IDS 2: Freedom of Choice Act (Passed)

[Dereich]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Emperor Scott

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Essentially, this bill is a modified version of a Pacific law passed in 2006.  It affirms the status quo of the South's overall liberal attitude toward abortion with two exceptions: the prohibition of invasive "ultrasound laws" and a guarantee that rape victims will receive the help they need regardless of closest hospital.  While I understand the sentiments of those who oppose abortion in our region, I must stress that this bill merely synchronizes our current policy and establishes a common sense standard for local hospitals not dissimilar to that of several states, such as my home state of Connecticut.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Four is giving me tons of heartburn where did I put those tums


Anyway skipping that, can you give an example of what five is seeking to ban?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Four is giving me tons of heartburn where did I put those tums


Anyway skipping that, can you give an example of what five is seeking to ban?

I kind of scratched my head at that as well when I read the Pacific law, so I really can't give an example.  I'd be okay with removing it since it's kind of redundant.

[Donerail]

Anyway skipping that, can you give an example of what five is seeking to ban?

Presumably the language would strike down parental consent (and possibly notification) requirements  as restricting a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy on the basis of age.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As important as I think it is to ensure as much autonomy possible between a woman and her doctor, I'm not very comfortable with keeping parents out of important health decisions like this when a minor is involved.  If the Legislature wants to remove or modify the provision, I will endorse that decision.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have always been rather pro-parental notification/consent, unless of course they well you know. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Oak Hills?  Dereich?  DeadPrez?  Speak to me.

[Dereich]

Ok then,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Using that kind of language with science is always an iffy bet. What do we define as intentionally false? Lets say there is a study that says that there are psychological issues with abortion and pro-life activists use it in their purposes. This is against the AMA consensus, but is use of it "promoting intentionally false information"? This whole clause sounds like an attempt to politicize the science of abortion and give it some kind of ironclad certitude that it just doesn't have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unnecessary. I can find no laws according to this which would criminalize use of emergency contraception in the IDS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My only qualm with this is the word dispense. To dispense emergency contraception makes much more of a statement; by actually putting it in their hands it puts more pressure on the victim to make a decision they may not be capable of making at the time. Better, I think, would be to offer emergency contraception and information about it, making it fully available to rape victims but not forcing it on them should they choose not to use it for one reason or another.

As an opponent of abortion I could never vote for this bill, but there's my two cents.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Thank you for your comments, Dereich.

Ideally, the first provision would apply to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" which are known to provide misleading information about abortion and sometimes might not even tell a client that she is pregnant.  However, I realize the difficulty of tracking these centers down and determining the intent of the people who run them.  Ultimately, lying cannot be outlawed and women can only be expected to read up on nearby health centers to learn which ones are legitimate.  I'll remove that provision, but I encourage anyone who has an alternative to speak.

Section three also appeared redundant and unnecessary to me at a first glance, but I have no desire to strike the language from the bill for the rare scenario that a state decides to outlaw a form of birth control.  Since it's of no detriment to the underlying principles of the bill, I would encourage the Legislature to leave the provision in tact.

Finally, as to section 7, I don't necessarily agree that a rape victim would feel "pressured" into using emergency contraception if placed in the situation, but I'll modify the language even though I realize there's little room for compromise on issues like this.

I'll also remove the section that bans parental notification laws.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm not in favor of this at all. Can you make the rules less stricter?

How is it strict?  The bill is pretty straightforward.

[CatoMinor]

Just thought I'd give my two cents. if the people of a given area wish to require the ultrasound who are we to step in? Considering there is life* at stake, I see no harm in it. It may be emotionally rough for a lady, but that is trumped by the end of a life. Its nice to talk about freedom of choice, but lets not bury the lead here, this is a literal matter of life and death for the one party in the matter who have no choice at all.

*whether or not someone wants to admit that it s a "human" yet is one thing, but there is no way anyone who has taken freshman biology can deny it is a life.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Just thought I'd give my two cents. if the people of a given area wish to require the ultrasound who are we to step in? Considering there is life* at stake, I see no harm in it. It may be emotionally rough for a lady, but that is trumped by the end of a life. Its nice to talk about freedom of choice, but lets not bury the lead here, this is a literal matter of life and death for the one party in the matter who have no choice at all.

*whether or not someone wants to admit that it s a "human" yet is one thing, but there is no way anyone who has taken freshman biology can deny it is a life.

