MA: Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II (Statute)

[ZuWo]

Fellow Assemblymen,

I am inclined to introduce yet another controversial piece of legislation with the intent to protect the lives of thousands of unborn children. Gentlemen, we have the unique opportunity to pass a bill which adheres to the principle of the sanctity of life and allows abortion only in very restricted cases. We as lawmakers have the resposibility to do everything in our power to grant each human being, unborn and born, the right to live.
It is not understandable to me how in the 21st century people still dare to portray the practice of abortion, a practice of killing, as a "right to choose" and a question of individual freedom. It is sad that the very same people who claim that a state has the duty to support the poor and protect those who are discriminated against, cynically referring to themselves as "progressives", do not regard it as extremely disturbing that the concept of abortion targets the weakest members of our society.
In fact, abortion is not a matter of a woman's individual choice because a woman's decision whether or not to abort a baby does not only affect herself but also the existence of an unprotected human being.

As the reading of the bill makes clear, abortions shall not be completely outlawed. Even if I personally believe this would be a desirable state of affairs, the bill recognises that abortion shall be legal in extraordinary circumstances. Gentlemen, I urge you to join me in the fight against an inhumane practice.

[ZuWo]

Personally, I do not believe a fetus to have the same rights as a citizen. However, as this is a deeply controversial issue and we are unlikely to change each-others' minds, I will limit my statements to saying that I oppose this bill, and intend on voting against it in the final vote.

You're right, this is a difficult topic to debate. I believe the minds of most (if not all) Assemblymen are probably made up regarding the abortion issue (so hopefully this time - from my perspective - we aren't in for some surprises when it comes to the final vote )

[ZuWo]

Thank you Senator Shua for your ideas.

You're right about the difficulty in distinguishing rape from incest in a particular case. Actually, it may be sound to simply leave out the word "incest" in the bill because the cases of incest which are most likely to result in an abortion are those which included rape. As to your second point, the usage of emergency contraception procedures, I haven't made my mind up completely. Yet, because of my belief that life begins at the moment of conception, I'm critical of these methods. Thus, I am against any proposal to explicitly permit the use of emergency contraception, but your formulation is actually a smart one. Finally, I approve of prison sentences for those who carry out an abortion since I believe abortion is a severe crime so I don't intend to offer an amendment regarding this part of the abortion statute.  

Since I acknowledge what you said considering "incest" and the problem of "unintentional abortions" due to the use of a particular drug, I propose the following amendment (I simply leave out the word "incest"):

Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II

Section 1 of the Mideast Abortion Statute shall be amended to read:

"1: No abortions shall be permitted except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape. Any drug or procedure which unintentionally causes an abortion shall not be prosecuted under this statute."

[ZuWo]

Amendment to the Mideast Abortion Statute II

Section 1 of the Mideast Abortion Statute shall be amended to read:

"1: No abortions shall be permitted except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape. Any drug or procedure which unintentionally causes an abortion shall not be prosecuted under this statute."

Maybe I'm thinking too literal, but I think doctor's could easily create a loophole there by "accidentally" killing the baby for the mother.

This is a valid concern. If the other Assemblymen agree with this assessment, they shall vote down the amendment I made. Just to make it clear, I feel very comfortable with the reading of the statute as I introduced it at the beginning of this thread.

[ZuWo]

On the other hand, carrying out a regular abortion or killing a baby in any other way either includes a medical (by means of particular abortifacients) or surgical procedure so it would be extremely hard for a doctor to claim that he aborted the baby "unintentionally". Thus, these loopholes you mentioned might not even exist.

[ZuWo]

On the other hand, carrying out a regular abortion or killing a baby in any other way either includes a medical (by means of particular abortifacients) or surgical procedure so it would be extremely hard for a doctor to claim that he aborted the baby "unintentionally". Thus, these loopholes you mentioned might not even exist.

How could the state prove, though, that it was unintentional?

Well, I think the intentionality of an abortion is clear as soon as the doctor gives a pregnant woman an abortion drug or carries out surgery in order to abort a baby. If any of these practices are applied, it becomes clear that the procedure is clearly intentional, and according to the statute the doctor and the woman in question have commited a crime.

What, then, could be considered an "unintentional abortion"? I admit that I lack the in-depth knowledge of abortion practices to answer this question very thoroughly. Yet, I guess in a situation where a doctor prescribes a pregnant woman a medicine or medical procedure which is not known as an abortion drug or surgery for reasons not connected with her pregnancy but causes a loss of the baby due to surprising side effects of that drug or procedure, one can refer to it as an "unintentional abortion". I don't think any serious physician would do the latter with the goal to abort the baby of the woman in question as prescribing such a medicine or procedure intentionally could also endanger the woman's life.

[ZuWo]

Just a thought to ponder: Do the Assemblymen believe a fetus is a life?  If so, how does rape justify the taking of a life?  If not, then it is my opinion that we have no right to restrict abortions.  I've never understood that concession by the pro-life community.

Believe me, Speaker Inks, I would much rather see a complete abortion ban and not make any concessions regarding rape. However, as has been previously pointed out, this is a question of political practicability. As of now, a woman in the Mideast may abort her child up to the third month of her pregnancy. The bill we're currently debating would drastically reduce the number of abortions and is probably much more palatable in a possible referendum than a complete ban of abortion. Right now, we have to do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions in any way, even if it means that it would be desirable to go further. I urge the Assemblymen not to reject the bill I've introduced simply because it doesn't go far enough. Pass this now and we can handle the rape issue at a later point if we manage to push through the current bill.

