MA: Third Mideast Abortion Statute (Failed)

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Third Mideast Abortion Statute

1: No abortions shall be permitted after the First Trimester without the positive consent of two qualified and registered physicians. No abortions shall be permitted after the 180th day of a pregnancy except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest.
2: Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license from the Mideast Region or a subdivision thereof to practice a medical profession revoked for up to five years.
3: Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall be sentenced to up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to $50,000. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine of up to $10,000 and/or six months in prison.
4: The Second Mideast Abortion statute is hereby repealed.

Sponsor: Afleitch

[afleitch]

Slight background for this.

The Third Statute was hotly contested at the time and was passed during a peak of moral posturing (at least the Right to Life Amendment was withdrawn). While I would be more than happy to return to the First Statute, this bill allows for abortions after the first trimester to the 180th day of pregnancy for reasons other than threat to life/rape etc. However unlike the First Statute it requried the consent of two physicians (a simplified version of the rules in Britain). I don't like such compromises usually but it may be the only way to relax our laws.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Slight background for this.

The Third Statute was hotly contested at the time and was passed during a peak of moral posturing (at least the Right to Life Amendment was withdrawn). While I would be more than happy to return to the First Statute, this bill allows for abortions after the first trimester to the 180th day of pregnancy for reasons other than threat to life/rape etc. However unlike the First Statute it requried the consent of two physicians (a simplified version of the rules in Britain). I don't like such compromises usually but it may be the only way to relax our laws.

I oppose this bill, then. The biggest problem with the bill:

1: No abortions shall be permitted after the First Trimester without the positive consent of two qualified and registered physicians. No abortions shall be permitted after the 180th day of a pregnancy except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest.

Suppose the patient goes to an abortion clinic. Both physicians will obviously say yes. This is, pretty much, allowing all abortions during the specified period.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

I oppose any changes that loosen the current law.

[Badger]

Slight background for this.

The Third Statute was hotly contested at the time and was passed during a peak of moral posturing (at least the Right to Life Amendment was withdrawn). While I would be more than happy to return to the First Statute, this bill allows for abortions after the first trimester to the 180th day of pregnancy for reasons other than threat to life/rape etc. However unlike the First Statute it requried the consent of two physicians (a simplified version of the rules in Britain). I don't like such compromises usually but it may be the only way to relax our laws.

I oppose this bill, then. The biggest problem with the bill:

1: No abortions shall be permitted after the First Trimester without the positive consent of two qualified and registered physicians. No abortions shall be permitted after the 180th day of a pregnancy except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest.

Suppose the patient goes to an abortion clinic. Both physicians will obviously say yes. This is, pretty much, allowing all abortions during the specified period.

And the reason we politicians should overrule the consent of two licensed doctors and their willing patient is......?

[shua]

i find myself wondering: how does one know when it is the 180th day of pregnancy? for that matter, how is the end of a trimester determined with any precision?

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

i find myself wondering: how does one know when it is the 180th day of pregnancy? for that matter, how is the end of a trimester determined with any precision?

They can trace back the approximate day of conception.  My guess is that Afleitch means that whatever day said physician approximated the day of conception to be, add to that 180 and eighty days, but Afleitch, correct me if I'm wrong.

[shua]

Slight background for this.

The Third Statute was hotly contested at the time and was passed during a peak of moral posturing (at least the Right to Life Amendment was withdrawn). While I would be more than happy to return to the First Statute, this bill allows for abortions after the first trimester to the 180th day of pregnancy for reasons other than threat to life/rape etc. However unlike the First Statute it requried the consent of two physicians (a simplified version of the rules in Britain). I don't like such compromises usually but it may be the only way to relax our laws.

I oppose this bill, then. The biggest problem with the bill:

1: No abortions shall be permitted after the First Trimester without the positive consent of two qualified and registered physicians. No abortions shall be permitted after the 180th day of a pregnancy except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest.

Suppose the patient goes to an abortion clinic. Both physicians will obviously say yes. This is, pretty much, allowing all abortions during the specified period.

And the reason we politicians should overrule the consent of two licensed doctors and their willing patient is......?

the unwilling patient

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Slight background for this.

The Third Statute was hotly contested at the time and was passed during a peak of moral posturing (at least the Right to Life Amendment was withdrawn). While I would be more than happy to return to the First Statute, this bill allows for abortions after the first trimester to the 180th day of pregnancy for reasons other than threat to life/rape etc. However unlike the First Statute it requried the consent of two physicians (a simplified version of the rules in Britain). I don't like such compromises usually but it may be the only way to relax our laws.

I oppose this bill, then. The biggest problem with the bill:

1: No abortions shall be permitted after the First Trimester without the positive consent of two qualified and registered physicians. No abortions shall be permitted after the 180th day of a pregnancy except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest.

Suppose the patient goes to an abortion clinic. Both physicians will obviously say yes. This is, pretty much, allowing all abortions during the specified period.

And the reason we politicians should overrule the consent of two licensed doctors and their willing patient is......?

the unwilling patient

AMEN!

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

If there's no more debate on this in another 12 hours, this will be brought to a vote.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

I support this measure. The current restrictions in place are far too stringent. We need to relax the government mandates and allow the right to choose.

[A-Bob]

I support the current law as it is

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

The following bill is now brought to a vote.  This will be a 48 hour vote.

Third Mideast Abortion Statute

1: No abortions shall be permitted after the First Trimester without the positive consent of two qualified and registered physicians. No abortions shall be permitted after the 180th day of a pregnancy except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape and/or incest.
2: Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license from the Mideast Region or a subdivision thereof to practice a medical profession revoked for up to five years.
3: Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall be sentenced to up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to $50,000. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine of up to $10,000 and/or six months in prison.
4: The Second Mideast Abortion statute is hereby repealed.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

NAY

[shua]

Nay

[afleitch]

Aye

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

How about just going with this. No abortions after the first trimester except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother? Or even better, no abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother? What about promoting adoption?

[A-Bob]

How about just going with this. No abortions after the first trimester except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother? Or even better, no abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother? What about promoting adoption?

That was passed once and the region struck it don

[afleitch]

How about just going with this. No abortions after the first trimester except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother? Or even better, no abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother? What about promoting adoption?

That was passed once and the region struck it don

And would strike it down again.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

AYE

[Swedish Cheese]

 Abstain

Almost all previous change to abortion legislation has been subject to a public vote, and I think that'd be the best way to deal with any amending of the current law as well. Alough I approve of the idea of representative democracy, abortion is quite a serious business to most people, and I quite honestly don't like the way every assembly seem to try to mix with it like some sort of favourite toy, when people have such clear oppinions on the subject. I'm sick of this issue never being resolved. I believe that any radical changes to our abortion policy must go through the voters as a whole not me.

   

[afleitch]

I respect your decision. I note that the Second Statute passed the Assembly and went to then public after a protest. The public voted to re-affirm the Assembly's decision. This could have happened with this bill. The bill was a genuine attempt to pull back from one extreme and instead of moving to another extreme reach a fairer compromise.

Given the likely failure of the passage of this bill I will consider whether or not to seek the necessary signatures to force a public vote.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Voting has now ended.  The AYEs are 2, and the NAYs are 2, with one abstention.

Not having reached a majority, the bill has failed.