MA: No Heart of Stone Act (Passed)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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 I would support the bill as is but if our purpose is to liberalize abortion laws the other bills should be repealed or constrained.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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I will support New Canadaland's amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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.

A agree that abortion legislation and immigration legislation should be separated (that was my original intent behind this bill). I don't think that including the repeal of the MRLA violates this, though, as it includes sections relating to immigration that this bill replaces. The fact that the MRLA includes both immigration and abortion regulations complicates matters, because separating the repeal from this law could create a scenario where we have duplicate laws on the books if the bill to repeal MRLA fails. It seems like the best (though admittedly imperfect) approach would be to keep this bill as is and introduce a new abortion bill as soon as possible. I, for one, will not support measures to include new abortion legislation in this bill.

I echo Assemblyman JCL's call for an intelligent discussion: as representatives of the Mideast people, we should be able to conduct this debate based on facts, not the passions that surround the issues.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Aye.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I support the effort to separate the abortion and immigration debates.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

It is my opinion that this act is ready for a vote. Any objections?

Agreed.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

AYE!