The law doesn't concern what a doctor may or may not ask of his or her patient; it simply forbids the government from requiring medically unnecessary vaginal probes.  "People of a given area" need not be involved.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As a side note, I personally have a difficult time seeing the practicality behind ultrasound laws.  Yes, I understand why pro-lifers favor them, but think of it this way: if elective abortion is uncompromisingly wrong, what purpose does it serve to give women seeking an abortion yet another hurdle to jump through, rather than banning it outright?  One would, after all, think that these mandates are more for inconveniencing women than saving lives.  So, if a community decides that abortions should be forbidden, what discourages them from going all the way?

I'll step off my soapbox now.  I just could never quite wrap my head around that...

[Maxwell]

So section 3 falls within federal jurisdiction? What is our limits on abortion, by the way? 3 trimesters?

[Dereich]

Does section 3 prevent states/localities from making new laws against emergency contraception? From how it reads it only seems to eliminate current laws against it, of which there are none.

As for your point, Scott, the idea is that banning abortion outright is either a) unconstitutional and will be quickly overturned or b) not politically feasible with current party representations. So, instead they introduce a proposal which would hopefully reduce the number of abortions without getting to the shaky constitutional issues. It comes down to the idea of "just because we can't do everything doesn't mean we should do nothing"

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So section 3 falls within federal jurisdiction? What is our limits on abortion, by the way? 3 trimesters?

Yes, I believe so.  A federal late-term abortion ban was passed last year.  This bill doesn't conflict with that law.

Does section 3 prevent states/localities from making new laws against emergency contraception? From how it reads it only seems to eliminate current laws against it, of which there are none.

The bill is intended to do both, but I'm going to make some additional fixes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah.  That makes more sense, then.

[CatoMinor]

if elective abortion is uncompromisingly wrong, what purpose does it serve to give women seeking an abortion yet another hurdle to jump through, rather than banning it outright?

Because the powers that be (the feds and more importantly the Supreme Court) also subscribe to the opinion that a mothers choice trumps any right one has to their life.

I am not naive enough to believe that just because laws a passes abortions will end, there will always be women who for whatever ever reasons drive them individually will try to have an abortion. And as long as it happens it should be safe, but there should be every possible barrier legally put up in between.

If seeing an ultrasound has the ability to change anyone's mind without forcing them, then what harm is it? I once protested along with planned parenthood folks (despite being pro-life) because I thought the ultrasound laws were a bit much, but when you think of the rest of what an abortion would involve, you could just consider it one of the less invasive parts of the procedure.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I generally agree with Jbrase. The intent is never to torture or put any more burden on the mother in this case, but to give every opportunity possible within the law as it presently allows to encourage people to side with life instead of going through the abortion.

Granted if you wanted to exempt certain situations where there isn't a choice like abort or one/both die if the pregnancy continues then that would be sensible obviously.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have a problem with 4, 6, and the private hospitals aspect in 7.

4. Although I don't really want abortion criminalized, I don't want it legal either. Can we just restrict the amount of criminalization?

Abortion is currently legal in the IDS and all the bill does is reaffirm the status quo by restricting invasive vaginal probes and require all hospitals to provide proper care for rape victims.  I'm not going to use the "Freedom of Choice Act" to push for more abortion restrictions.  Sorry.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ultrasound requirements, though I now understand the rationale for supporting them, don't really prevent abortions but instead force women to jump through more hoops.  Abortion is a serious matter and I'm not aiming to dispute that.  However, requiring women and hospitals to submit to medical regulations that are inherently unnecessary is not something we should encourage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With all due respect, if a private hospital isn't willing to give patients, and especially victims of rape, the care they need, then there's no reason to call it a hospital.  It's not as though we're requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, but there are plenty of regulations hospitals need to adhere to in order to ensure that they function properly and I don't think this new standard is at all unusual to that.

I think I know how the vote is going to go at this point, so I would ask the Speaker to give the bill another day for comments and start a final vote tomorrow night.  I know I'm not going to convince anyone who's already against the amended text to vote the other way.

[Maxwell]

My only even slight concern is in 5, and in that, it's something we seem to already do under the healthcare law. As a result, I support this bill, and will vote for it. I am pro-choice through and through, always have been, always will be.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anything else?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hello?

[Oak Hills]

This bill looks good to me.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Nay

The vote hasn't even started yet.