Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2017, 07:01:23 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  1013 - National Right to Life Act
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Print
Author Topic: 1013 - National Right to Life Act  (Read 1923 times)
#IAintAfraidOfNoGoats
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6550
United States


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2016, 08:06:44 pm »
Ignore

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

Why I support a 7 day waiting period is for the counseling. Putting more information in the hands of our citizens may lead to wiser decisions regardless if they choose to abort or choose life. I also think the perspective father should be able to step in to preserve the life of the child if they really want to be a father. It's wrong that the mother gets a monopoly on such a life and death decision. The man's contribution to the creation of the baby in the womb in this choice is wrongly disregarded.
Logged

President
Ted Cruz

House/Senate Races
Marlin Stutzman (Indiana GOP Senate Primary)
Jim Banks (GOP/IN-3)
Trey Hollingsworth (GOP/IN-9)
Tom Massie (GOP/KY-4)
David Brat (GOP/VA-7)
Tim Tebow (GOP/FL-4) (if he chooses to run)
Dan Bongino (GOP/FL-19)
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16436
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 04, 2016, 09:38:25 pm »
Ignore

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 
Logged
Senator Scott, PPT
Ascott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5948
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.40

View Profile
« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2016, 09:47:01 pm »
Ignore

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16436
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2016, 10:02:43 pm »
Ignore

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.

Ok then, lets close down all government social services, since the government is so awful at this that even them merely requiring that information about the adoption process or anything else be available at abortion clinics leads to unspecified awful thing.
Logged
Senator Scott, PPT
Ascott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5948
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.40

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: August 04, 2016, 10:40:55 pm »
Ignore

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.

Ok then, lets close down all government social services, since the government is so awful at this that even them merely requiring that information about the adoption process or anything else be available at abortion clinics leads to unspecified awful thing.

First of all, this bill doesn't even specify where the information comes from or what kind of information is contained in the materials.  There is no criteria or rule that would otherwise ensure women are not being misled about the health and safety risks of abortion aside from adoption processes.  All it does, effectively, is impose an arbitrary waiting period with no real enforcement mechanism.  If you guys just want to add more barriers for women seeking an abortion, just be honest and say so rather than hide behind this bizarre, supercilious notion that women or doctors don't know what they're doing.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 10:42:36 pm by a.scott »Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16436
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2016, 11:08:47 pm »
Ignore

okay, fair point on the specificity of it.   I have added to my amendment in order to address this.
Logged
Governor Leinad
Leinad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3858
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -5.74


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2016, 04:44:41 pm »
Ignore

I agree with Shua's reasoning on the waiting period:

I'm not sure I support so long a waiting period given every day the fetus becomes more developed, with potentially more awareness. I question if it is worth it if we are only delaying the abortion.

And I don't have a problem with providing materials to read, given that it is 1) not technically required (I mean, we can't force people to read things) and 2) it's a more important decision than probably any other "medical procedure." That being said, I'm certainly glad that Shua is specifying where the reading materials are coming from.

Also, since no one apparently takes proofreading as seriously as I do, I must point out that we go straight from section 8 to section 10. What happened, has 7 ate 9? Tongue
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16436
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 08, 2016, 01:12:57 pm »
Ignore

let's go ahead and have a vote on that amendment I offered.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: August 08, 2016, 08:13:47 pm »
Ignore

let's go ahead and have a vote on that amendment I offered.
Alright.

Opening a 72-hour vote on Rep. Shua's amendment. Representatives may vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.
Logged

Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: August 08, 2016, 08:14:16 pm »
Ignore

AYE
Logged

#IAintAfraidOfNoGoats
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6550
United States


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: August 08, 2016, 08:38:42 pm »
Ignore

Aye on Shua's amendment
Logged

President
Ted Cruz

House/Senate Races
Marlin Stutzman (Indiana GOP Senate Primary)
Jim Banks (GOP/IN-3)
Trey Hollingsworth (GOP/IN-9)
Tom Massie (GOP/KY-4)
David Brat (GOP/VA-7)
Tim Tebow (GOP/FL-4) (if he chooses to run)
Dan Bongino (GOP/FL-19)
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16436
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 09, 2016, 12:16:53 am »
Ignore

Aye
Logged
Benedicamus Domino
Classic Conservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5365
United States


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: August 09, 2016, 09:59:19 am »
Ignore

Aye
Logged

"Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention, to begin by bowing their head in prayer. I remind you, we’re going to start saying Merry Christmas again.” Donald John Trump
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: August 16, 2016, 10:20:59 pm »
Ignore

I apologize for being late, but Rep. Shua's amendment has been added to the bill.
Logged

Benedicamus Domino
Classic Conservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5365
United States


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: August 16, 2016, 10:21:20 pm »
Ignore

Motion for Final Vote
Logged

"Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention, to begin by bowing their head in prayer. I remind you, we’re going to start saying Merry Christmas again.” Donald John Trump
#IAintAfraidOfNoGoats
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6550
United States


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: August 18, 2016, 09:25:59 pm »
Ignore

Second motion for final vote.
Logged

President
Ted Cruz

House/Senate Races
Marlin Stutzman (Indiana GOP Senate Primary)
Jim Banks (GOP/IN-3)
Trey Hollingsworth (GOP/IN-9)
Tom Massie (GOP/KY-4)
David Brat (GOP/VA-7)
Tim Tebow (GOP/FL-4) (if he chooses to run)
Dan Bongino (GOP/FL-19)
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: August 18, 2016, 09:38:40 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, we'll move to a final vote. Representatives have 72 hours to vote.
Logged

Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: August 18, 2016, 09:46:35 pm »
Ignore

AYE
Logged

Benedicamus Domino
Classic Conservative
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5365
United States


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: August 18, 2016, 09:48:01 pm »
Ignore

Aye
Logged

"Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention, to begin by bowing their head in prayer. I remind you, we’re going to start saying Merry Christmas again.” Donald John Trump
NSDAP-Member NeverAgain
NeverAgain
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5433
United States


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: August 19, 2016, 12:30:41 am »
Ignore

With amendments, it has been made better, but my heart has to go with the right of choice.

Nay.
Logged
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16436
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 19, 2016, 12:32:10 am »
Ignore

Aye
Logged
Peebs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6554
United States


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: August 19, 2016, 11:11:58 am »
Ignore

With amendments, it has been made better, but my heart has to go with the right of choice.

Nay.
Logged


#IAintAfraidOfNoGoats
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6550
United States


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: August 19, 2016, 07:04:15 pm »
Ignore

Aye,

The right to life is our most fundamental right because it is the first right given by our Creator.
Logged

President
Ted Cruz

House/Senate Races
Marlin Stutzman (Indiana GOP Senate Primary)
Jim Banks (GOP/IN-3)
Trey Hollingsworth (GOP/IN-9)
Tom Massie (GOP/KY-4)
David Brat (GOP/VA-7)
Tim Tebow (GOP/FL-4) (if he chooses to run)
Dan Bongino (GOP/FL-19)
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3519
United States


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: August 21, 2016, 09:46:31 pm »
Ignore

This bill has passed 4-2 with Representatives Haslam2020, darthebearnc, and evergreen not voting.
Logged

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


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines