The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill

[Peter]

I counted a total of 13 typos/spelling errors in this bill. Whilst I undoubtedly look like a pedant for doing this, could people please read over legislation and/or run it through a spell checker before they propose it, since, if it passes it does actually have to become law and sit on the Statute thread for all time.

I am also compelled to ask why the bill doesn't extend to those mothers who live with female partners. Whilst its not terribly common, it does nonetheless happen.

I'n not sure how Section 3 clause e is supposed to work and seems to me to be a bizarre legislative requirement. I don't pretend to know much about how US healthcare works so please humour me if I screw up.

I was under the impression that a good number of OBGYNs and abortion clinics are privately run; Legislatively requiring them to have a pamphlet with the threat of fines seems to be a bit over the top. I am probably correct in thinking that they receive federal funding for their work; The general way to compulse private organisations to carry the pamphlet is to say they have to carry it qualify for federal funding.

The government fining social security offices? Doesn't the government already own the social security offices? I wonder what happens when the government fines the government.

Section 3 clause c: Is there anyway for her to get the child back longer term? Also what the hell is "violating the spirit of the program", because whilst I know what you are trying to get at, thats not the way the law works.

Beyond the above hair-splitting points, I have little to no ideological objection to the bill.

[Peter]

Federal funds no longer go to abortion in the US, so we cna't threaten to withdraw funding to get people to comply.

Peter, to answer your second question, no, not all social service offices in the United States are government owned. In fact, though I don't know the exact number, I would say about half of these services are not government owned at all.

Remember, that section is only for the pamphlets.

What possible right does the government have to tell businesses what pamphlets they should be putting out on display, especially if they aren't run off government money?

To me, this looks like one person trying to force his ideological views onto business practices, as opposed to what the spirit of the bill seems to be, which is to give people an alternative to an abortion.

[Peter]

They need to be licensed by the government.  A doctor probably needs to botch 15 abortions before he loses his license, because no one will talk, but we cannot make them pass out pamphlets about a government program, when we are paying for those programs?

How are poor women to learn of this option if they are not provided the information?

If you are paying for the abortion clinic (or other place), then yes, you are free to put requirements on the clinic in terms of what it must do to qualify for federal funding.

You don't have the right to say if you don't conduct your business (when you aren't funding them) in this particular way (where your dictation has nothing to do with health & safety requirements or other protection issues) then we are going to fine you simply because you're not conforming to an ideological specification.

I would expect most doctors with ethics to provide information of these services when discussing the question of abortion with a patient. Obviously this doesn't apply to all doctors since some aren't totally ethical, but on balance, with a requirement on all federal money spent in the area, there would be few who would fail to find out directly from services, and those who it missed would probably find out by other means anyway.

[Peter]

What's the difference between imposing pro-life ideology on business and imposing pro-environment ideology on business?  All laws impose ideology/morality in some way.

Presuming that you are flat out making a company do it, as opposed to incentivising, then in my opinion you have to meet a compelling interest test. Basically the State has to come up with a compelling reason why it has to be able to force the company to do something. Protection of the environment by stopping certain companies polluting excessively is in my opinion a compelling interest (minus any special circumstances) because of the environmental damage that the pollution has been caused to prove which can ultimately lead to various problems in terms of public health. The State has an interest, if not a duty to protect public health. If you can provide a compelling state interest in this case, then I'm all ears, but I can't think of one.

[Peter]

Of course you don't find a compelling state interest, you're not pro-life.  If you believe that protecting fetal life is important, then you think there is a compelling state interest in that case.  If you believe the environment should be protected from pollution, then you believe there is a compelling state interest in that case.  You object to the bill because you disagree with it ideologically, not because you have developed a universal and objective standard for making laws.

You haen't proven that there isn't a compelling interest, you've only proven you're pro-choice.  Therefore, the state interest is not compelling because the fetus has no rights and does not deserve rights.  I disagree, therefore the compelling state interest is the protection of the fetus.

I would like to start by saying how dare you paint as whatever you care to paint me as without either personally knowing me or having seen any sort of declared position on the issue of abortion.

