1013 - National Right to Life Act

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

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.

Why I support a 7 day waiting period is for the counseling. Putting more information in the hands of our citizens may lead to wiser decisions regardless if they choose to abort or choose life. I also think the perspective father should be able to step in to preserve the life of the child if they really want to be a father. It's wrong that the mother gets a monopoly on such a life and death decision. The man's contribution to the creation of the baby in the womb in this choice is wrongly disregarded.

[🐒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.

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.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

[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.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.

[🐒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.

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.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.

Ok then, lets close down all government social services, since the government is so awful at this that even them merely requiring that information about the adoption process or anything else be available at abortion clinics leads to unspecified awful thing.

[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.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.

Ok then, lets close down all government social services, since the government is so awful at this that even them merely requiring that information about the adoption process or anything else be available at abortion clinics leads to unspecified awful thing.

First of all, this bill doesn't even specify where the information comes from or what kind of information is contained in the materials.  There is no criteria or rule that would otherwise ensure women are not being misled about the health and safety risks of abortion aside from adoption processes.  All it does, effectively, is impose an arbitrary waiting period with no real enforcement mechanism.  If you guys just want to add more barriers for women seeking an abortion, just be honest and say so rather than hide behind this bizarre, supercilious notion that women or doctors don't know what they're doing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

okay, fair point on the specificity of it.   I have added to my amendment in order to address this.

[Leinad]

I agree with Shua's reasoning on the waiting period:

I'm not sure I support so long a waiting period given every day the fetus becomes more developed, with potentially more awareness. I question if it is worth it if we are only delaying the abortion.

And I don't have a problem with providing materials to read, given that it is 1) not technically required (I mean, we can't force people to read things) and 2) it's a more important decision than probably any other "medical procedure." That being said, I'm certainly glad that Shua is specifying where the reading materials are coming from.

Also, since no one apparently takes proofreading as seriously as I do, I must point out that we go straight from section 8 to section 10. What happened, has 7 ate 9?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

let's go ahead and have a vote on that amendment I offered.

[Clark Kent]

let's go ahead and have a vote on that amendment I offered.

Alright.

Opening a 72-hour vote on Rep. Shua's amendment. Representatives may vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN.

[Clark Kent]

AYE

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Aye on Shua's amendment

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[Classic Conservative]

Aye

[Clark Kent]

I apologize for being late, but Rep. Shua's amendment has been added to the bill.

[Classic Conservative]

Motion for Final Vote

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Second motion for final vote.

[Clark Kent]

Yeah, we'll move to a final vote. Representatives have 72 hours to vote.

[Clark Kent]

AYE

[Classic Conservative]

Aye

[NeverAgain]

With amendments, it has been made better, but my heart has to go with the right of choice.

Nay.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Aye

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

With amendments, it has been made better, but my heart has to go with the right of choice.

Nay.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Aye,

The right to life is our most fundamental right because it is the first right given by our Creator.

[Clark Kent]

This bill has passed 4-2 with Representatives Haslam2020, darthebearnc, and evergreen not voting.