Constitutional Amendment (The Right To Life Amendment)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As introduced by Senators PBrunsel and Ebowed...

The Right to Life Amendment
The following shall be added to Article VI of the Constitution as Clause 16:

16. No Atlasian person may be deprived of their right to life under the uses of abortion, euthanasia, or capital punishment.

A. The practices of abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment will be completely outlawed by the Government of Atlasia.

B. The definitions of the terms in Clause B are as follows:
Abortion:  The termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Euthanasia:  The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment, also referred to in this law as "assisted suicide."
Capital Punishment:  The penalty of death for the commission of a crime.

C.  Any person who violates this law by administering an abortion or an assisted suicide shall be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison; if the law is violated a second time they shall be sentenced to life inprisonment without the possibility of parole.

D.  Any regional government that continues to execute convicted criminals following the ratification of this law shall have all federal funding for roads and highways rebuked.

E.  All criminals currently sentenced to death in Atlasia are commuted to life inprisonment without the possibility of parole following the ratification of this amendment.

F.  This law will be administered by the Office of the Attorney General.

G.  This law will take effect upon its ratification by the regions.

I hereby open debate on this proposed Amendment. And do play nice...

[DanielX]

I'm not sure if I'd support this anyway (it's federal infringment on states issues), but I propose the following amendment:

The Right to Life Amendment
The following shall be added to Article VI of the Constitution as Clause 16:

16. No Atlasian person may be deprived of their right to life under the uses of abortion or euthanasia.

A. The practices of abortion and euthanasia will be completely outlawed by the Government of Atlasia.

B. The definitions of the terms in Clause B are as follows:
Abortion:  The termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival, except when the life of the mother in question is in danger.
Euthanasia:  The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment, also referred to in this law as "assisted suicide."

C.  Any person who violates this law by administering an abortion or an assisted suicide shall be sentenced to twenty-five years in prison; if the law is violated a second time they shall be sentenced to life inprisonment without the possibility of parole.

D.  This law will be administered by the Office of the Attorney General.

E.  This law will take effect upon its ratification by the regions.

[afleitch]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

[Emsworth]

I strongly urge the Senate to reject this amendment.

Firstly, this amendment is contrary to the principles of federalism. There is a reason for which we have both federal and regional governments, rather than a unitary national government. Regions are not mere subsidiaries of the federal government: the Constitution should not dictate regional policy. There is simply no need to federalize these issues.

Secondly, this amendment violates the principles underlying our Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to provide for the framework and limitations of government. It is not meant to be a legal code regulating private behavior. It is unprecedented for a constitutional amendment to establish specific punishments: normally, penalties are established by statute.

Thirdly, the amendment (Clause D in particular) is too rigid. "Any person" who performs an abortion or assists someone in committing suicide will be sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment--no less, no more. But will a young teenage girl who has just been raped, and who obtains an abortion, be sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment? Will a mentally retarded person who assists someone in committing suicide be sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment? Clause D is so harsh and inflexible that it warrants the rejection of the whole amendment.

Fourthly, and most importantly, this amendment is a violation of personal liberty. Why should someone not be allowed to terminate his own life? Someone in extreme pain might not want to live any longer: who are we to instruct him that he may not be euthanized?

I respectfully suggest that this amendment should be rejected in its entirety.

[CheeseWhiz]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

All bills are the will of whomever proposed them

Still, I think this should be rejected on the basis of not letting the Federal Government grow too large.  I have, however, proposed the same ban on the regional level, and hope others will do the same.

[MAS117]

Point of order. Mr. President, for now on can we make it a rule that when one offers an amendment he can put the added text in bold or something? I think that would make it easier.

I obviously oppose this bill to the fullest.

[Jake]

I motion to remove MAS from the Senate chambers for using fake procedure.

[MAS117]

I motion to remove MAS from the Senate chambers for using fake procedure.

See Legislation Introduction Thread.

[Jake]

I motion to remove MAS from the Senate chambers for using fake procedure.

See Legislation Introduction Thread.

Your introducing a resolution does not make it instantly take affect.

[MasterJedi]

I motion to remove MAS from the Senate chambers for using fake procedure.

See Legislation Introduction Thread.

Your introducing a resolution does not make it instantly take affect.

It's also horrible and there's no need for it.

[Jake]

I fully agree Masterjedi.

[MAS117]

I motion to remove MAS from the Senate chambers for using fake procedure.

See Legislation Introduction Thread.

Your introducing a resolution does not make it instantly take affect.

I realize that, its just a reference, I deleted my previous comment.

[Bono]

I motion to remove MAS from the Senate chambers for using fake procedure.

Table motions have been used in the past.