I'm not talking about the programme itself (the one providing the shelters), I believe there is plenty of compelling state interest in that case. I DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS BILL. I STATED SO RATHER CLEARLY EARLIER.

I object to the State interfering in a business's right to provide whatever documentation (which is what I was talking about) to its clients/patients that it likes when it receives no funding from the federal government. There is no compelling state interest that means a business should have to provide documentation about one particular government programme.

[Peter]

The FDA forces companies to supply nutritional infomation on their products.

Thats a consumer protection issue. Obviously the protection of consumers is a State interest, since the consumers are for the most part, citizens.

I'm still waiting to find out compelling companies to promote Super's plan, (however well-intenioned, effective and ideologcially agreeable to myself it is) over every other plan is a compelling State interest.

[Peter]

You can't simply declare that there is no compelling state interest, simply because you don't believe there to be.  Supersoulty obviously believes there is a compelling interest, or he wouldn't have proposed the bill.

I have said that I am more than open to suggestions. Since Supersoulty "obviously believes there is a compelling interest" perhaps he would care to share. Remember, the burden is on him to prove that what he is doing is a compelling interest, as opposed to being on a business (or me) to show that it is not a compelling interest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I object to one particulary co-incidental part of the bill; Its removal (or appropriate modification to not apply to companies who receive no federal funding) would have little effect on the bill, and I would then find it entirely acceptable barring spelling mistakes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are totally misconstructing my remarks. You said that I was pro-choice. I stated that you had no basis to make such remarks. You are now saying you are disagreeing with me, when in fact you were just painting my position for me in the first place. Your response is totally non-sequitur.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't be ridiculous. Everybody has a right to life, whether they be citizens or not. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of a straw man.

[Peter]

You had to know the moment you said that the government's responsibilities are limited to protecting the rights of citizens

...when they are obligating a company to do something for which they pay the company absolutely no money whatsoever to do. In these situations, all the government should be doing is protecting rights.

The government has many responsibilities, and they all ultimately return to the point of protecting rights or providing services. Supersoulty's proposal is in the business of providing a service that will reduce abortions, which is great, but he doesn't have the power to make companies advertise it for him without anything approaching a compelling interest.

Except for when you unfairly and without basis painted my position on abortion for me, I'm not mad at you.

[Peter]

The interest lies in assuring that governemnt funding is not going to waste

The government can't make other entities do things because of its own impotence in implementing its policies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thats certainly reasonable, though I wouldn't agree that compelling abortion providers to promote these shelters is a particularly good way to promote them. Generally most people who go to an abortion clinic have already made up their mind. A genuine OBGYN wouldn't need to be compelled by law, he would already have offered the subject in a discussion with the patient. Social security offices seems a bizarre place to put it in my opinion if only because they rarely deal with abortion, though obviously your bill is directed at poorer women, so that might explain that partly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well obviously, but in my opinion you need to draw a compelling link between this bill and that interest in order for you to compel other entities to assist you. I can begin to see a casual link certainly, but not enough IMO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Beyond the above hair-splitting points, I have little to no ideological objection to the bill.

I am not opposed to the ideological goals of this bill, and I stated so before I engaged in this tete with the Secretary. I am opposed to the State unnecessarily compelling businesses to do things without basis, which I also stated.

[Peter]

In my experience from the last session, it generally takes an average of a month from initial introduction onto the Senate floor by a Senator until a bill actually manages to become Law. Problem is that the concept of "debate time" is now totally redundant since bills spend so long queueing for debate time that they are actually fully debated by the time they get into debate time. Problem is that for an SPR to change the debate time rules, it needs to get debate time itself.

Its a funny old world.

[Peter]

[snip]

What was the point of the chart?

He seems to like making charts, so let him make charts.

[Peter]

Yea

Danke

You do realise that Bono is challenging this in Court right?

[Peter]

Might want to look here

[Peter]

In any event, I will be reading all the commentary on this decision to see what the more litigious members of Atlasia think about it...

Once I see the dissent I will be writing a commentary on the case which I will put on here and on the AtlasWiki.