South: Abortion Reduction Act of 2015
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:52:49 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)
  South: Abortion Reduction Act of 2015
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: South: Abortion Reduction Act of 2015  (Read 1121 times)
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 07, 2015, 02:33:27 PM »
« edited: August 07, 2015, 02:37:31 PM by Co-Speaker darthebearnc »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Leinad

Sponsor has 24 hours to present argument in favor of bill's passage.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2015, 02:56:13 PM »

My Commentary:

This is not the way to go about doing this. I'm for the overall goal of reducing abortions, but the bill has its faults. If we do manage to fix everything in the following ways, however, I would be for the passage of this bill.

The overall scheme of Section 1 is good; I'm for giving grants to parents who adopt children and thank Leinad for coming up with this idea. However, I support it for different reasons. I don't really see how adopting children reduces the amount of abortions, so this section is irrelevant to the actual point of the bill, but once more I support the concept of giving grants to parents who adopt for different reasons. Adoption should be encouraged by the government because it (a) gives better lives to children who would otherwise be stuck in orphanages until they turn eighteen and (b) decreases overpopulation by encouraging parents to take kids who already exist instead of making their own. In conclusion, I support this section, but not really for the same reasons as Leinad does. I would also recommend increasing the grant size from $500 to $2,500 (or something along those lines); the concept of adopting in order to give better lives to orphaned children and reduce overpopulation is vital and should be encouraged greatly by the government.

Section 2 is, to be honest, horrible. We shouldn't be handing out money to people just because they're having children; that's essentially what this section does. Anyone who is planning on carrying out their pregnancy would sign this agreement; it's pretty much just a free $4,500 for having a baby. The government already has plenty of ways to support mothers who have children - this should not be one of them. Also, any reasonable person would realize that it costs much more than $4,500 to raise a child, meaning that it would be more cost-effective to have the abortion than have the child and sign the agreement.

Section 3 has a good overall gist (promoting comprehensive sex ed), but the way that this bill goes about doing so is wrong. Reducing the funding of abstinence-only schools would hurt the children who go to those schools, and they don't deserve to be punished for what isn't up to them. Instead, we could meet the goal of promoting comprehensive sex ed in schools by simply making it mandatory.

So overall, I think Sections 1 and 3 would be good with a few changes, while 2 should be thrown out. If Leinad and Spiral agree, I will propose amendments to the bill in order to (a) increase the size of the grant in Section 1, (b) throw out Section 2, and (c) change Section 3 from increasing/decreasing the funding of schools based off of their sex ed programs to simply making comprehensive sex ed mandatory.

Thanks! Smiley
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2015, 09:41:07 PM »

I completely agree that section 2 is kind of terrible. Law of unintended consequenses, I suppose. Maybe we could significantly re-word the secoon, perhaps making it income-based?

I also agree that section 1 has different positives to it than just that. I decided to throw it in to this bill because reducing abortions is one of the positives.

I get your point on section 3; my intention was to avoid forcing schools to do something they didn't want to. Although I guess it's all public schools, so making it mandatory wouldn't hurt too much.

Anyway, I think this bill is needed because it's something we should be doing. Whether the bill as it orgininally is goes through or not--it won't--it starts the conversation on how to find multipartisan ways to reduce abortions, which is a good thing.
Logged
/
darthebearnc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,367
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2015, 10:44:15 PM »

Would you like me to write an amended version?
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2015, 10:06:52 PM »

Would you like me to write an amended version?

Sure, I'm interested in seeing what your take on this is.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2015, 09:32:37 AM »

I support the gist of this bill.....I sponsored some thing in the Senate one time called the Pregnant Women Support Act- or some thing along those lines,which had a similar goal, to help women who choose to go thru with a pregnancy
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2015, 09:45:55 AM »

I support the gist of this bill.....I sponsored some thing in the Senate one time called the Pregnant Women Support Act- or some thing along those lines,which had a similar goal, to help women who choose to go thru with a pregnancy

Sounds great! I'll look for that and try and incorporate stuff into an amended version of this.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2015, 11:49:57 AM »

Um, is anybody going to open the vote on this?
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2015, 07:39:51 AM »

Um, is anybody going to open the vote on this?

I was actually waiting for Dar's amendment, although since he left I've sort of put it on the back-burner.

Does anyone have any suggestions to improve the bill? As Dar explained, it's highly flawed, so in it's current state it should be voted against. I suppose I'll make an amended version myself (I'm assuming Governor's can do that...) at some point soon, then we can discuss that.
Logged
PPT Spiral
Spiral
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,520
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2015, 04:09:25 PM »

If Leinad will introduce an amended version to his bill (which he can do), then I will wait for him to introduce that. Otherwise, the vote on this will begin as soon as possible.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2015, 02:27:19 AM »

Now that we have a legislature to vote on this, I can put together an amended version. I'll have that within a day or so. Does anyone have any suggestions/thoughts? It's obviously flawed, as Dar pointed out, but there are different ways to fix it, and I'd like to see what Pingvin, Haslam, and Steelers have to think.
Logged
Potus
Potus2036
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,841


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2015, 12:13:36 PM »

Why are you nibbling around the edges?

There is a pro-life majority here. Just get the job done. Legally, there is no doubt you can just a 22 week ban, I can reasonably say you could get away with a 20 back on the basis of fetal pain.

Even if you don't want to take the route of banning abortions, then at least equalize the treatment of abortion under our medical health standards. Pass legislation which mandates emergency room admittance privileges for abortion providers. Pass legislation requiring abortion providers to abide by surgical health standards.

Stop being afraid to take on the big fights.
Logged
Leinad
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,049
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -7.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2015, 05:19:20 PM »

Why are you nibbling around the edges?

There is a pro-life majority here. Just get the job done. Legally, there is no doubt you can just a 22 week ban, I can reasonably say you could get away with a 20 back on the basis of fetal pain.

Even if you don't want to take the route of banning abortions, then at least equalize the treatment of abortion under our medical health standards. Pass legislation which mandates emergency room admittance privileges for abortion providers. Pass legislation requiring abortion providers to abide by surgical health standards.

Stop being afraid to take on the big fights.

You know what? You're right, my bill was originally made more moderate than it needed to be, although looking at the legislature I think I can go further.
Logged
Ex-Assemblyman Steelers
Steelers
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 371
Serbia and Montenegro


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2015, 06:00:40 PM »

How much further Mr. Governor?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.046 seconds with 14 queries.