SENATE BILL: Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act (On the President's Desk)

[Napoleon]

I guess the 24 hours has elapsed.

[Simfan34]

Aye (?)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act:

Aye (6): Ben, Franzl, HagridoftheDeep, Marokai Blue, NC Yankee, and Redalgo
Nay (1): Averroës Nix
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Sbane/Oakvale
Didn't Change Vote of predecessor (1): JulioMadrid

Vacant (2): Bacon King and NVTownsend - Simfan was four days after vote ended.

The bill has passed and has been presented to the President for executive action.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Niemeyerite]

Yay!!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yay!!

[Napoleon]

I have vetoed this bill and put forth my own version.

Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act

Section 1: Restriction and Exception.

1. Abortion in the third trimester of a pregnancy, hereby defined as the 28th estimated week of gestation, shall not be performed in the Republic of Atlasia.

2. Restrictions on abortion shall not apply in the following circumstances:
a. The pregnancy threatening the life or health of the mother.
b. The pregnancy showing signs of severe birth defect.
              1. For the purposes of this text, a severe birth defect is defined as being an abnormality, which produces a likely chance that the child will be afflicted with immense pain, have a severely limited functioning capacity, or be at significant risk of an early death.


Section 2: Criminal Penalty.

1. Any individual who performs an abortion in the third trimester outside of the previously mentioned exceptions receives a one year ban from work as a medical professional.

Section 3: Funding for Safe-Sex Education and Contraceptive Services

1. $10,000,000 shall be appropriated to each region for the purpose of expanding safe-sex education programs and access to contraceptive services.
2. The Department of Internal Affairs shall be charged with designing a criteria of what consitutes a qualifying sex education program in each region.
3. The Department of Internal Affairs will be in charge of distributing all the said monies to each region.
4. Any region that fails to construct a qualifying program or expansion of services, will have their money witheld until the standards are met.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I would like to ask each Senator to give his opinion on whether or not this bill has attained the status of law. I am asking with reference to the dispute going on in the Administration thread over the seven-day time limit for the veto power.

If we do not UNANIMOUSLY believe that this bill is law I would like to move if we can to an immediate vote on the President's proposed version. I believe we need Marokai's consent to do so. I crave his indulgence for such consent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the relevance of the Senators agreeing unanimously to whether or not this bill is law, as to the consideration to proceed? One Senator doesn't cede his rights just because the other nine do. Any of them could sue, regardless of the actions of the other nine.

Also, in the situation where this isn't law, Marokai would also have 72 hours to state his desire for an override of the veto.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Scratch that last bit, I didn't notice the redraft:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The vote on the redraft occurs first. If it fails and the original gets sent back to the President and he vetoes it again, then an override process can kick in, not before.

Marokai can also withdraw the bill at this present juncture if he doesn't want to vote on the redraft.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What is the relevance of the Senators agreeing unanimously to whether or not this bill is law, as to the consideration to proceed? One Senator doesn't cede his rights just because the other nine do. Any of them could sue, regardless of the actions of the other nine.

I was hoping for a gentlemen's agreement. Oh well.

Thank you for the clarification as to procedure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the relevance of the Senators agreeing unanimously to whether or not this bill is law, as to the consideration to proceed? One Senator doesn't cede his rights just because the other nine do. Any of them could sue, regardless of the actions of the other nine.

I was hoping for a gentlemen's agreement. Oh well.

I know, and thus perhaps with what I said in consideration, you might want to have reversed your unanimity request. Otherwise, any lone wolf Senator can scuttle your "gentleman's agreement", which was my point.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Either way, the original version of the bill is now law. The president did not veto it within seven days. There is only one definition of the word "within" and there is only one definition of the word "day." What transpired in the Administration thread does not meet the required criteria for a legitimate veto.

As for these procedural matters you're pointing to, Yankee, wouldn't it appear that the presidential veto was supposed to occur after the redraft had been presented? Since Napoleon's pseudo-veto happened beforehand, what becomes of his proposed redraft? I'd think it would have to be filed as a new bill.

Either way, it's a good thing the veto doesn't count.

Still... if the president was so interested in making the minor change he proposed, it kind of baffles me that he wouldn't have just worked with the senate on this specific issue in the first place. While I'm personally against the idea of lessened penalties, I'll bet most senators would've supported his version of the bill. Unfortunately, the way it's been done sort of seems like he's trying to cram it down our throats, especially because the veto came first. "Pass my version or else."

[Napoleon]

Either way, it's a good thing the veto doesn't count.

Um, that's news to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suggest reading this thread, when your mind is in its proper state.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What is the relevance of the Senators agreeing unanimously to whether or not this bill is law, as to the consideration to proceed? One Senator doesn't cede his rights just because the other nine do. Any of them could sue, regardless of the actions of the other nine.

I was hoping for a gentlemen's agreement. Oh well.

I know, and thus perhaps with what I said in consideration, you might want to have reversed your unanimity request. Otherwise, any lone wolf Senator can scuttle your "gentleman's agreement", which was my point.

Well at this point it's becoming moot because nobody's budging, and if we're really adamant about this we could either go to the Supreme Court or do a veto override.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Still... if the president was so interested in making the minor change he proposed, it kind of baffles me that he wouldn't have just worked with the senate on this specific issue in the first place.

We had already lowered the penalties. When I mentioned that it was part of a compromise, you accepted that premise and made an argument about something else. You did not propose a one year ban on practicing medicine anywhere in this thread before your attempted veto. Candy Crowley will tell me if I'm wrong.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for these procedural matters you're pointing to, Yankee, wouldn't it appear that the presidential veto was supposed to occur after the redraft had been presented? Since Napoleon's pseudo-veto happened beforehand, what becomes of his proposed redraft? I'd think it would have to be filed as a new bill.

No of course not. The Constitution allows him to veto a law and then return it with a redraft, which the sponsor can then either request a vote on or withdraw the whole bill. If the vote fails, the sponsor can request it be sent back up to the WH as is and likely receive a second veto. At that point the override process kicks in, with the 72 hours commencing as off the second veto for the sponsor to request an override vote on the text.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I desperately don't want this to be a nasty fight, but I kind of consider this law at this point..

If you want to not have the big fight, I'll just take the amended version for the sake of us all moving on with our business here. It's up to you guys to decide which you want to accept. If Yankee thinks it's law, he's the determiner of our business; if he doesn't, then consider it reluctantly accepted.

[Niemeyerite]

I like the amended version, actually.

[Franzl]

I would generally be willing to work with this compromise, but I also share the opinion that the originally passed version is, in fact, law.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My preference would be to side with the interest of Senate functionality and let this slide, and that was the stance taken before. However, the fact that this keeps popping up and has come up three times in about two years, makes me wonder if we should take the opportunity to get a Supreme Court rulling on the legal definition of a day and how it would be interpreted in this instance.

[tmthforu94]

So then will the compromise version include a clause repealing this law?

[Speed of Sound]

So then will the compromise version include a clause repealing this law?

No, because the President and Senate are still at odds over whether or not this is, in fact, law. The compromise version can only be considered valid if we believe that the President got it here in time. Otherwise, there is no compromise, only the original law.