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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: ZuWo

[tmthforu94]

And so it continues...

[Gass3268]

Here is my opinion on the three main changes proposed on this bill:

Change in trimester limit: Maybe, but I would need something in return
Removal of the incest exception: No way what so ever
Grammar changes: Yeah, those changes would be good

[tmthforu94]

Here is my opinion on the three main changes proposed on this bill:

Change in trimester limit: Maybe, but I would need something in return
Removal of the incest exception: No way what so ever
Grammar changes: Yeah, those changes would be good

1st point - Considering the closeness of the public vote, I think first trimester is a reasonable compromise that is still very favorable to the left, as over 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester anyways.
2nd and 3rd point - I agree with you on both.

[Talleyrand]

I propose the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree with Assemblyman Gass3268 on all counts.  I too am open to changing the trimester limit, but it would require some significant concessions in return.  I think Assemblyman Talleyrand's amendment is better, but there would still need to be some more concessions, such as the removal of section 4 and adding a section explicitly stating that a woman seeking an abortion may not be forced to undergo a vaginal probe or any other form of ultrasound examination before having an abortion.  This may seem like a lot of concessions, but remember that changing the trimester limit (especially after The People narrowly voted in favor of the current abortion statute), is a really big concession.  I don't think a first trimester limit is overly favorable to the left by any stretch of the imagination (if anything I'd argue it is generous to the right), but I also recognize that the vote was so close that it could have very easily gone the other way.  I think this is an important and extremely difficult issue and want both sides to have a bill they can live with, just as I'm sure folks like Assemblyman ZuWo would if they narrowly won the vote instead  

[tmthforu94]

I really don't see removing the second trimester as a major concession, considering that the vast majority of abortions occur in the first. I'm just trying to find a bill that both sides can be OK with so the issue can be put to rest - shoot, had Officepark edited his vote four seconds earlier and had the server not timed out on Inks, it would have failed, just to show how close it really was. Granted, the left narrowly won, so I think the bill should be more favorable to them (which I think this is).

I am extremely cautious of the term "fetal defects". That seems pretty vague - what does that entail?

[ZuWo]

The incest clause isn't necessary since I assume that if a woman wants to end a pregnancy steming from an incestuous relationship it's because of rape. That's why I think the term "rape" already covers abortions caused by incest pregnancies.

"Fetal defects" - as the governor has pointed out, I'm extremely uncomfortable with that term. I don't think a child with "fetal defects", such as for example a baby with the Down's syndrome, has less of a right to life.

Legalizing abortion up to the start of the second trimester is a fair compromise between "no abortions" and "abortions up to the third trimester", in my opinion.

[tmthforu94]

The incest clause isn't necessary since I assume that if a woman wants to end a pregnancy steming from an incestuous relationship it's because of rape. That's why I think the term "rape" already covers abortions caused by incest pregnancies.

Well, you've obviously never been to Kentucky. While that may not be a problem in Switzerland, incest is a practice that is still around in America, especially in a couple of our states, so I find this clause to be necessary. I personally know a brother and sister who are dating back in Indiana.

[ZuWo]

Oh, I'm simply bringing up a point that was made by then-Senator shua during the debate of our old abortion statute:

A few thoughts, if I may:

I've always thought the mention of an exception for "incest" is odd. If we are talking about cases of forcible incest, or a family member having sex with a child, that would be covered under rape. If you are concerned about some sort of genetic problem, incest is not at all a good proxy for that - (and if it's consensual incest, at least the case of a genetic problem is preventable). An exception for severe genetic abnormalities that either make life outside the womb impossible or involve painful debilitating conditions would be a reasonable exception to make, though it would probably have to be extended for the majority of the pregnancy since these things aren't often caught early on.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I really don't see removing the second trimester as a major concession, considering that the vast majority of abortions occur in the first. I'm just trying to find a bill that both sides can be OK with so the issue can be put to rest - shoot, had Officepark edited his vote four seconds earlier and had the server not timed out on Inks, it would have failed, just to show how close it really was. Granted, the left narrowly won, so I think the bill should be more favorable to them (which I think this is).

I am extremely cautious of the term "fetal defects". That seems pretty vague - what does that entail?

The incest clause isn't necessary since I assume that if a woman wants to end a pregnancy steming from an incestuous relationship it's because of rape. That's why I think the term "rape" already covers abortions caused by incest pregnancies.

"Fetal defects" - as the governor has pointed out, I'm extremely uncomfortable with that term. I don't think a child with "fetal defects", such as for example a baby with the Down's syndrome, has less of a right to life.

Legalizing abortion up to the start of the second trimester is a fair compromise between "no abortions" and "abortions up to the third trimester", in my opinion.

