SENATE BILL: Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act (On the President's Desk)

[Svensson]

I apologize for my recent lack of activity. Among a multitude other things, planning my own legislation has kept me more than a tad busy.

To cut straight to the chase, I will not be supporting this measure in spite of my skepticism of late-term abortion, for an array of reasons. Mostly, I feel the bill in its current form is vague in defining just what constitutes a justifiable abortion past the second trimester, and as well am wholly opposed to the idea the bill's sponsors seem to be pushing here - that if it rarely ever happens, we may as well ban it. In addition, Scott makes a very valid point regarding the potential price tag.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What bizarre objections. Restricting things might cost time and money! Don't do it! There's really nothing vague about it, but what can I even say in response to that? If you oppose any restriction on abortion whatsoever, simply say you oppose any restriction on abortion whatever. Don't dress it up to make it seem like you have some wise, statesmanlike objection. At least Napoleon is being intellectually honest even though I think completely sidestepping the issue of when a meaningful life exists in the womb is a completely crazy and lazy cop-out.

It's weird to me that this is probably going to end up failing, because there's very few actual arguments against it and most of the population would have very little objection to restricting abortions at such a late stage. It's also weird to me that the fight we're having over this bill is on a completely different logic-plane than I expected to be fighting; not about the determination of life, but about vague, trivial "principled" objections covered up with flimsy concerns over cost.

Don't mind my rambling, I guess. I'm just baffled.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am simply bringing up the cost because I don't see myself convincing anyone to change their opinion on the morality of the issue.  Obviously, the government would need a way to determine when a late-term abortion is 'medically necessary,' and since it is so unlikely that a woman is going to seek a late-term abortion for reasons other than her health, we could potentially be spending millions of dollars on something (such as an agency, let's say) that's only going to stop a few hundred abortions, and not have any record of precisely how much we're spending on it. The specifics of this ban need to be examined very carefully, and I think the senators themselves should determine whether or not it's worth it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What bizarre objections. Restricting things might cost time and money! Don't do it! There's really nothing vague about it, but what can I even say in response to that? If you oppose any restriction on abortion whatsoever, simply say you oppose any restriction on abortion whatever. Don't dress it up to make it seem like you have some wise, statesmanlike objection. At least Napoleon is being intellectually honest even though I think completely sidestepping the issue of when a meaningful life exists in the womb is a completely crazy and lazy cop-out.

It's weird to me that this is probably going to end up failing, because there's very few actual arguments against it and most of the population would have very little objection to restricting abortions at such a late stage. It's also weird to me that the fight we're having over this bill is on a completely different logic-plane than I expected to be fighting; not about the determination of life, but about vague, trivial "principled" objections covered up with flimsy concerns over cost.

Don't mind my rambling, I guess. I'm just baffled.

I am not surprised at all. And you shouldn't be either, since it is the direct result of rhetorical arguments made by people (including people such as yourself) in the context of RL politics. Once again RL politics is crossing over into the game to screw us.

Life, especially in contexts like this, use to be one of the safer social issues to make a conservative stand on. Now you likely won't get a principled debate over the underlying matter and it will instead be centered around the apparel and the drapes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am simply bringing up the cost because I don't see myself convincing anyone to change their opinion on the morality of the issue.  Obviously, the government would need a way to determine when a late-term abortion is 'medically necessary,' and since it is so unlikely that a woman is going to seek a late-term abortion for reasons other than her health, we could potentially be spending millions of dollars on something (such as an agency, let's say) that's only going to stop a few hundred abortions, and not have any record of precisely how much we're spending on it. The specifics of this ban need to be examined very carefully, and I think the senators themselves should determine whether or not it's worth it.

Okay and you are not only a Senator, but a prolific amender bills. You want a definition of medically necessary? Write up a text you find appropriate to do that and then we can negotiate the subject.

Why not ask the GM to do a cost analysis of the bill if we are so concerned with it? In a perfect world, the Judiciary would have got to chomp on it a while, but sadly the Committees have been delayed far more then we anticipated.

Instead of wailing about the problems, why don't we try and fix them?

[Napoleon]

So, the idea is to make this bill even more restrictive? Um, that does seem like what is going here so correct me if I am wrong.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I am simply bringing up the cost because I don't see myself convincing anyone to change their opinion on the morality of the issue.  Obviously, the government would need a way to determine when a late-term abortion is 'medically necessary,' and since it is so unlikely that a woman is going to seek a late-term abortion for reasons other than her health, we could potentially be spending millions of dollars on something (such as an agency, let's say) that's only going to stop a few hundred abortions, and not have any record of precisely how much we're spending on it. The specifics of this ban need to be examined very carefully, and I think the senators themselves should determine whether or not it's worth it.

Okay and you are not only a Senator, but a prolific amender bills. You want a definition of medically necessary? Write up a text you find appropriate to do that and then we can negotiate the subject.

Why not ask the GM to do a cost analysis of the bill if we are so concerned with it? In a perfect world, the Judiciary would have got to chomp on it a while, but sadly the Committees have been delayed far more then we anticipated.

