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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm not going to try to convince anyone on the abortion issue since I'm sure we all have our minds made up on this, but I will only consider supporting this bill if the penalty is a monetary fee instead.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Going off of what afleitch said, there's something I should mention: this legislation does not come with a price tag.  I'm not sure, exactly, how it would be determined if the late-term abortions are for saving the life of the mother, but I can imagine the inclusion of all the new red tape would be somewhat costly.  But to be honest, I don't know of any statute which dictates that bills like these need to have price tags.  Still, that is one of the reasons I am very unlikely to support this measure.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I am open to withdrawing the amendment and writing a new one that re-appropriates funds to all the regions, but with that said I'll admit I originally porked the bill for political reasons.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Abstain.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I accept Scott's as friendly, but I don't accept yours, Yankee. Sorry.

What don't you like about Yankee's amendment, out of curiosity?  I think that will improve the way the cash is distributed.

I object to Scott's amendment. Why is the additional funding necessary as a part of this bill? (I'm prepared to vote for the amendment if this can be explained, BTW.)

I believe that increasing funding to education programs and expanding the availability of contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions more than the ban itself.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.

I just realized something: if we abolish the SoIA position, how many bills that refer to the SoIA will we have to go back and fix?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.

I just realized something: if we abolish the SoIA position, how many bills that refer to the SoIA will we have to go back and fix?

A certain person doesn't seem to give a damn, he is too busy pretending to be Dick Mourdock.

We just added three more in thel ast month and a half. The Education bill, your bill thing from last month and Seatown's Co-Op bill. So quite a lot.

God knows what else.  There's another argument against abolishing the position..

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.