elaborate further on how she had not abused the opportunity to chair a session, she brought up Pride Month and the Glorious Month of June, a recent focus of controversial discussion. The resolution to recognize Pride Month was blocked by Rossi. She claimed that "...If I were given full control of the committee today, I could have quickly handled that bill without taking Adrian Rossi's opinion into account. He would have let me chair it, and I would have abused that for my own gains. But these are not my own gains. These are everyone's gains. Everyone can agree that attendance is important, and everyone can agree that the legislature cannot operate without attendance. " Jones admitted openly that her own attendance was not up to par and that she would publish that equally even if it reflects badly on her. Despite all this she claims she acted fully within her rights whilst chairing the session, however wanted to put out an apology after having acted in 'bad faith'. "I did not operate in good faith today. I knew that this decision would be controversial. I knew that it may lead to trouble, maybe even my impeachment. I knew that I was acting within the rules, yet skimming by their edges so closely that I was at risk, and I was putting the integrity of the committee at risk. I have to apologize for not acting in good faith, for not being fair and nice. I made the choices that I made because this is a -serious- issue. Because without attendance of the senate, the legislature will not work. There are entire departments waiting on their funding, and Andrew Brandenburg cannot pass his appropriations because senator attendance is just too low. There are agencies waiting on crucial legislation, like the Aviation Code amendments, but they cannot receive the rights they need to operate because senator attendance is just too low. Senators must be held accountable. Senators must be held to a high standard. Senators have their seats and they must -use- them. I must, too. I've been too absent in the past, and I must take responsibility for that, and that is exactly why I am emphasizing on this. I know that Andrew Brandenburg agrees with me on that. He walked out because he expected a political move from me, but no. I did not aim to punish anyone today, or address political issues. I did not act in good faith today, and for that, I apologize. But what I did was a crucial first step to ensuring accountability for all senators." She concluded the interview with one final statement praising Brandenburg "I'd like to commend Andrew Brandenburg for continuing to dedicate himself to making sure our departments get the money they require." In conclusion, Jones feels she broke no rules but admits to having acted in bad faith that day. Brandenburg claimed that if no public apology was made by Jones that he would be proceeding with impeachment procedures against her. Jones admits to knowing that there had been a risk of her actions leading to impeachment, though it remains to be seen whether Brandenburg will proceed with his plans following the above public statement. Full Transcript: Comments Are: Enabled Name: Comment:

NEWS • Politics Written by Yunisa DELGADO-FLORES • June 30th, 2022 — 6:20AM San Andreans' stances on the Roe v. Wade repeal Following Roe v. Wade's repeal, along with the responses to Senator Adrian Rossi's Preservation of Life Act, Minority Leader Senator Diana Jones and the SADEMs reveal their alternative; a constitutional amendment. Senator Adrian Rossi (R) and Senator Diana Jones (D), the authors of the two combating bills — image edited by Harold Kim, LSDN, June 30th 2022 Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case held in the Supreme Court that guaranteed access to abortions nation wide, was repealed on Friday, June the 24th, following the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson in a ruling of 6-to-3. Justices Kavanaugh, Barret, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts voted to repeal the ruling whereas Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer voted against. Now, senators and citizens of San Andreas must decide on how our state should treat abortions. The Republican Party of San Andreas’ Senator Adrian Rossi submitted their bill to the senate, the Preservation of Life Act 2022, on the 23rd of May. A month prior to the repeal of Roe v. Wade. If the bill were to pass and were to come into effect, citizens would be able to sue women who undergo the procedure as well as the medical practitioners who perform abortions for a minimum of $10,000 as well as any legal costs incurred. A person would be liable to pay $10,000 for each abortion performed or induced Abortions, under this law, would only be available without the threat of civil action if a fetal heartbeat isn’t detected or if the physician believes that an abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency. The act also provided exemptions when the patient was impregnated through rape, sexual assault, incest, or through another traumatic sexual crime. A fetal heartbeat is most commonly found via ultrasound within six weeks into pregnancy, however it can be found as early as five weeks, Medical News Today reported. In a study conducted by Amy M. Braum and Katherine A. Ahrens for Matern Child Health, published in 2018, they found that women remain unaware of their pregnancies until between 5 and 6 weeks gestation. A total of six states have introduced and passed laws that limit abortions to six weeks since last menstrual period. However, only three of them are currently enforced. The rest are facing either temporary or permanent freezes from court orders. The three states that have passed such bills are Texas, Ohio and South Carolina. South Carolina’s abortion restriction notably includes exceptions for abortions caused by rape, incest, and lethal fetal anomalies regardless of a fetal heartbeat. During the initial hearing for the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee (HELP) within the San Andreas Senate, held on June the 5th, SADEM’s Minority Leader Diana Jones expressed her concerns surrounding using a “fetal heartbeat” as a cutoff point. The Preservation of Life Act of 2022 is similar to a law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2021; the Texas Heartbeat Act. The Texas Heartbeat Act likewise enables citizens to sue medical practitioners for carrying out abortions once a fetal heartbeat is found. The Texas Heartbeat Act was the first act of its kind where citizens were able to sue others for abortions, essentially deputizing them, which led to more Senators from states like Oklohoma, Idaho, and now San Andreas to model their own acts after it. Much like with the Texas Heartbeat Bill, citizens of other states may levy suits against those in this bill. The first case brought to the courts in Texas suing a medical practitioner for carrying out an abortion was by an Arkansas man. Criticism has been levied against the Republican Party and Senator Rossi for the Preservation of Life Act. One person who made their grievances known was the Los Santos County District Attorney Terentiy Schwetz. DA Schwetz released a press statement condemning the act and dubbed the discussions surrounding the act in the senate chamber as “ludicrous.” “My office steadfastly stands