1013 - National Right to Life Act

[Clark Kent]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. ClarkKent (F-CT)

[Classic Conservative]

This act has my full support.

[Clark Kent]

I intended to write my own pro-life bill, but Senator Tmth had a much more thorough bill already proposed in the Senate, so I decided to simply sponsor it in the House.

The reasoning behind this bill should be fairly straightforward. Whether or not you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice is irrelevant. Many doctors and scientists agree that 20 weeks is when pre-born children reach viability. Abortions performed after this point are quite clearly murder.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Due to the fact that abortions typically occur much earlier than 20 weeks, and because I assume most members here are firm in their convictions either way on this very sensitive issue, I will leave my personal objections aside with one exception.  I urge this body to strike section 5 of this bill.  Women are very aware of the alternatives that exist in making important decisions like whether to end a pregnancy, and a waiting period is unnecessary.

I would also strongly advise an amendment guaranteeing continued funding for women's health organizations, including Planned Parenthood.  Current law already prohibits the federal funding of abortions, which patients and private organizations (including some insurance policies) pay for in full.  Current language of this bill is also vague on whether regions may opt to fund women's health organizations if they so desire.

I make no secret that I'm personally against this bill.  But seeing as I'm not a member, I can only hope that my advice leads some in this chamber to reconsider their objectives and keep the law on the side of women's health.

[Santander]

1. Why are there exemptions for rape and incest? As pro-choice as I am, it just seems really hypocritical that some mothers get to abort their babies but others don't. If a fetus matters just as much as a regular person, then why would rape or incest be an excuse for murdering them?

2. Why shouldn't the mother be punished if she chooses to get an abortion? If your logic is that people responsible for abortions should be punished, then mothers seem just as culpable - if not more so - than the doctors themselves. Sure, I suppose that some of the mothers go through emotional trauma due to unwanted pregnancies that impair their judgement, but if you keep insisting that abortion beyond twenty weeks is murder, then I don't really understand why emotional trauma on the part of the person facilitating the murder (the mother) is excused.

The right to self-defense exists is well-established legal doctrine that applies to every other crime. This is an ancient tradition that dates back to the Talmud and beyond. Rape and incest are heinous, criminal acts, and women have a right to defend themselves from the physical and emotional damage associated with rape or incest. Some women may choose to waive this right out of their personal moral convictions, but we shouldn't take away this right to self-defense.

Women who have abortions will generally only have one, maybe two abortions in their lifetime. It's already an unpleasant, emotionally draining experience, and criminal penalties will not stop women from seeking abortions. Abortionists make their living performing abortions, so it is much more practical to enforce the law and issue punishment on their end instead of the mothers' end.

[Santander]

You don't defend yourself by killing someone who wasn't involved in the crime.

Unless the fetus was the one who raped you.

And is murder generally considered acceptable if it's an "unpleasant, emotionally draining experience"?

The right to self-defense is established even in cases where the "attacker" is not morally culpable. I respect the opinions of those who believe that there should be no exceptions, even in the case of rape or incest, but I personally believe that the legal doctrine of self-defense applies to abortion caused by rape or incest.

The problem with punishing mothers is a practical issue, not a moral issue. Laws exist to defend individual rights and protect society, not to cast moral judgment upon offenders. Moral judgment is between the individual and their creator, and not a matter for government to be involved in. That is not to say morality doesn't matter, but practical concerns must prevail. It is impractical to pursue criminal charges against women for seeking abortions; it is practical to pursue criminal charges against murderers.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. ClarkKent (F-CT)

some suggestions:
1.  remove rape/incest exception for this late in the pregnancy.  add cases of diagnosis of terminal illness for the fetus/child.  clarify the standard of what is meant by "mother's health"

5. language needs to be cleaned up here at the very least. also 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.

thoughts?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Classic Conservative]

I object

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I meant to make a suggestion on that point as well:  it should be clarified that notification is not required if there is reason to believe the child is a victim of abuse or could suffer abuse as a result of notification.   still I wonder about the rationale for a general rape exception here, where there is not suspected abuse from the parent/guardian.  if a parent is necessary in other cases, to provide for the well-being of their child during this process, I don't know why it wouldn't be here as well.

[Clark Kent]

I also object to Representative Evergreen's amendment. We will now have a 72-hour vote on it. Representatives may vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

[Classic Conservative]

NAY

[Clark Kent]

NAY

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

aye

if anything, under-sixteen-year-olds are the ones who have the most to fear from forced parental intervention. the bill as written is inhuman.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

NAY

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

NAY

NAY

NAY

y'alls're aware that the primary effect of this section would be a spike in homelessness and abuse among fifteen-year-old girls, right?

[Blair]

For what it's worth it's a sloppy amendment that is being removed...

A.) Is there a legal/medical reason for parental notification?
B.) What does it mean by notify? Is the parents consent needed, or do they simply need to be informed?

As the law currently stands, you're going to be prosecuting a 15 year old girl for having abortions because she simply didn't inform her parents

[Santander]

As the law currently stands, you're going to be prosecuting a 15 year old girl for having abortions because she simply didn't inform her parents

I don't see anything in the law that provides for punishment of women seeking abortions.

[Blair]

As the law currently stands, you're going to be prosecuting a 15 year old girl for having abortions because she simply didn't inform her parents

I don't see anything in the law that provides for punishment of women seeking abortions.

Apologies I misread the bill

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nay on the amendment and consider me a cosponsor on this bill.

[NeverAgain]

Aye on the Amendment.

[/]

omfg

(Aye)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay, though I would like to see this section of the bill improved.  As parents have responsibility for providing for the health and psychological well-being of their children, it makes sense that they would need to know that their child is having an abortion, unless there are particular circumstances where this would be bad for the child.

[Clark Kent]

The amendment has failed with four nays (Rep. shua's vote was a few minutes past the 72-hour cutoff) and three ayes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.