MA: No Heart of Stone Act (Passed)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:45:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  MA: No Heart of Stone Act (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: MA: No Heart of Stone Act (Passed)  (Read 1842 times)
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 22, 2015, 01:17:28 AM »
« edited: May 21, 2015, 02:21:22 PM by Mideast Speaker New Canadaland »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Sponsor: Harry S Truman
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2015, 01:28:43 PM »

The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Mideast Right to Life Act, which uses compassion for illegal immigrants as a "Trojan Horse" for regressive abortion restrictions. Unfortunately, CrabCake's absence during the last session delayed it's repeal by a couple of months, but the time has now come to strike down this abomination once and for all.

The first quarter of the MRLA, which give illegal immigrants the right to emergency medical care, is a good idea, so I have preserved it here. While I think we can all agree that immigrants should enter Atlasia through legal means, basic compassion for our fellow human beings demands that we make some provision for their health, hence the title of this bill. I struck out the passage preventing their deportation, as that seems to me to be unconstitutional (immigration law being a federal prerogative).

For the record, I do support reasonable abortion restrictions and am willing to have that debate elsewhere, but cloaking said restrictions in the guise of kindhearted aid for illegal immigrants is truly despicable. In any event, the constraints in the MRLA are over the top and need to be struck down.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2015, 01:50:23 PM »

amendment
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2015, 02:00:55 PM »

Truman, there are several other abortion restrictions passed in previous assemblies. I would support the bill as is but if our purpose is to liberalize abortion laws the other bills should be repealed or constrained. Hold on, I'll go look for them....
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2015, 02:26:57 PM »

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

Truman, there are several other abortion restrictions passed in previous assemblies. I would support the bill as is but if our purpose is to liberalize abortion laws the other bills should be repealed or constrained. Hold on, I'll go look for them....

I'd support an overhaul of existing abortion regulations, but I think the best way to do so would be as part of a separate bill. The reason I singled out the MRLA was that it combines some positive provisions (granting illegal immigrants access to healthcare) with more deceptive intentions (the abortion part). If it turns out there are similar laws on the books that could be naturally combined with this, I'm fine with it, but I feel like a more general liberalization of Mideast abortion law deserves its own bill.

Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2015, 03:03:04 PM »
« Edited: April 22, 2015, 03:05:56 PM by Mideast Speaker New Canadaland »

These are all the abortion related statutes currently in place:
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Mideast_Public_Assistance_in_Abortion_Ban_Statute
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/A.R._4:_2nd_Amendment_to_the_Mideast_Abortion_Statute_II
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/A.R._4:_Mideast_Abortion_Sex_Protection_Act
Since the previous bills limited abortion to the first 6 weeks, repealing the Right to Life Act would only remove the waiting period and ultrasound. I favour the repeal of these other bills as well, but perhaps for a seperate act.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2015, 04:29:25 PM »

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2015, 09:05:28 PM »

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

The phrase "Right to Life" is a political jingle, not an actual statement about policy. When a politician says they are "pro-life", they are not being informative: they are attempting to end the discussion by implying their their opponents are "pro-death". I understand that you and other conservatives will likely oppose the substance of this bill, but please do so by making a logical, fact-based argument for your position, not resorting to cheap political tricks.
Logged
MadmanMotley
Bmotley
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,340
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.29, S: -5.91

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2015, 09:41:25 PM »

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

The phrase "Right to Life" is a political jingle, not an actual statement about policy. When a politician says they are "pro-life", they are not being informative: they are attempting to end the discussion by implying their their opponents are "pro-death". I understand that you and other conservatives will likely oppose the substance of this bill, but please do so by making a logical, fact-based argument for your position, not resorting to cheap political tricks.
I'd hardly call it a cheap political trick, I'd be for more clarification of the law, and perhaps separating the immigration and abortion laws, but I stand with where our abortion laws are right now. I am not afraid to say that I am pro-life in the abortion debate, as I believe in the right to life for all people, born and unborn. This debate is going to need to continue, as long with more clarification before I can even consider signing it into law.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2015, 09:45:10 PM »

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

The phrase "Right to Life" is a political jingle, not an actual statement about policy. When a politician says they are "pro-life", they are not being informative: they are attempting to end the discussion by implying their their opponents are "pro-death". I understand that you and other conservatives will likely oppose the substance of this bill, but please do so by making a logical, fact-based argument for your position, not resorting to cheap political tricks.