I realize that to someone who is passionately anti-choice, removing the second trimester may seem like it isn't a major concession, but you have to understand that very few pro-choice folks would agree with you on that and the pro-choice side is the side being asked to give something up here.  Thus, they are really the ones who should be deciding whether or not is a major concession.  Similarly, you may consider an abortion bill that changes nothing except banning abortions in the second trimester as a compromise that is more favorable to the left.  I strongly disagree with you there as well and I suspect most on the left and the center-left would disagree with you there as well.  While I'm sure you disagree, in my mind the bill that the voters approved was a fair and neutral compromise.  If you want to ban abortions in the second trimester, you have to recognize that most pro-choice Mideasterners will consider that a major concession, regardless of whether or not you think it is.  The fact is that if the right truly wants a fair compromise that both sides can live with and also wants to ban abortions in the second trimester, it is going to have to make some serious concessions.  Removing the parental notification clause, adding a ban on forced ultrasounds and forced vaginal probes, plus a significant concession on another issue (such as on the proposed budget amendment) is a reasonable deal in exchange for the second trimester ban.  If you don't want an exception for birth defects, fine.  However, there will need to be concessions on other issues instead.  Also, any proposal that doesn't include an exceptions for rape and incest is a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned.

[ZuWo]

Linking completely unrelated issues such as the budget amendment and the abortion bill is not a good idea because it serves partisan interests rather than the people. We should be interested in finding sensible solutions on every single bill we're debating and shouldn't pit different pieces of legislation against each other. If we come up with an abortion compromise, it will happen regardless of what is going on in the budget amendment thread.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Linking completely unrelated issues such as the budget amendment and the abortion bill is not a good idea because it serves partisan interests rather than the people. We should be interested in finding sensible solutions on every single bill we're debating and shouldn't pit different pieces of legislation against each other. If we come up with an abortion compromise, it will happen regardless of what is going on in the budget amendment thread.

It isn't serving partisan interests, I'd argue that it's a realistic aspect of deal-making that can sometimes kill two birds with one stone.  But in any event, the rest of my post still stands.

[Talleyrand]

Tmth, if Al had remembered to vote on the amendment and Clinton hadn't invalidated his vote, it would still have passed. I personally voted for it once I realized we were going to have a Federalist majority in the Assembly, and I wasn't entirely confident whether they were intent on a compromise. I was otherwise planning to vote ABSTAIN.

On fetal defects- I agree with ZuWo about issues such as Down Syndrome, but I was thinking more along the lines of defects such as Anencephaly, but obviously we'll need to define that more.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Tmthforu's is a no-go for me.  In return for the trimester change, I would be willing to loosen financial penalties.

[Gass3268]

How about increasing funding given to family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood? Obviously it would be stipulated that the money could not be used on abortions, but if the goal is to prevent/reduce abortions, then increasing the accessibility to family planning services should should be a logical first step.

[tmthforu94]

How about increasing funding given to family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood? Obviously it would be stipulated that the money could not be used on abortions, but if the goal is to prevent/reduce abortions, then increasing the accessibility to family planning services should should be a logical first step.

FWIW, we just directed $1.5 million to Planned Parenthood via executive order through the SoIA last month.

[tmthforu94]

Tmthforu's is a no-go for me.  In return for the trimester change, I would be willing to loosen financial penalties.

I'm going to assume you mean TexasDem.

And TexasDem, of course. All my point was that just a couple little "accidents" fixed here and there could have affected the outcome. Just emphasizing how close the outcome was.

[Gass3268]

How about increasing funding given to family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood? Obviously it would be stipulated that the money could not be used on abortions, but if the goal is to prevent/reduce abortions, then increasing the accessibility to family planning services should should be a logical first step.

FWIW, we just directed $1.5 million to Planned Parenthood via executive order through the SoIA last month.

Do you have a link to this? I want to take a look at this.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Tmthforu's is a no-go for me.  In return for the trimester change, I would be willing to loosen financial penalties.

I'm going to assume you mean TexasDem.

And TexasDem, of course. All my point was that just a couple little "accidents" fixed here and there could have affected the outcome. Just emphasizing how close the outcome was.

Yeah... the PT and IN images look similar when you just glance at them.  Although you're in Kansas now, I know.

[Talleyrand]

Inks, if the incest exception remains intact, I definitely think loosening financial penalties would be a good idea combined with the trimester change.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Inks, if the incest exception remains intact, I definitely think loosening financial penalties would be a good idea combined with the trimester change.

It is infinitely more important to get rid of the parental notification clause than it is to reduce the financial penalties (I don't even think they should be loosened, tbh).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks, if the incest exception remains intact, I definitely think loosening financial penalties would be a good idea combined with the trimester change.

It is infinitely more important to get rid of the parental notification clause than it is to reduce the financial penalties (I don't even think they should be loosened, tbh).

Why?

[ZuWo]

I'm not going to insist on removing incest from the list. I simply assumed that striking incest from the list would be relatively non-controversial for the reasons laid out in shua's post. I still think that abortion of incest pregnancies would mostly be covered by the rape clause, but this is not a dealbreaker for me. But clearly, the parental notification clause for minors must remain. It can actually be a protection for a girl who doesn't want to abort her baby but is put under heavy pressure by her boyfriend. If her parents are notified, they can help her withstand that pressure.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

ZuWo, the opposite can apply as well.  Parental notification requirements need to go.