Regional Control of Abortion Bill (Withdrawn)

[MasterJedi]

Regional Control of Abortion Bill
 

1. The federal government of Atlasia shall make no law regarding the practice of abortion.
2. The Atlasian regions shall be the sole determinants of the legality of abortion.
3. All existing federal laws regarding abortion are void as of the signing on this bill.
___________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. Yates

[Emsworth]

1. The federal government of Atlasia shall make no law regarding the practice of abortion.

How can any bill attempt to regulate what future Senates will or will not do?

[Gabu]

1. The federal government of Atlasia shall make no law regarding the practice of abortion.

How can any bill attempt to regulate what future Senates will or will not do?

Yes, this should be a Constitutional amendment.

[Keystone Phil]

I vowed to fight against any unnecessary federal intervention while in the Senate but this is one issue that I feel it is imperative for the nation as a whole to set a standard. I will not support this bill.

[afleitch]

This is an important bill that retains the rights of the regions to set its own position regarding abortion free from any future Senate imposed intervention. I applaud and support this bill.

[Democratic Hawk]

1. The federal government of Atlasia shall make no law regarding the practice of abortion.

How can any bill attempt to regulate what future Senates will or will not do?

Yes, this should be a Constitutional amendment.

Should this Bill pass, I imagine that if future Senates want to 'control' abortion, federally, then efforts would be made to repeal this legislation

That said the way Section 1 is worded in stipulating that 'The federal government shall make no law regarding the practice of abortion' does, indeed, refer, explicitly, to the defined powers of the Senate and should, therefore, as it is currently worded be subject to a Constitutional amendment

Nevertheless, I do support the rationale for this Bill in that the permitting and restricting of abortion should be an issue for the regions to determine an argument I made during the recent debate on the Abortion Restrictions in Federal Territories Act, which I supported on the grounds it pertained to federal territories, which are subject to Senate legislation

'Hawk'

[Emsworth]

This is an important bill that retains the rights of the regions to set its own position regarding abortion free from any future Senate imposed intervention. I applaud and support this bill.

The wisdom of any law that attempts to bind future Senates is highly suspect. If libertarians were in control of the Senate, could they pass a bill prohibiting all future Senates from increasing taxes? If liberals were in control of the Senate, could they pass a bill prohibiting all future Senates from cutting spending?

[afleitch]

This is an important bill that retains the rights of the regions to set its own position regarding abortion free from any future Senate imposed intervention. I applaud and support this bill.

The wisdom of any law that attempts to bind future Senates is highly suspect. If libertarians were in control of the Senate, could they pass a bill prohibiting all future Senates from increasing taxes? If liberals were in control of the Senate, could they pass a bill prohibiting all future Senates from cutting spending?

Surely, as a self procalimed libertarian, you should be in favour of a bill that upholds 'local' authority should you not? As Senator Hawk says the Senate if it so wishes could repeal this legislation in the future. No legislation, even if it 'binds' future Senators is exempt from being overturned at a future date. Likewise if it were a constitutional amendment, even that can be over turned if the Senate and the will of the people desire it.

[Peter]

I reject the Bill's premise entirely:

The Bill presupposes that we had the power to regulate abortion in the Regions in the first place - I would strenuously argue that we do not, and further the history of our nation bears this out.

Never has any argument been put forward that the present enumerated powers of the Senate as contained in Article I, Section 8 would extend to allowing the Senate to regulate abortion.

After the Fritz v. Ernest decision in late 04, this body passed a Powers Amendment which gave it powers over various things in order to reauthorise several Laws. I, however, was of the judgement that it did not give us authority to regulate abortion. Thus I publicly stated that in my capacity as Attorney General I would not allow the Department of Justice to enforce the Boss Abortion Act (as noted here). None of my successors overrode my decision, and the Act was ultimately repealed in the Second Miscellany Act. So certainly the history of action on the part of several government officers has been that Laws regulating abortion in the Regions could not be enforced by the federal government, and this body effectively endorsed that interpretation by passing the Second Miscellany Act.

The bill is effectively announcing a doctrine that is already settled as a part of our constitutional Law, and is therefore totally redundant. I do not pass redundant Laws, therefore I rise in opposition to the Bill.

[Ebowed]

Surely, as a self procalimed libertarian, you should be in favour of a bill that upholds 'local' authority should you not? As Senator Hawk says the Senate if it so wishes could repeal this legislation in the future. No legislation, even if it 'binds' future Senators is exempt from being overturned at a future date. Likewise if it were a constitutional amendment, even that can be over turned if the Senate and the will of the people desire it.

If I may interject here, I don't believe that this issue has much to do with libertarianism.  The items outlined in this bill have been established practice in Atlasia for over a year since the Court ruled on Fritz v Ernest.  Barring a Constitutional amendment or an activist Court overturning the decision, the practice will not change simply through a Senate bill.  Needless to say, that makes the bill fully redundant.

Additionally, the Senate cannot decide what it can and cannot do simply through statute; it must be done via Constitutional amendment.  That would make this bill unconstitutional.

[afleitch]

Additionally, the Senate cannot decide what it can and cannot do simply through statute; it must be done via Constitutional amendment.  That would make this bill unconstitutional.

Thats why I outlined that I'm in favour of accepting the principle of the bill, but modified in the form of a constitutional amendment.

[Peter]

Additionally, the Senate cannot decide what it can and cannot do simply through statute; it must be done via Constitutional amendment.  That would make this bill unconstitutional.

Thats why I outlined that I'm in favour of accepting the principle of the bill, but modified in the form of a constitutional amendment.

The principles of this Bill already are in the Constitution. That Constitutional Amendment would be as equally redundant as this Bill.

[afleitch]

Additionally, the Senate cannot decide what it can and cannot do simply through statute; it must be done via Constitutional amendment.  That would make this bill unconstitutional.

Thats why I outlined that I'm in favour of accepting the principle of the bill, but modified in the form of a constitutional amendment.

The principles of this Bill already are in the Constitution. That Constitutional Amendment would be as equally redundant as this Bill.

Ah screw it. I give up

I retract what I said, but I still support the principle if, as you say it already exists.

[Yates]

I hereby withdraw this bill.

In the near future, I shall propose a constitutional amendment regarding a similar principle.