Is "No Heart of Stone" an actual statement about policy?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2015, 10:21:14 PM »

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

The phrase "Right to Life" is a political jingle, not an actual statement about policy. When a politician says they are "pro-life", they are not being informative: they are attempting to end the discussion by implying their their opponents are "pro-death". I understand that you and other conservatives will likely oppose the substance of this bill, but please do so by making a logical, fact-based argument for your position, not resorting to cheap political tricks.

Is "No Heart of Stone" an actual statement about policy?

"No Heart of Stone" implies that, while the Mideast government does not condone illegal immigration and supports measures to ensure that immigration laws are followed, this position does not prevent us from treating illegal immigrants with dignity. In this sense, we are asserting that our Region does not have a "heart of stone": despite our belief in the rule of law, we remain a compassionate Region and will help people who need our help. As such, the title of this bill is a specific statement about the attitude of the Mideast government towards a particular issue, not a broad generalization that confuses the termination of a pregnancy with genocide or being "anti-life". The crux of the difference is that saying that Mideasterners have "No Right to Life", as you proposed, implies that my colleagues and I want to arbitrarily kill people, while saying that Mideasterners have "No Heart of Stone" sums up the motivations behind Sections 2 and 3 of this bill.

In any case, your amendment has nothing to do with the substance of this bill, and is little more than a brazen attempt to paint me and my colleagues as killers. As I said previously, if you have a rational, fact-based argument for why the MRLA should be preserved, please say it; but do not waste the time of the people of the Mideast proposing frivolous amendments that get us nowhere.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2015, 10:44:32 PM »

I oppose Shua's amendment, and all other attempts to play petty politics with this bill.

The main point of this bill is to repeal the Right to Life Act.  The bill's title should reflect this.

The phrase "Right to Life" is a political jingle, not an actual statement about policy. When a politician says they are "pro-life", they are not being informative: they are attempting to end the discussion by implying their their opponents are "pro-death". I understand that you and other conservatives will likely oppose the substance of this bill, but please do so by making a logical, fact-based argument for your position, not resorting to cheap political tricks.

Is "No Heart of Stone" an actual statement about policy?

"No Heart of Stone" implies that, while the Mideast government does not condone illegal immigration and supports measures to ensure that immigration laws are followed, this position does not prevent us from treating illegal immigrants with dignity. In this sense, we are asserting that our Region does not have a "heart of stone": despite our belief in the rule of law, we remain a compassionate Region and will help people who need our help. As such, the title of this bill is a specific statement about the attitude of the Mideast government towards a particular issue, not a broad generalization that confuses the termination of a pregnancy with genocide or being "anti-life". The crux of the difference is that saying that Mideasterners have "No Right to Life", as you proposed, implies that my colleagues and I want to arbitrarily kill people, while saying that Mideasterners have "No Heart of Stone" sums up the motivations behind Sections 2 and 3 of this bill.

In any case, your amendment has nothing to do with the substance of this bill, and is little more than a brazen attempt to paint me and my colleagues as killers. As I said previously, if you have a rational, fact-based argument for why the MRLA should be preserved, please say it; but do not waste the time of the people of the Mideast proposing frivolous amendments that get us nowhere.

I didn't say you were killers, that is a ridiculous accusation.  I am saying this bill removes the right to life from being protected. Meanwhile you are the one implying that those who oppose this bill have a heart of stone.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2015, 11:05:19 PM »

Saying that your position is "pro-life" implies that your opponents are "pro-death", just as saying your position is "pro-capitalism" implies that your opponents are "pro-socialism". I understand that you did not invent the term "Right to Life", but saying that this bill should be called the "No Right to Life Act" clearly suggests that those who support it have a disregard for human lives. What is being debated here is the definition of life, not whether those who are alive have a right to stay that way.

I will say this one more time: do you have an argument for why this law should not be passed? So far, all you've contributed to this debate is a string of politically-loaded "gotcha" lines that do nothing to either build a consensus on this topic or explain your reasons for opposing this bill. I would ask that you stop wasting everyone's time with trivial objections and actually do the job you were elected to do.

Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2015, 11:42:34 PM »

Saying that your position is "pro-life" implies that your opponents are "pro-death", just as saying your position is "pro-capitalism" implies that your opponents are "pro-socialism". I understand that you did not invent the term "Right to Life", but saying that this bill should be called the "No Right to Life Act" clearly suggests that those who support it have a disregard for human lives. What is being debated here is the definition of life, not whether those who are alive have a right to stay that way.

