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

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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?

I personally believe abortion should be banned completely, but I understand that this bill is probably the closest we'll ever get to that goal. So I could be convinced to support it.

But Marokai—you said that by the third trimester, women would have had more than enough time to come to a decision re: the termination of their pregnancy. If that's the case, and if you maintain that a fetus in the third trimester has indeed crossed the threshold of being "a life," why would we allow for exceptions in the case of rape and incest? If we were going to put a blanket ban on abortion, I'd understand the need for those exemptions. However, under this legislation, abortion would still be a legal option for many months of any woman's pregnancy. I feel like it would be justified to say "sorry, too late" if she suddenly decided she wanted an abortion in her third trimester.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Then I fail to see why some leftists in Atlasia are getting their knickers in a bunch.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

At the expense of a viable child's life because "location of the organism" trumps the qualities of the organism itself.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

Absolutely not. For one, our funding for programs that are not regional-specific should not disporpotionately favour one region. Secondly, pregnancy itself threatens the "health of the mother." This amendment would have the effect of rendering the entire bill obsolite (except, interestingly, the extra spending for the Northeast). So nay, nay, nay, all the way, way way.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Half of his amendment could. I'd be open to discussing funding for safe-sex education in a new bill. Right now, the funding-related section of his amendment only favours one region. Why on Earth should a federal body pass something like that?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm not going to object to Scott's amendment right away, but if it does pass, I'll be presenting an amendment to allow regional opt-outs—without the provision that unclaimed monies will be split amongst participating regions.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If the funds were completely opt-outable, would you change your mind?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

That's the position I'm in, too.

If the amendment passes, I'll be amending the amendment to take out the provision stating that unclaimed funds will be split amongst the other regions.

(Are you allowed to amend an amendment?)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm gettin' ahead of myself.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm happy with the bill in its current form.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Those words look quite familiar.

I support the amendment.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Either way, the original version of the bill is now law. The president did not veto it within seven days. There is only one definition of the word "within" and there is only one definition of the word "day." What transpired in the Administration thread does not meet the required criteria for a legitimate veto.

As for these procedural matters you're pointing to, Yankee, wouldn't it appear that the presidential veto was supposed to occur after the redraft had been presented? Since Napoleon's pseudo-veto happened beforehand, what becomes of his proposed redraft? I'd think it would have to be filed as a new bill.

Either way, it's a good thing the veto doesn't count.

Still... if the president was so interested in making the minor change he proposed, it kind of baffles me that he wouldn't have just worked with the senate on this specific issue in the first place. While I'm personally against the idea of lessened penalties, I'll bet most senators would've supported his version of the bill. Unfortunately, the way it's been done sort of seems like he's trying to cram it down our throats, especially because the veto came first. "Pass my version or else."

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Still... if the president was so interested in making the minor change he proposed, it kind of baffles me that he wouldn't have just worked with the senate on this specific issue in the first place.

We had already lowered the penalties. When I mentioned that it was part of a compromise, you accepted that premise and made an argument about something else. You did not propose a one year ban on practicing medicine anywhere in this thread before your attempted veto. Candy Crowley will tell me if I'm wrong.