1013 - National Right to Life Act

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i like this, with two small clarifications:

amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(not entirely sure on the wording. hope the intent is clear.)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"with approval of the minor" - do you mean that the guardian ad litem is someone approved by the minor, or that it is optional altogether?  My intent is that there is in all cases a guardian involved, that part I don't support being optional.

"The relevant court must take adequate measures to insure the minor knows of this option." - It would be the responsibility of the abortion provider to provide all information regarding regulations and options. But perhaps that needs to be specified.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

"with approval of the minor" - do you mean that the guardian ad litem is someone approved by the minor, or that it is optional altogether?  My intent is that there is in all cases a guardian involved, that part I don't support being optional.…

the former, yeah.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

that's good too

[Classic Conservative]

I support Shua's admendment but object to Evergreens

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I support Shua's admendment but object to Evergreens

which part do you object to?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'll go ahead and enter the amendment as I originally worded it.  We can continue discussing these issues and make further amendments.

[Clark Kent]

As over 36 hours have passed, Rep. Shua's amendment has been adopted.

Since there was an objection to Rep. Evergreen's amendment, we will have a 72-hour vote on it.

[Classic Conservative]

Nay

[Clark Kent]

AYE

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

aye

[NeverAgain]

Aye.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Aye.

[/]

Aye

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nay

[Clark Kent]

This amendment has enough votes to pass. Representatives have 24 hours to change their vote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Nay

[Clark Kent]

The amendment has been adopted.

I will extend the period of debate for an additional 24 hours before moving to a final vote barring any objections.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should we reduce the time allotted in section 5 from 7 days to 36 hours and what is the purpose of changing the final sentence?

[Blair]

What is the purpose of a 7 day waiting period?

For such a radical bill- that will be imposing a massive federal restriction I've yet to see a line by line argument in favour of the bill. Don't people understand the scale of this bill?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

[Classic Conservative]

I don't support lowering the time from 7 days to 36 hours.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

I don't support lowering the time from 7 days to 36 hours.

What is gained from 7 days as opposed to 36 hours?  Does it make the abortion less likely? Or merely postpone it?

And while we discuss this, can we get the changes to clause 4 made without objections?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

[NOT gonna be banned soon]

aye