I will say this one more time: do you have an argument for why this law should not be passed? So far, all you've contributed to this debate is a string of politically-loaded "gotcha" lines that do nothing to either build a consensus on this topic or explain your reasons for opposing this bill. I would ask that you stop wasting everyone's time with trivial objections and actually do the job you were elected to do.



When I object to the name of a bill it's trivial, but when you object it's not?   
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2015, 12:28:48 AM »

Saying that your position is "pro-life" implies that your opponents are "pro-death", just as saying your position is "pro-capitalism" implies that your opponents are "pro-socialism". I understand that you did not invent the term "Right to Life", but saying that this bill should be called the "No Right to Life Act" clearly suggests that those who support it have a disregard for human lives. What is being debated here is the definition of life, not whether those who are alive have a right to stay that way.

I will say this one more time: do you have an argument for why this law should not be passed? So far, all you've contributed to this debate is a string of politically-loaded "gotcha" lines that do nothing to either build a consensus on this topic or explain your reasons for opposing this bill. I would ask that you stop wasting everyone's time with trivial objections and actually do the job you were elected to do.



When I object to the name of a bill it's trivial, but when you object it's not?   

I wrote the bill, so I gave it a title. Your attempt to rename it is a brazen political stunt and is not appreciated. There is absolutely no need to rename this bill, and continuing this argument only wastes time that would be better served discussing the actual substance of my proposal.

There is no point in continuing this discussion. Your amendment is a frivolous waste of time and I will oppose it. Unless you have anything to say about the bill itself, please stop holding up debate so the rest of us can do our jobs.
Logged
ZuWo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,873
Switzerland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2015, 02:23:30 AM »

I think shua's concerns are valid. A more neutral title would reflect the purpose of this bill much more effectively. Why don't you name it something like this:

No "Right to Life Act"
 
or

No Right to Life Act

so as to make clear that the phrase "Right to Life" refers to the bill you're trying to get repealed.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2015, 09:56:14 AM »

Why can't section three apply to all illegals? Why is it only children?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2015, 10:53:57 AM »

Why can't section three apply to all illegals? Why is it only children?

Illegal immigration is, by definition, a crime. A 14-year-old who comes to Atlasia in violation of the laws of our Republic probably did not make the decision to do so, so detaining him or her for breaking immigration law is stupid. A 35-year-old, on the other hand, most likely came here of their own volition. There's certainly an argument for extending this to adults, but I feel like that's more of a federal prerogative since what that would amount to is changing the penalty for knowingly committing a federal crime. It's a fine distinction, but I think the source of intent in these cases (present in the adult, probably not in the child) is crucial seeing as the Mideast does not have the authority to override federal laws.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2015, 11:16:10 AM »

As a compromise (if you don't wish to remove the section), can we increase the age to 18?
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2015, 11:26:54 AM »

As a compromise (if you don't wish to remove the section), can we increase the age to 18?

I'd be fine with that.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2015, 01:50:58 PM »

Why can't section three apply to all illegals? Why is it only children?

Illegal immigration is, by definition, a crime. A 14-year-old who comes to Atlasia in violation of the laws of our Republic probably did not make the decision to do so, so detaining him or her for breaking immigration law is stupid. A 35-year-old, on the other hand, most likely came here of their own volition. There's certainly an argument for extending this to adults, but I feel like that's more of a federal prerogative since what that would amount to is changing the penalty for knowingly committing a federal crime. It's a fine distinction, but I think the source of intent in these cases (present in the adult, probably not in the child) is crucial seeing as the Mideast does not have the authority to override federal laws.

We don't have the authority to override federal laws, but neither do we need to lock people up. We can leave that to the federal government if they so choose.
Logged
Boston Bread
New Canadaland
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,636
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.00, S: -5.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2015, 02:22:26 PM »
« Edited: April 23, 2015, 03:14:41 PM by Mideast Speaker New Canadaland »

An amendment.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for the naming of the bill, my interpretation is that the bill is intended to replace a bill regulating immigration and abortion with one which only relates to immigration. The abortion regulations which are repealed are trivial in my mind. Ultrasounds and waiting periods don't prevent abortion.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2015, 03:09:32 PM »

I will support New Canadaland's amendment.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2015, 09:08:55 PM »

I will remove my renaming amendment for now, but I reserve my right to enter a more descriptive title for this legislation in future amendments.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2015, 10:27:48 PM »

What I see as the problem is this. We failed to separate the abortion discussion from the immigration portion. Laws should not cover multiple subjects in one bill when possible and this still fails that simple premise. I want to have an intelligent discussion over both issues but in order to do that, we need to seperate the two discussions into two different bills.



Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.