against any legislation that purports to 'preserve life' by taking away freedoms which exist under Roe v. Wade - and frankly, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, my office would STILL support the right of women to have access to abortions.”, wrote Schwetz on June the 10th. “I took office with an oath to preserve the constitutional rights of San Andreas citizens, and I hold that if this bill passes it will be a terrible day for our beautiful state and a grave violation of our State's constitution.” While the bill makes no note of any criminal action being taken against the women nor practitioners who either perform or induce abortion, Schwetz acknowledged that, if that were to change, his office wouldn’t prosecute. He wrote that “We certainly would never prevent women from exercising their rights as it concerns decisions regarding their own bodies” The Chairman of the Republican Party, Jonathan Spencer, later condemned the District Attorney through a party press release. The party contested Schwetz’s claim that victims of violent sexual crimes were vulnerable under the Preservation of Life Act, citing section V (e) of the act. Section V (e) aims to nullify the law in cases where violent sexual crimes were committed. "I find it very amusing that the District Attorney's office is clearly commenting on a bill that they haven't bothered reading, which begs the question, did the District Attorney read the bill?”, wrote Chairman Spencer. DA Schwets listed victims of violent crimes as one of two noted reasons why abortions shouldn’t be restricted. He wrote in his press release that “we have women who cannot afford the burden of being a mother, we have victims of violent sex crimes, we have people who could not support children who seek this process in order to ensure that if they make the decision to have a baby, they can eventually properly support them.” Criticism also came from Senator Rudy Benson (R). Senator Benson initially supported the bill as a co-sponsor, however, as criticism grew against the bill, his office released a statement deeming the bill unconstitutional and expressed his intent to vote against the bill. “While I am a proud Republican, I have always made clear that I am a moderate and will not give into political extremes.”, Senator Benson wrote. “I have a duty to my constituents and cannot in good consciousness endorse such a draconian and unconstitutional proposal. Let me be clear. I, Senator Benson, will not be the vote that gets this terrible proposal passed.” Chairman Spencer and the SAGOP later released a press statement condemning Benson following his statement, where Spencer claimed that Benson expressed support to them in private. Spencer dismissed the claims that the law itself is unconstitutional due to the difficulties of it being challenged in a court of law. Spencer wrote that "Senator Benson, of all people, should know the most, having called the bill unconstitutional when I know very well that the law will be extremely difficult to challenge in court due to its unique enforcement mechanism, which prohibits state officials from enforcing the law and instead authorizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs or assists in an abortion.” The Texas Heartbeat Act has faced numerous challenges in court from pro-choice groups, however the courts in Texas has allowed the act to stand. One of the difficulties that this challenged against this act faces, as well as the difficulties that challenges against the Preservation of Life Act would face if passed, is that, due to state officials not enforcing the bill and enforcement is placed upon private citizens, court justices and attorneys cannot be sued on the grounds that the act isn’t constitutional. The SAGOP's bill is currently awaiting a hearing from the senate’s HELP committee. The hearing remains unscheduled, and the senate is seeking healthcare professionals to weigh in with expert advice during the hearing. During the first hearing on the Preservation of Life Act, which was held on June the 9th, Senator Jackie Lu expressed her support for the bill where she said “as long a fetus has a heartbeat, it's alive.” In a previous statement written for the Daily News however, given on May the 15th, Lu cited socioeconomic reasons as to why a woman may wish to seek abortion and expressed her desire to keep abortions accessible for these reasons. She wrote that “We will not be denied the authority to make choices about our own bodies. I will not stop working until everyone, and I mean everyone, regardless of poverty, zip code, or race, has access to safe, legal, and accessible abortions. If [women] are not prepared. How can you maintain a child if you are still in education with over more than $50,000's in student debt? The correct response is no; you cannot.” The San Andreas Democratic Party as a whole expressed their stance against the bill on June the 24th, where they shared and supported Democrat Senator Kaoru King-Yagami’s (D) post on Facebrowser. The SADEM’s social media page wrote “Every woman has the right to choose” as well as a brief sentence reaffirming the party's pro-choice stance alongside King-Yagami’s post. Senator King-Yagami wrote from his Facebrowser account that he will “fight to the bitter end” to ensure a woman has access to abortions. He wrote “I would like to make it abundantly clear; I believe in a woman's right to choose. I will fight to the bitter end for a woman's right to make the choices about anything to do with her bodily autonomy.” SADEM’s Minority Leader in the Senate, Diana Jones, called upon other republican senators to vote against the Preservation of Life Act in a press release on the repeal of the Roe v. Wade ruling. “The San Andreas State Senate currently faces a Republican majority, and while Republican Chairman Jonathan Spencer and President Pro Tempore Adrian Rossi have made their stances clear, I have faith the other Republican senators of the senate to block their attempts at taking women's rights away. “ In the same press release, Minority Leader Jones announced her and the party’s intent to submit a bill to amend the San Andreas Constitution to include provisions to secure abortions; intending to give the same securities provided from the ruling from Roe v. Wade. “I will move to enshrine women's rights to have an abortion in our own state's constitution. Abortion has been a constitutional right for half a decade, and I will fight to keep it that way. My office stands with women. We believe abortion care is health care and we will not stop working to defend these most basic, and truly personal freedoms.” For a law to pass in the San Andreas senate, it would need a majority of senators to rule in favor. There are currently six republican and four democrat senators. If senators vote according to party lines, where Republicans vote in favor and Democrats vote against, the Republican's Preservation of Life act will most likely pass through the senate and the Democrat's bill to amend the San Andreas Constitution would be expected to fail. However, with Senator Benson (R) expressing their intent to vote against, and Senator Lu (D) stating their support for the republican's bill on the 5th, the bills' future remain uncertain. Comments are enabled: Username: Comment: