|
Title: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 21, 2016, 04:54:32 PM Quote National Right to Life Act 1. It is hereby illegal to intentionally terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, except if a medical doctor believes that the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 2. Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license to practice a medical profession revoked for a minimum of two years and no more than five. They shall also be assessed with a fine up to $50,0000. 3. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine no larger than $10,000. 4. Any individual under the age of sixteen must notify a parent or guardian in order to have an abortion, except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 5. Any person who wishes to undergo an abortion, whose life is not judged to be in danger, will be subject to a waiting period of 7 days and be presented materials on the adoption process and other options. Should the person request the abortion and it is past 20 weeks after the 7 day waiting period, they may still be permitted terminate the pregnancy. 6. A mother who undergoes an illegal abortion cannot be fined or imprisoned for violating the provisions of this act. 7. The use of public funds may not be permitted to any facility that performs abortions for any reason except if it is a medical necessity. 8. No agency of the federal government shall be permitted to aid, in any way, in the procurement or performance of an abortion except in cases of medical necessity. 10. Any agent of the federal government who is knowingly involved in procuring public funds or public facilities for an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary shall be subject to dismissal and may face a fine up to $25,000. 11. Any organization which is involved in the provision of an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary will be subject to the removal of part or all of its public funds. Sponsor: Rep. ClarkKent (F-CT) Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on July 21, 2016, 05:05:30 PM This act has my full support.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 21, 2016, 05:08:13 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 21, 2016, 05:31:27 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Santander on July 21, 2016, 05:37:27 PM 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. 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Santander on July 21, 2016, 05:53:12 PM 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 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 24, 2016, 01:56:02 PM Quote National Right to Life Act 1. It is hereby illegal to intentionally terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, except if a medical doctor believes that the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 2. Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license to practice a medical profession revoked for a minimum of two years and no more than five. They shall also be assessed with a fine up to $50,0000. 3. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine no larger than $10,000. 4. Any individual under the age of sixteen must notify a parent or guardian in order to have an abortion, except in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 5. Any person who wishes to undergo an abortion, whose life is not judged to be in danger, will be subject to a waiting period of 7 days and be presented materials on the adoption process and other options. Should the person request the abortion and it is past 20 weeks after the 7 day waiting period, they may still be permitted terminate the pregnancy. 6. A mother who undergoes an illegal abortion cannot be fined or imprisoned for violating the provisions of this act. 7. The use of public funds may not be permitted to any facility that performs abortions for any reason except if it is a medical necessity. 8. No agency of the federal government shall be permitted to aid, in any way, in the procurement or performance of an abortion except in cases of medical necessity. 10. Any agent of the federal government who is knowingly involved in procuring public funds or public facilities for an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary shall be subject to dismissal and may face a fine up to $25,000. 11. Any organization which is involved in the provision of an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary will be subject to the removal of part or all of its public funds. 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? Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on July 24, 2016, 02:03:11 PM amendment
Quote National Right to Life Act 1. It is hereby illegal to intentionally terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, except if a medical doctor believes that the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 2. Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license to practice a medical profession revoked for a minimum of two years and no more than five. They shall also be assessed with a fine up to $50,0000. 3. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine no larger than $10,000. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on July 24, 2016, 02:04:05 PM I object
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 24, 2016, 02:17:38 PM 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.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 24, 2016, 03:22:03 PM 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.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on July 24, 2016, 03:23:56 PM NAY
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 24, 2016, 03:26:40 PM NAY
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on July 24, 2016, 04:38:30 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Former Senator Haslam2020 on July 24, 2016, 08:56:11 PM Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on July 25, 2016, 03:08:23 AM 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? Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Blair on July 25, 2016, 09:44:15 AM 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 Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Santander on July 25, 2016, 02:26:56 PM 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 Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Blair on July 25, 2016, 02:51:15 PM 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 Apologies I misread the bill Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on July 25, 2016, 06:02:36 PM Nay on the amendment and consider me a cosponsor on this bill.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: NeverAgain on July 25, 2016, 07:16:01 PM Aye on the Amendment.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: / on July 25, 2016, 07:52:40 PM omfg
(Aye) Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 27, 2016, 03:45:13 PM 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.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 27, 2016, 03:51:00 PM The amendment has failed with four nays (Rep. shua's vote was a few minutes past the 72-hour cutoff) and three ayes.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 27, 2016, 04:25:30 PM amendment:
Quote National Right to Life Act 1. It is hereby illegal to intentionally terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, except if a medical doctor believes that the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 2. Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license to practice a medical profession revoked for a minimum of two years and no more than five. They shall also be assessed with a fine up to $50,0000. 3. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine no larger than $10,000. 4. 5. Any person who wishes to undergo an abortion, whose life is not judged to be in danger, will be subject to a waiting period of 7 days and be presented materials on the adoption process and other options. Should the person request the abortion and it is past 20 weeks after the 7 day waiting period, they may still be permitted terminate the pregnancy. 6. A mother who undergoes an illegal abortion cannot be fined or imprisoned for violating the provisions of this act. 7. The use of public funds may not be permitted to any facility that performs abortions for any reason except if it is a medical necessity. 8. No agency of the federal government shall be permitted to aid, in any way, in the procurement or performance of an abortion except in cases of medical necessity. 10. Any agent of the federal government who is knowingly involved in procuring public funds or public facilities for an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary shall be subject to dismissal and may face a fine up to $25,000. 11. Any organization which is involved in the provision of an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary will be subject to the removal of part or all of its public funds. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on July 27, 2016, 05:07:35 PM i like this, with two small clarifications:
amendment: Quote National Right to Life Act 1. It is hereby illegal to intentionally terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, except if a medical doctor believes that the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 2. Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license to practice a medical profession revoked for a minimum of two years and no more than five. They shall also be assessed with a fine up to $50,0000. 3. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine no larger than $10,000. 4. 5. Any person who wishes to undergo an abortion, whose life is not judged to be in danger, will be subject to a waiting period of 7 days and be presented materials on the adoption process and other options. Should the person request the abortion and it is past 20 weeks after the 7 day waiting period, they may still be permitted terminate the pregnancy. 6. A mother who undergoes an illegal abortion cannot be fined or imprisoned for violating the provisions of this act. 7. The use of public funds may not be permitted to any facility that performs abortions for any reason except if it is a medical necessity. 8. No agency of the federal government shall be permitted to aid, in any way, in the procurement or performance of an abortion except in cases of medical necessity. 10. Any agent of the federal government who is knowingly involved in procuring public funds or public facilities for an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary shall be subject to dismissal and may face a fine up to $25,000. 11. Any organization which is involved in the provision of an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary will be subject to the removal of part or all of its public funds. (not entirely sure on the wording. hope the intent is clear.) Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 28, 2016, 01:16:25 AM "with approval of the minor" - do you mean that the guardian ad litem is someone approved by the minor, or that it is optional altogether? My intent is that there is in all cases a guardian involved, that part I don't support being optional.
"The relevant court must take adequate measures to insure the minor knows of this option." - It would be the responsibility of the abortion provider to provide all information regarding regulations and options. But perhaps that needs to be specified. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on July 28, 2016, 03:13:48 AM "with approval of the minor" - do you mean that the guardian ad litem is someone approved by the minor, or that it is optional altogether? My intent is that there is in all cases a guardian involved, that part I don't support being optional.… Quote "The relevant court must take adequate measures to insure the minor knows of this option." - It would be the responsibility of the abortion provider to provide all information regarding regulations and options. But perhaps that needs to be specified. that's good tooTitle: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on July 28, 2016, 08:45:34 AM I support Shua's admendment but object to Evergreens
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 28, 2016, 10:10:44 AM I support Shua's admendment but object to Evergreens which part do you object to? Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 29, 2016, 01:19:21 PM I'll go ahead and enter the amendment as I originally worded it. We can continue discussing these issues and make further amendments.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 30, 2016, 09:40:40 PM As over 36 hours have passed, Rep. Shua's amendment has been adopted.
Since there was an objection to Rep. Evergreen's amendment, we will have a 72-hour vote on it. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on July 30, 2016, 09:41:17 PM Nay
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 30, 2016, 09:43:14 PM AYE
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: SUSAN CRUSHBONE on July 30, 2016, 11:36:35 PM aye
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: NeverAgain on July 30, 2016, 11:37:10 PM Aye.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Former Senator Haslam2020 on July 31, 2016, 12:27:11 AM Aye.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: / on July 31, 2016, 05:37:10 AM Aye
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on July 31, 2016, 11:22:27 AM Nay
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on July 31, 2016, 11:35:13 AM This amendment has enough votes to pass. Representatives have 24 hours to change their vote.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on July 31, 2016, 03:24:52 PM Nay
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on August 03, 2016, 02:24:34 PM The amendment has been adopted.
I will extend the period of debate for an additional 24 hours before moving to a final vote barring any objections. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 03, 2016, 11:50:10 PM amendment
Quote National Right to Life Act 1. It is hereby illegal to intentionally terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, except if a medical doctor believes that the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 2. Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license to practice a medical profession revoked for a minimum of two years and no more than five. They shall also be assessed with a fine up to $50,0000. 3. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine no larger than $10,000. 4. A parent or guardian must be notified at least 24 hours prior to an abortion for any pregnant individual under the age of majority except when precluded by medical emergency. In cases where the minor fears harm or abuse resulting from such disclosure of the pregnancy and/or intent to abort, a guardian ad litem may be appointed with approval of the minor to serve in this role instead, and will make every effort to regularly follow up to monitor the minor's psychological and physiological well-being until the age of majority. 5. Any person who wishes to undergo an abortion, whose life is not judged to be in danger, will be subject to a waiting period of 6. A mother who undergoes an illegal abortion cannot be fined or imprisoned for violating the provisions of this act. 7. The use of public funds may not be permitted to any facility that performs abortions for any reason except if it is a medical necessity. 8. No agency of the federal government shall be permitted to aid, in any way, in the procurement or performance of an abortion except in cases of medical necessity. 9 10 Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 04, 2016, 12:56:56 AM amendment Quote National Right to Life Act 1. It is hereby illegal to intentionally terminate a pregnancy beyond the 20th week of pregnancy, except if a medical doctor believes that the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of threat to the mother's health or a pregnancy caused by rape/incest. 2. Any individual who induces a prohibited abortion shall have any existing license to practice a medical profession revoked for a minimum of two years and no more than five. They shall also be assessed with a fine up to $50,0000. 3. Any person knowingly facilitating the inducement of a prohibited abortion shall be subject to a criminal fine no larger than $10,000. 4. A parent or guardian must be notified at least 24 hours prior to an abortion for any pregnant individual under the age of majority except when precluded by medical emergency. In cases where the minor fears harm or abuse resulting from such disclosure of the pregnancy and/or intent to abort, a guardian ad litem may be appointed with approval of the minor to serve in this role instead, and will make every effort to regularly follow up to monitor the minor's psychological and physiological well-being until the age of majority. 5. Any person who wishes to undergo an abortion, whose life is not judged to be in danger, will be subject to a waiting period of 6. A mother who undergoes an illegal abortion cannot be fined or imprisoned for violating the provisions of this act. 7. The use of public funds may not be permitted to any facility that performs abortions for any reason except if it is a medical necessity. 8. No agency of the federal government shall be permitted to aid, in any way, in the procurement or performance of an abortion except in cases of medical necessity. 10. Any agent of the federal government who is knowingly involved in procuring public funds or public facilities for an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary shall be subject to dismissal and may face a fine up to $25,000. 11. Any organization which is involved in the provision of an abortion which is not determined to be medically necessary will be subject to the removal of part or all of its public funds. Why should we reduce the time allotted in section 5 from 7 days to 36 hours and what is the purpose of changing the final sentence? Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Blair on August 04, 2016, 04:54:09 AM What is the purpose of a 7 day waiting period?
For such a radical bill- that will be imposing a massive federal restriction I've yet to see a line by line argument in favour of the bill. Don't people understand the scale of this bill? Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 04, 2016, 05:14:51 AM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on August 04, 2016, 11:28:55 AM I don't support lowering the time from 7 days to 36 hours.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 04, 2016, 11:55:20 AM 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. I don't support lowering the time from 7 days to 36 hours. What is gained from 7 days as opposed to 36 hours? Does it make the abortion less likely? Or merely postpone it? And while we discuss this, can we get the changes to clause 4 made without objections? Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 04, 2016, 12:38:53 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: NOT gonna be banned soon on August 04, 2016, 03:08:21 PM aye
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 04, 2016, 08:06:44 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 04, 2016, 09:38:25 PM 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? Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 04, 2016, 09:47:01 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 04, 2016, 10:02:43 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 04, 2016, 10:40:55 PM 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. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 04, 2016, 11:08:47 PM okay, fair point on the specificity of it. I have added to my amendment in order to address this.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Leinad on August 05, 2016, 04:44:41 PM 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? :P Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 08, 2016, 01:12:57 PM let's go ahead and have a vote on that amendment I offered.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on August 08, 2016, 08:13:47 PM let's go ahead and have a vote on that amendment I offered. Opening a 72-hour vote on Rep. Shua's amendment. Representatives may vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on August 08, 2016, 08:14:16 PM AYE
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 08, 2016, 08:38:42 PM Aye on Shua's amendment
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 09, 2016, 12:16:53 AM Aye
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on August 09, 2016, 09:59:19 AM Aye
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on August 16, 2016, 10:20:59 PM I apologize for being late, but Rep. Shua's amendment has been added to the bill.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on August 16, 2016, 10:21:20 PM Motion for Final Vote
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 18, 2016, 09:25:59 PM Second motion for final vote.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on August 18, 2016, 09:38:40 PM Yeah, we'll move to a final vote. Representatives have 72 hours to vote.
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on August 18, 2016, 09:46:35 PM AYE
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Classic Conservative on August 18, 2016, 09:48:01 PM Aye
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: NeverAgain on August 19, 2016, 12:30:41 AM With amendments, it has been made better, but my heart has to go with the right of choice.
Nay. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on August 19, 2016, 12:32:10 AM Aye
Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: President of the great nation of 🏳️⚧️ on August 19, 2016, 11:11:58 AM With amendments, it has been made better, but my heart has to go with the right of choice. Nay. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: MyRescueKittehRocks on August 19, 2016, 07:04:15 PM Aye,
The right to life is our most fundamental right because it is the first right given by our Creator. Title: Re: 1013 - National Right to Life Act Post by: Clark Kent on August 21, 2016, 09:46:31 PM This bill has passed 4-2 with Representatives Haslam2020, darthebearnc, and evergreen not voting.
|