Lincoln Assembly Legislation Introduction Thread

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Searching for a sponsor.

[wxtransit]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Searching for a sponsor.

Welcome to Poland.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Searching for a sponsor.

Welcome to Poland.

I'll sponsor it, and I'll give as much time as the assembly wants to debate on it this time.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Dr. MB]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I withdraw my proposed legislation, please do not place it on the floor at this time. I am preserving the language for potential future use.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you reach consensus on an issue by ending debate on it??? I mean I am willing to table the bill once a new bill is written if that's what your intention is.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't reach consensus without a debate. Line 3 would never even come into effect, since the consensus called for in Line 2 cannot be reached without the very debate that Line 2 prohibits. So this is essentially legalizing abortion on demand and making it impossible to consider any abortion legislation down the road, except perhaps under UC, and even then I could see a court ruling that a UC request counts as prohibited debate under line 2. This bill needs to be redrafted if it is to receive my serious consideration.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Rather than potentially closing off an entire area of legislation for good, I would suggest remedying this with this very simple bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't reach consensus without a debate. Line 3 would never even come into effect, since the consensus called for in Line 2 cannot be reached without the very debate that Line 2 prohibits. So this is essentially legalizing abortion on demand and making it impossible to consider any abortion legislation down the road, except perhaps under UC, and even then I could see a court ruling that a UC request counts as prohibited debate under line 2. This bill needs to be redrafted if it is to receive my serious consideration.

Let me clarify, as it seems like you don’t get it. I want to stop all the confusion around the bills by repealing them. Then we stop all debate on current bills, and we all publicly draft a bill that would insight the best interests of the citizens of our region.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't reach consensus without a debate. Line 3 would never even come into effect, since the consensus called for in Line 2 cannot be reached without the very debate that Line 2 prohibits. So this is essentially legalizing abortion on demand and making it impossible to consider any abortion legislation down the road, except perhaps under UC, and even then I could see a court ruling that a UC request counts as prohibited debate under line 2. This bill needs to be redrafted if it is to receive my serious consideration.

Let me clarify, as it seems like you don’t get it. I want to stop all the confusion around the bills by repealing them. Then we stop all debate on current bills, and we all publicly draft a bill that would insight the best interests of the citizens of our region.

Well, as currently drafted, there are two destructive ways I could see this bill being interpreted by a court:

1. Extreme Application of "All Current Debate" - in this case, the court classifies debate as anything that is or could conceivably be going on behind the scenes as well as what's publicly available on the boards. This is not likely, but cannot be ruled out, and would make it (near) impossible to legislate, legalizing abortion on demand for good.

2. True Application of "Clear Consensus" - in this case, the court rules that this new abortion bill must be unanimously passed by the assembly to be rendered valid. I don't think there's any bill we could write that would receive unanimous support, so again, this would legalize abortion on demand for good.

It would be better to simply repeal one of the bills and move on. Given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this situation, I would be willing to vote to repeal the 12 week ban (leaving in place only the 20 week ban) if that would be preferred by the administration.

[RC (a la Frémont)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can't reach consensus without a debate. Line 3 would never even come into effect, since the consensus called for in Line 2 cannot be reached without the very debate that Line 2 prohibits. So this is essentially legalizing abortion on demand and making it impossible to consider any abortion legislation down the road, except perhaps under UC, and even then I could see a court ruling that a UC request counts as prohibited debate under line 2. This bill needs to be redrafted if it is to receive my serious consideration.

Let me clarify, as it seems like you don’t get it. I want to stop all the confusion around the bills by repealing them. Then we stop all debate on current bills, and we all publicly draft a bill that would insight the best interests of the citizens of our region.

Well, as currently drafted, there are two destructive ways I could see this bill being interpreted by a court:

1. Extreme Application of "All Current Debate" - in this case, the court classifies debate as anything that is or could conceivably be going on behind the scenes as well as what's publicly available on the boards. This is not likely, but cannot be ruled out, and would make it (near) impossible to legislate, legalizing abortion on demand for good.

2. True Application of "Clear Consensus" - in this case, the court rules that this new abortion bill must be unanimously passed by the assembly to be rendered valid. I don't think there's any bill we could write that would receive unanimous support, so again, this would legalize abortion on demand for good.

It would be better to simply repeal one of the bills and move on. Given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this situation, I would be willing to vote to repeal the 12 week ban (leaving in place only the 20 week ban) if that would be preferred by the administration.

If we must compromise like this, that would be preferable.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

As I have been informed by the speaker that we do not actually need to address the contradiction issue as the 12 week ban automatically overrides the 20 week ban where applicable, I withdraw any and all requests to place abortion legislation on the floor at this time.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This was withdrawn, but I'd quite enjoy debate on this.

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Wells]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

For the purpose of advancing them to the floor, I will act as the official assembly sponsor for the bills introduced by Ad Hominem. This does not necessarily mean I actually support any of the bills.