[Ebowed]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

Just because you're not opposed to abortion doesn't mean that the entire country agrees with you!  It's quite possible that a majority of the country agrees, but to act as if we are just imposing our will on everyone is absurd.  Now, let's pretend that you actually have a logical approach to the abortion issue.  What if it were the will of everyone except afleitch to have abortions illegal?  Would that suddenly make it fine and dandy for the Senate to ban abortions?  That's what it looks like, if I'm reading your post right.

That said, Brandon H brought up a good point about this amendment looking more like a statute than a constitutional amendment.  I may craft some revisions.  I oppose DanielX's amendment, for the record.

Secondly, this amendment violates the principles underlying our Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to provide for the framework and limitations of government. It is not meant to be a legal code regulating private behavior. It is unprecedented for a constitutional amendment to establish specific punishments: normally, penalties are established by statute.

As stated above, I hope to fix this via amendment.

[Brandon H]

For anyone who has not seen my comments on the thread entitled Right to Life Amendment Poll:

There are a few things that I disagree with in this Amendment, but I would probably vote to support it as I agree with the intended result.

Not only is this federal law, but this is a federal constitutional amendment. The purpose of the Constitution should be to grant (or deny) rights and powers to Atlasian's citizens and branches of government.

At this point I realize rewriting this is probably out of the question. But in my opinion, a better text would be something along the lines of saying "No person shall be deprived of life from conception until natural death." While abortion should definitely be a crime and euthanasia probably should be a crime, (I say probably because I can see how doing so could be a violation personal liberty unlike abortion.) criminalizing and penalizing an action should be statute and not an Amendment.

Since the Death Penalty is something carried out by the government and not citizens, a Constitutional Amendment would be appropriate to grant all citizens the right not to be executed by the government (which I believe my wording above would include) or to take the rights away from the regions to executive criminals. However, once again, the penalty if the regions were to executive someone should be statute and not part of the Amendment.

This is similar to the discussion related to the secret ballot amendment that once the amendment passes, statute is still needed for the amendment to have any actual affect.

[PBrunsel]

I want to protect innocent lives, that is why I introduced this amendment. If you have any objection to protecting inncoent lives simply inform me.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

It is my will to see this amendment passed. There are certainly some qualms I have about this amendment (I am now in favor of the death penalty), but in any situation it is always best to err on the side of life rather than death.

As for the federalism objection, I certainly agree that federalism should be preserved to the farthest extent possible. However, I refuse to believe that federalism is so sacred as to trump life.

[Ebowed]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

It is my will to see this amendment passed. There are certainly some qualms I have about this amendment (I am now in favor of the death penalty), but in any situation it is always best to err on the side of life rather than death.

As for the federalism objection, I certainly agree that federalism should be preserved to the farthest extent possible. However, I refuse to believe that federalism is so sacred as to trump life.

I wouldn't really worry too much about what afleitch said - clearly he thinks that opinions are only with merit if the majority holds them.

[The Dowager Mod]

This would be more palatable to me if it was split into 3 different bills.

[afleitch]

I urged the Senate to fight against this amendement as it is the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel alone, not the will of Atlasian citizens.

It is my will to see this amendment passed. There are certainly some qualms I have about this amendment (I am now in favor of the death penalty), but in any situation it is always best to err on the side of life rather than death.

As for the federalism objection, I certainly agree that federalism should be preserved to the farthest extent possible. However, I refuse to believe that federalism is so sacred as to trump life.

I wouldn't really worry too much about what afleitch said - clearly he thinks that opinions are only with merit if the majority holds them.

Not at all. I am just very pro-choice and my convictions are just as strong as the oppositions. There should not be one inclusive bill. I agree with TexasGurl there should be three (for example I support abolishing the death penality)

[Ebowed]

Your statement that this amendment is only "the will of Ebowed and PBrunsel" and "not the will of the Atlasian people" implies that you would not have a problem with this amendment if the majority of Atlasians supported illegalizing abortion.

That said, I'm not opposed in breaking the amendment up into three parts, especially as it may give each of the causes more likelihood of passing.

[PBrunsel]

This would be more palatable to me if it was split into 3 different bills.

O.K. i'll do that. Then they'll get hacked up and amended so much they do not do anything except give harsh words, then it'll fail because of some argument about federalism.

[CheeseWhiz]

afleitch, if it were not the will of the people, it won't survive the ratification process.

[Ebowed]

Firstly, this amendment is contrary to the principles of federalism. There is a reason for which we have both federal and regional governments, rather than a unitary national government. Regions are not mere subsidiaries of the federal government: the Constitution should not dictate regional policy. There is simply no need to federalize these issues.

Yes, there is.  The Constitution is there to protect the basic rights of the people and dictate how the federal government will function, is it not?  If this document is intended to protect basic rights, then certainly one of these basic rights is the right to life.  Our view is that abortion violates this right; as such, a constitutional amendment is entirely appropriate.

[afleitch]

It is a pointless piece of legislation. You can actively oppose any of these things without banning them. Such an amendment would only serve to silence the pro-choice voice.