SENATE BILL: The It's Not Up To You Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this bill.


And for the love of god don't repeat that stunt you pulled on the Wikimaster Bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MOTION TO TABLE


You are really pushing this "I Don't Care" routine a little excessively, Nappy.

[Napoleon]

I'm away.

See you monday

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I will be offering some amendments to this shortly.

[TNF]

I'm away.

See you monday

lol

Snowstalker

How did households with a female earning more than a male vote?

Aye

You spent more on a dog than I did. Lol

Congratulations BRTD! I'm really happy for you.

Sjoyce

Straight but in the sense that I would probably go gay before pulling a clarence haha

I will try tonplay.

I wouldn't mind an endorsement.

Looks Parliament-y. I like it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm away.

See you monday

Three Words: Leave of Absence

Use it.

And do it right too (Seperate Thread in AFG Board, LOA included in title so it is seen and dates specified. Ask sbane, I think he did it right.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm away.

See you monday

Monday you could fall apart
Tuesday, Wednesday break my heart
Oh, Thursday doesn't even start...

Or how about another relevent 80's work:
I don't like Mondays
Tell me why?
I don't Like Mondays
Tell me why?

Someone better try to justify clause 1 at least, if not the whole bill, lest I go back to the 60's for a song about Tuesday.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I second the motion to table.

[Napoleon]

I'm away.

See you monday

lol

Snowstalker

How did households with a female earning more than a male vote?

Aye

You spent more on a dog than I did. Lol

Congratulations BRTD! I'm really happy for you.

Sjoyce

Straight but in the sense that I would probably go gay before pulling a clarence haha

I will try tonplay.

I wouldn't mind an endorsement.

Looks Parliament-y. I like it.

You probably think you're clever or funny (I do not), but was it really that hard to notice everything you posted was an empty quote, single word, or barely complete sentence.

I will post here later can't do this sh**t on planes.

[Napoleon]

To everyone who hasn't been a douche, I apologize for not being able to advocate for this bill when it reached the floor. I was away for the weekend and while I did have internet access from my phone for short periods of time, at large concerts it's almost impossible to get service because there is so many people and even then its difficult to post lengthy posts as I believe this bill deserves.

Now I don't know about all of you but I was left absolutely heartbroken learning that we've become a complacent nation allowing creeps and killers like Kermit Gosnell to run rampant with our young women, and to do so for the sole purpose of having a feel-good law on the books. Late term abortions are not ideal- for that reason, they constitute less than 1% of all abortions and tend to occur for very non-negotiable reasons. Women don't want to cart around a fetus for 8 months just so they can get rid of it. Circumstances change and the law should be able to account for that. I don't want our young women subject to the likes of Gosnell or the next one. Abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This law makes them unsafe, illegal, and they occur with the same frequency.

However, I think that there are social benefits to keeping abortion RARE. So I propose tripling the funding for our safe sex education programs, to protect women from the emotional trauma that this sort of choice may inflict and for other reasons. By going after the cause, you can solve the problem. Forcing 1% of terminations underground into the hands of Gosnell does not reduce abortions but ensuring that contraceptives are accessible and that sex education is well-funded will reduce the number of abortions dramatically.

I'm not asking you to vote for more abortions. I'm asking you to vote against the Gosnells of this nation and allow us to regulate abortions and ensure that they are done safely.

It usually doesn't take more than a couple of sentences to get debate going.

And with ten members here, it doesn't take me either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't online most of the day and I didn't have access to a computer. Oh, and it takes longer than five minutes, unless you think the Senate deserves a half-ass bullsh**t post. I didn't think so.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't support the complete repeal of FL 52-2, as I don't see the restrictions as cumbersome or unreasonable. I do support the repeal of FL 18-1, largely because I see it as being largely superseded by FL 52-2.

