MA: Abortion Liberalization Act (Passed over veto)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Harry S Truman

[Hatman 🍁]

Parental consent? That flies in the face of the whole mantra of "freedom of choice". Why does it matter what the grandparents of the fetus think?

Anyways, everything except section one is terrible, so I hereby would like to propose an amendment striking sections 2 through 4.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Parental consent? That flies in the face of the whole mantra of "freedom of choice". Why does it matter what the grandparents of the fetus think?

Anyways, everything except section one is terrible, so I hereby would like to propose an amendment striking sections 2 through 4.

I object to that amendment.

I am by no means anti-abortion, and even a cursory examination of my record will show that I have been at the forefront of the movement to repeal MRLA and other reactionary abortion laws since my first term in the Assembly. That said, eliminating all regulations on this issue goes too far. Allowing a woman to receive an abortion in, say, the 35th week of the pregnancy crosses a moral line and is far outside the grey area on this issue. And while I oppose burdensome limitations on the rights of women to receive legal medical services, I have serious doubts about the ability of a 13-year-old to make such a serious decision without adult guidance. Note that Section 4 does not require the consent of the parents, but rather that they be notified, so the "problem" addressed by this amendment does not even exist.

If this amendment is adopted, I will not support this bill, period.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A vote is now open on EarlAW's amendment. Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain. Voting will last 72 hours or until a majority has been reached.
NAY

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nay

[Hatman 🍁]

aye

[Hatman 🍁]

Parental consent? That flies in the face of the whole mantra of "freedom of choice". Why does it matter what the grandparents of the fetus think?

Anyways, everything except section one is terrible, so I hereby would like to propose an amendment striking sections 2 through 4.

I object to that amendment.

I am by no means anti-abortion, and even a cursory examination of my record will show that I have been at the forefront of the movement to repeal MRLA and other reactionary abortion laws since my first term in the Assembly. That said, eliminating all regulations on this issue goes too far. Allowing a woman to receive an abortion in, say, the 35th week of the pregnancy crosses a moral line and is far outside the grey area on this issue. And while I oppose burdensome limitations on the rights of women to receive legal medical services, I have serious doubts about the ability of a 13-year-old to make such a serious decision without adult guidance. Note that Section 4 does not require the consent of the parents, but rather that they be notified, so the "problem" addressed by this amendment does not even exist.

If this amendment is adopted, I will not support this bill, period.

Having the parents notified is a horrible idea. It could ruin the poor girl's life. Not all parents are loving and forgiving individuals.

I will in no way support this bill as long as Section 4 is in place. As a father, I personally find it repugnant.

[VPH]

NAY

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

With a majority voting against, EarlAW's amendment has been defeated.

Having the parents notified is a horrible idea. It could ruin the poor girl's life. Not all parents are loving and forgiving individuals.

I will in no way support this bill as long as Section 4 is in place. As a father, I personally find it repugnant.

I would be willing to strike that requirement as long as Sections 2 and 3 remain in place.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Parental consent? That flies in the face of the whole mantra of "freedom of choice". Why does it matter what the grandparents of the fetus think?

Anyways, everything except section one is terrible, so I hereby would like to propose an amendment striking sections 2 through 4.

I object to that amendment.

I am by no means anti-abortion, and even a cursory examination of my record will show that I have been at the forefront of the movement to repeal MRLA and other reactionary abortion laws since my first term in the Assembly. That said, eliminating all regulations on this issue goes too far. Allowing a woman to receive an abortion in, say, the 35th week of the pregnancy crosses a moral line and is far outside the grey area on this issue. And while I oppose burdensome limitations on the rights of women to receive legal medical services, I have serious doubts about the ability of a 13-year-old to make such a serious decision without adult guidance. Note that Section 4 does not require the consent of the parents, but rather that they be notified, so the "problem" addressed by this amendment does not even exist.

If this amendment is adopted, I will not support this bill, period.

Having the parents notified is a horrible idea. It could ruin the poor girl's life. Not all parents are loving and forgiving individuals.

I will in no way support this bill as long as Section 4 is in place. As a father, I personally find it repugnant.

I'm surprised that as a father, you would oppose parental notification. What if the pregnancy was not via consensual relations. Yes not all are forgiving and loving but what about the ones that are and would step up to care for that life.

(Pro-Life sane person)

[Hatman 🍁]

With a majority voting against, EarlAW's amendment has been defeated.

Having the parents notified is a horrible idea. It could ruin the poor girl's life. Not all parents are loving and forgiving individuals.