I'm aware that the amendment I've proposed which deals with "unintentional abortions" isn't perfect from a pro-life point of view, either. Yet, if we pass the amendment in question the bill as a whole is more palatable and might stand a better chance withstanding a possible referendum. At the moment, we simply have to take what we can get in our aim to reduce the number of abortions.

[ZuWo]

(This is one of my rare opportunities to have internet access during my holiday, but I'm glad I'm here in time. )

Aye

[ZuWo]

Aye on the amendment (I was confused myself at first because we didn't vote on the amendment but then I assumed that the amendment was automatically passed because no one objected)

[ZuWo]

Seems like a lot of effort being put in to legislate a 'trigger' bill.

This is not a trigger bill. Indeed, I said during the debate I would like to go further and outlaw abortions in every case but I understand that such a proposal would have a harder time being passed. Thus, I don't currently intend to propose another piece of legislation on the issue of abortion if this gets passed and can be ratified. (Actually, I originally said the "rape issue" can be handled at a later point in time but, in hindsight, that was probably mere wishful thinking).

[ZuWo]

Seems like a lot of effort being put in to legislate a 'trigger' bill.

This is not a trigger bill. Indeed, I said during the debate I would like to go further and outlaw abortions in every case but I understand that such a proposal would have a harder time being passed. Thus, I don't currently intend to propose another piece of legislation on the issue of abortion if this gets passed and can be ratified. (Actually, I originally said the "rape issue" can be handled at a later point in time but, in hindsight, that was probably mere wishful thinking).

I mean that, as is my understanding, Atlasia 'replaced' the USA for the purposes of the game in 2004; all laws and court decisions remain active and presumably; Roe v Wade included. I had always viewed abortion legislation passed by the regions as 'trigger' bills to be enacted should Roe v Wade fall.

So I misunderstood the term "trigger bill".
From my point of view, as a pro-life politician, it's of course inconvenient what you say but it's good that you point at Roe v Wade and the more general question how Atlasia deals with rulings made in the USA prior to the existence of Atlasia. I'm just afraid that this will open a huge can of worms and compel us in the Mideast (and people in other regions) to look through passed legislation and check whether they correspond with certain rulings or not.

[ZuWo]

Speaker Inks, can we bring this bill to a final vote? Thank you.

[ZuWo]

Aye

[ZuWo]

You're acting like a bunch of Francoists, folks. Any way for the people to repeal this affront to freedom?

I do hope your "Francoists" comment is a joke.

The Mideast Constitution is quite explicit about what can happen with this bill after it has been passed and signed by the Governor. You just have to look it up.

[ZuWo]

You're acting like a bunch of Francoists, folks. Any way for the people to repeal this affront to freedom?

It's unconstitutional. Roe v Wade still stands and if the Governor signs it, I will challenge it on that basis.

This may open a big can of worms. If we start scanning each and every bill which has ever been passed in any Atlasian region by applying the criterion whether a certain bill may violate rulings made by a US court before the year 2004, we might find that many bills are actually "uncostitutional" in that sense.

[ZuWo]

You're acting like a bunch of Francoists, folks. Any way for the people to repeal this affront to freedom?

It's unconstitutional. Roe v Wade still stands and if the Governor signs it, I will challenge it on that basis.

This may open a big can of worms. If we start scanning each and every bill which has ever been passed in any Atlasian region by applying the criterion whether a certain bill may violate rulings made by a US court before the year 2004, we might find that many bills are actually "uncostitutional" in that sense.

It is clear in the Constitution that those rulings are carried through into Atlasia and the wording of our constitution reflects the judicial ruling (right to privacy under due process) that 'legalised' abortion.

I don't necessarily challenge your interpretation of the matter. My point is that if we had a look at Atlasian bills passed in the past, we could find plenty of cases where US rulings could interfere with Atlasian legislation. It's not that I have actually done that, but I imagine that this could be the case. And this is the "can of worms" I was alluding to. Matters could become extremely complex and tedious.

[ZuWo]

If the bill is challenged and overturned, we are going to introduce a bill which will bypass Roe v. Wade. We will follow the path the Kansas State Legislature has shown us with their bill that establishes heavy restrictions for abortion clinics. I am confident that we'll be successful.

[ZuWo]

If the bill is challenged and overturned, we are going to introduce a bill which will bypass Roe v. Wade. We will follow the path the Kansas State Legislature has shown us with their bill that establishes heavy restrictions for abortion clinics. I am confident that we'll be successful.

Is that the Kansas bill that was blocked by the court in July?

Yes. The bill is currently blocked, but the last word has not been spoken yet.

[ZuWo]

So be it. Our new Judge will have something to do then.

[ZuWo]

You bunch of santorums!

Considering that Santorum came out on top when I made the "Presidental Candidate Selector 2012 test", I'll take that as a compliment.

[ZuWo]

Hopefully we can challenge this freedom-hating bullsh**t now.

What a cultivated way of putting forward an argument for a vice-presidential candidate like you.