I understand there will be concerns about regional rights in this Bill, and I recognise that. However, I have always believed in making policy for the world that exists, not the one that some might have some objections to. We cannot ignore that children will have sex, no amount of tut-tutting changes the reality. I believe it our responsibility to ensure that if children engage in sexual activity, that it is done with knowledge and safety. If regions feel that they cannot engage with this Bill, then they simply will not receive the funds.

Otherwise, this Bill has my support. 

[Napoleon]

I'm assuming its normal to refer to those not yet "of age" as children in Australia; to me it sounds really creepy Brave New World-esque lol. I try not to think about eight year olds having sex.

I don't support the complete repeal of FL 52-2, as I don't see the restrictions as cumbersome or unreasonable.

While the restrictions don't give the initial appearance of such, look no further than the practical application of such a policy to see where we lead to. Kermit Gosnell is not the only one, and these people are empowered by a status quo that allows them to work unchecked and unregulated.

[Gass3268]

I support this bill as is. I would hate to see it get watered down.

[TNF]

I support this bill as is. I would hate to see it get watered down.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: Waiting for Feedback.

Polnut, going forward be sure to state your intent to offer amendments in the same post as the text. Fortunately, you had that previous post to fall back on in this case.

Contrary to the recent criticism, this strict interpretation of the procedures actually serves to create a liberated (of procedures) track where texts can be formulated by collaboration and consensus and then offered with agreement of the major actors in the debate and thus avoid votes even in some cases, thus saving time. Obviously it doesn't apply to every situation and the benefits increase with the attentativeness and engagement of the Senators, but there have been enough to justify doing it this way.

[Napoleon]

Hostile as it gets

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hostile as it gets

I could be worse...

[Napoleon]

Hostile as it gets

I could be worse...

Did you read the link I posted? I don't see what could be much worse than allowing these guys to make millions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hostile as it gets

I could be worse...

Did you read the link I posted? I don't see what could be much worse than allowing these guys to make millions.

I think this is an extreme solution to a legitimate problem.

I'll withdraw my amendment, because it seems to have no chance and leave the Bill to stand on it's own merits.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You might find that it has more support than you think, polnut. I'd give it a go, but it's up to you.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find it fascinating that those who turn first to government coercion as their answer suddenly doubt the abilities of said entity's enforcement power to sufficiently achieve the desired results, in this case, stop people like Gosnell.

Gosnell was the result of four things in my opinion, the lack of oversight, lack of enforcement, lack of stiff penalties and the devaluation of and delegimizing of life to achieve political results, not because of late term abortion bans. If Gosnell was operating without regulation and unchecked, that calls for regulation, oversight and enforcement of the industry, and stiff penalties for those who violate life. Any other medical practice, any other industry, and I am sure every last one of you would be demanding they be strung up, sent to jail for 100 years and have Beth Warren all over them six ways to Sunday to ensure it never happens again. But here we are powerless, here the only answer is to legalize it. Why?

Is the most powerful country on the face of the earth so weak as to not be able to provide protection and support to the weakest and most defenseless individuals, individuals which our level of science allows the ability to live and exist in most cases outside of the mother's womb, why should we have to tolerate it being legal at such point to exterminate the existance of these individuals? This is not about religious values at this point, this is about whether or not to utilize our scientific resources to protect and preserve life where possible or to sacrifice them on the basis that "they are going to do it anyway and this way we can regulate it". In my view, it is a case of misplaced priorities. On another thread, the President considered this "viability argument" illegitimate, I would tend to insist he articulate why. 

I find the last clause of this bill to be the most sickening, not because of what it does (which we should most certainly do if this is passed), but instead because of what it concedes. If the death penalty rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment in atlasia, just what would you consider the torture that is to be inflicted upon these children who are born "because their extermination was a failure"?

Jack up the penalties, increase access to birth control and sex education, encourage people to refrain from unsafe sex, but don't do this.

[MaxQue]

The compromise reached during the previous administration is more than good and this bill is misleading.

The only thing it does is removing the ban on 3rd term abortions. The rest of the bill is a copy of the other articles of the law which is proposed to be abroged.

[Gass3268]

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.