I will in no way support this bill as long as Section 4 is in place. As a father, I personally find it repugnant.

I would be willing to strike that requirement as long as Sections 2 and 3 remain in place.

I will not oppose this bill of those sections remain.

Since he opposed my amendment, I am curious to hear what vivaportugalhabs thinks about this bill.

[VPH]

I support the bill if and only if sections 2 and 3 are in place. Section 4 won't be the reason I vote yes or no. I'm open to at least amending section 4 to cover for the case of an abusive/absent parent, etc.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

In addition, the doctor performing the abortion should be sentenced to jail time. A monetary fine is a sad slap on the wrist.

[VPH]

Amendment to increase the punishment for doctors who perform illegal abortions and prevent issues related to permission and abuse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Representatives have 24 hours to object to Vivaportugalhabs' amendment.
I'm okay with the changes to Section 3, but I have concerns about how the abuse clause in Section 4 would work in practice. If the minor in question has to prove that her parents/guardians are abusive before receiving an abortion, this effectively changes nothing, since a court case of that sort could drag on for months. Furthermore, asking a 13-year-old to report her parents for abuse in order to receive an abortion is a huge emotional strain for the child and would likely cause them to seek an abortion illegally rather than face such an uncomfortable prospect. If the minor does not need to provide evidence of abuse, then Section 4 is entirely pointless, since the minor could easily lie and say their parents are abusive knowing that, under Section 3, they cannot be prosecuted for receiving said abortion.

I appreciate Vivaportugalhabs' attempt to compromise on this issue, but I'd rather see Section 4 removed completely or else kept as is, as I don't see how such an exception would be at all enforceable.

[VPH]

I'm alright with having section 4 as it was, but I definitely want to hear some opinions. Maybe we'll have to remove the amended section.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

With regards to section three: 18 months prison /50,000 fine is too generous. More like 5 years/250,000 fine and permanent revoking of medical license at minimum.

Section four: the current bill unamended should suffice. Why the reason for adding parental/guardian abuse?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'm alright with having section 4 as it was, but I definitely want to hear some opinions. Maybe we'll have to remove the amended section.

Well, EarlAW has stated that he won't vote for this bill unless Section 4 is struck out, and I'm guessing that JCL will be voting against it regardless. I understand the reasoning on both sides of this issue, so my main objective is to craft a bill that is acceptable to the greatest number of people.

[VPH]

I redact my other amendment and provide this one in its place:

Amendment to increase the punishment for doctors who perform illegal abortions and prevent issues related to permission and abuse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Representatives have 24 hours to object to Vivaportugalhabs' amendment.

(I'll be leaving town in the next few hours, so my apologies if a vote isn't called right away.)

[RFayette]

NAY

What you aren't in the Mideast Assembly?

My bad.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'm alright with having section 4 as it was, but I definitely want to hear some opinions. Maybe we'll have to remove the amended section.

Well, EarlAW has stated that he won't vote for this bill unless Section 4 is struck out, and I'm guessing that JCL will be voting against it regardless. I understand the reasoning on both sides of this issue, so my main objective is to craft a bill that is acceptable to the greatest number of people.

And that is laudable Mr Speaker. My fellow Assemblymen and fellow citizens,

My convictions regarding the issue of abortion are clear and well known. I believe we have alternatives that are more beneficial to the life and liberty we all hold dear. The recent controversy (in real life) regarding the ethics of a family planning organization with regards to some of their procedures of aborting babies is causing serious discussions that are causing even the most pro-choice advocates to reconsider.

For those who don't know why I'm pro-life without exceptions, you can look no further than both my faith and my Conservatarian view on the role of government. God is the author of life and the taking of a human life should only be considered in the defense of another or for the sake of the general public peace, freedom and order. While the most vile of criminals and terrorists are afforded the right of defense by legal counsel, the most innocent of us are denied advocacy. Where is the justice in that? In the videos you even hear some of the abortion providers admit to calling the child in the womb life. Has any of you who are pro-choice reconsider your position? We as a regional government should carefully examine our current abortion policies and consider the merits of laws that promote life which is our first Liberty.

[VPH]

AYE on my own amendment, but I've always had a moderate view on abortion.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, Vivaportugalhabs' amendment has been adopted.

[Hifly]

Speaker Truman is so useless and void of any fresh ideas that he is only concerned about reopening an issue that had already been settled in the Mideast long before he even joined the region. And taking away the existing rights of migrants. But then again his namesake was racist so we expect nothing better from such a creature.