Instead of wailing about the problems, why don't we try and fix them?

I am not a supporter of the legislation nor am I a medical expert, so I don't feel it's exactly in my place to define what is "medically necessary" in the context of the bill.  I also have no objection to the GM analyzing the cost if the sponsor doesn't want to instead, but it is still important to raise these concerns.

So, the idea is to make this bill even more restrictive? Um, that does seem like what is going here so correct me if I am wrong.

That certainly wasn't my intention.  I'm simply pointing out the bill's flaws and why you can't prohibit something without bearing any type of cost.

[Napoleon]

I was referring to Ben's proposal.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's a compromise, Mr. President. The penalties for performing an abortion have been reduced. On the other hand, a few of us believe that this bill gives women more than enough time to choose to get an abortion in the case of rape, incest, or anything else before the ban kicks in. As such, it is not unreasonable to afford more protection to the unborn at this stage in a pregnancy.

[Napoleon]

It's a compromise, Mr. President. The penalties for performing an abortion have been reduced. On the other hand, a few of us believe that this bill gives women more than enough time to choose to get an abortion in the case of rape, incest, or anything else before the ban kicks in. As such, it is not unreasonable to afford more protection to the unborn at this stage in a pregnancy.

Okay, but I can't sign a bill that offers no protection to the health and well being of the mother, so that is where we should be looking to compromise. However, I also have to struggle with the idea of telling rape victims "sorry, you're too late". I know that the culture around here hasn't allowed for much female interaction, but women are real people and rape is a strongly emotional violation that many women have difficulty even talking about to get to the point of prosecution. A little bit of compassion is required- yeah, you will never be in this situation but ifyou can't even try to put yourself in someone else's shoes...compromise is not inherently good, you have to think about how people are actually affected. My job as President is to protect that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Ben's amendment does offer protection to the health of the mother. We have not specified what that protection is because, as you said, we are not doctors. In a simulation such as Atlasia, we're just going to have to trust that the spirit of the bill is enough.

Also... It's all of our jobs to think about how people will be affected by the legislation we pass. I don't want to put extra stress on a woman either, but I believe we'd be giving her more than enough time to make a decision. Once an unborn human is viable outside the womb, I believe we need to be showing compassion to that child as well. At that stage, the consequences of not showing compassion for the child are, I believe, worse than the consequences for not showing compassion to the pregnant mother. We disagree here.

I suppose we'll just have to see what happens with the vote.

[Napoleon]

Ben's amendment does offer protection to the health of the mother.

No, it doesn't.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Have I missed something...?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I read this amendment as "there will be no restrictions on getting an abortion if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother."

[Napoleon]

There's a lot of health complications that aren't "life threatening" that a women need not endure, especially if that women was impregnated by rape.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So, the idea is to make this bill even more restrictive? Um, that does seem like what is going here so correct me if I am wrong.

I'm not entirely sure why removing the rape and incest exception made a couple Senators more likely to vote for it, but I wasn't going to complain.

I also have no objection to the GM analyzing the cost if the sponsor doesn't want to instead, but it is still important to raise these concerns.

I would do so but I'm not entirely sure how. I can't imagine the costs would leave the low single digit millions.

I am not surprised at all. And you shouldn't be either, since it is the direct result of rhetorical arguments made by people (including people such as yourself) in the context of RL politics. Once again RL politics is crossing over into the game to screw us.

Life, especially in contexts like this, use to be one of the safer social issues to make a conservative stand on. Now you likely won't get a principled debate over the underlying matter and it will instead be centered around the apparel and the drapes.

I'm angry that when I propose the few right-wing things I'm willing to fight for that they get nowhere.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There's a lot of health complications that aren't "life threatening" that a women need not endure, especially if that women was impregnated by rape.

I'll grant that rape presents a unique set of circumstances, but every pregnancy comes with health risks that aren't especially "life threatening." By that logic, any pregnancy could be terminated. And I do not perscribe to that school of thought. To me, there comes a point when the sanctity of life has to become more important.

[Sbane]

I'm happy with this bill. As has been pointed out a very small minority of abortions occur after this stage. The exception for the life of the mother is also important. I don't really see how you can tighten up the language. You can't expect us to research every single medical complication that could occur, and it's not really necessary. Doctors write up their cases and it could be ascertained from that whether the abortion was medically necessary to save the woman's life. I guess you can mandate that there be a clinical write up of all abortions performed beyond the allowed time frame?

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would like to offer up an amendment getting rid of the criminal penalties for Doctors violating this law. Instead I will increase their ban on practicing medicine up to 5 years from 3 years.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I accept Sbane's amendment as friendly. I do not accept Scott's amendment as friendly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Waitin on a Sunny Day (the other amendment to finish )

[Svensson]

I do not object to sbane's amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You what, I like this "I don't object thing" some have seem to have started. It will keep people checking these threads more often. Keep doing it.


Sbane's has passed.


I will start the vote on Scott's later tonight.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: The above amendment is now at vote, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.