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

[Marokai Backbeat]

~80ish% of all abortions take place within the first trimester. The issue of when there is a full-fledged life is a difficult one for us to determine, or even if it is a meaningful life, but the third trimester, if no other point, must be when that distinction has been crossed. By that point, the woman carrying the child has had months to consider her options, and if the pregnancy has progressed that far, it is irresponsible, to me, if nothing else, to terminate the pregnancy without reason.

By the point of the third trimester, the pregnancy shouldn't be terminated unless there is no other option or the child has been determined by a doctor to be suffering a severe defect in some capacity. I don't like playing the "it's a life, it matters so much because life is beautiful" card, because I think it's overly sentimental and also utterly ridiculous at such an early point like the first trimester; but by this point, there almost certainly is a recognizable and meaningful "life" in there, and I find it senseless to eliminate it by then.

Almost all abortions will not be affected, there are numerous out-clauses for understandable reasons to terminate the pregnancy, we can even add support for adoption services for women who would otherwise have wished to abort the child, but abortion without medical reason at that point should be illegal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Do we really think women decide to wait until the 8th month to have an abortion "just 'cause"?

I don't think many do, no. So, given the realities of when the distinction of "life" most likely crossed, why not prohibit it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really feel like there's an exception here for just about every objectionable thing. Abuse, incest, defect, threatening of life. Something vague as "the health of the mother" just feels like a loophole. Having lower back pain because of your baby? Have an abortion!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it's when they discover they're pregnant, consider their options, and seek out care. I'm not sure what point you're making here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Admittedly I lifted the prison penalty directly from another regional anti-abortion statute from the Wiki (which I'm not even sure still is in place). I'm willing to reduce the prison term, and perhaps the ban on practicing again, but not eliminating either of them.

I'll need to wade through our books a little on this one, unless someone wants to help me out... What are our existing abortion laws?

Basically there are no restrictions on abortion whatsoever in Atlasia, on the federal level.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I tend to agree that by that point, all involved should have figured that stuff about by then. Even so, determining the child was conceived by incestuous means may take some time to determine, and I think it's probably better to keep the exceptions in place (not only to assist in it's passage..) just to cover our bases. I doubt the rape-exception would actually be used unless it was legitimate by the point of the third trimester.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I accept the amendment as friendly.

[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.

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay. I wouldn't vote for the amendment even if it wasn't porked.

[Marokai Backbeat]

There is something wrong with that vote result above, if you see it don't spill it, I want the person it applies to to catch it. It doesn't affect the results and the numbers are accurate.

*ahem*

[Marokai Backbeat]

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

[Marokai Backbeat]

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 the inclusion of the Department of Internal Affairs, given my opposition to the position of SoIA. I have no problem giving the same work to the GM instead.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I am not a conservative, I am not a conservative, I am not a conservative, I am not a conservative...

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay.

As for Redalgo, I find it bizarre what people are changing their positions on in regards to this bill. Making the abortion exceptions more strict, gets your support. Adding funds for sex ed, that is outrageous and you can't support it. Huh?

What a weird reaction this bill has gotten. We get people arguing against any abortion restrictions whatsoever, regardless of the question of life; we get otherwise pro-choice people supporting strict abortion statute, but not sex ed money. You're all weird.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Instead of doing nothing here, we should start planning are next move? What can we get six votes on here. So far we have been running circles around this bill on important but ancillary issues. Is their even six votes to ban late term abortion, with or without any other additions?

I'd like to know the same, because I'm just as confused on what approach to take here. Some people are opposing it outright, others are trying to find smaller things to use as CYA material for voting to oppose it; people who would support it have weird ancillary conditions for doing so, but then that specific window dressing grossly offends someone else. Every direction the bill seems to try and go in always steps on someone else's toes.

Restricting very late-term abortions isn't an unpopular proposal, why is this so difficult?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll deal with it, despite my objections to the existence of the DoIA. I'm not sure of the controversy outside of that, though? I'm friendly to it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Half the Senate feels like it's disappeared lately.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah, I suppose I'm comfortable with going to a vote now.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah, I just caught that now because I was so pre-occupied with some other elements of the bill. I'm not too sure about that language...

I'm open to changing it, but the question I had while writing this was "What else is workable?" Just saying "birth defect" is quite broad, and not including an exception at all seems heartless. I'm not sure what the alternative is without resulting in a huge section-all-to-it's-own digression on what constitutes a severe defect.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What were you counting as a birth defect?

I don't think the law should discriminate between, say, Down's babies and "normal" babies... but if a child is likely to live in immense pain, have a severely limited functioning capacity, or be at significant risk of an early death, I could see why we might provide options.

What you described there was basically what I had in mind, I just didn't know what else to write to provide that exception.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Much better worded than I could've come up with. I accept as friendly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yay!!

[Marokai Backbeat]

I desperately don't want this to be a nasty fight, but I kind of consider this law at this point..

If you want to not have the big fight, I'll just take the amended version for the sake of us all moving on with our business here. It's up to you guys to decide which you want to accept. If Yankee thinks it's law, he's the determiner of our business; if he doesn't, then consider it reluctantly accepted.