Pacific Legislature Official Thread

[Emsworth]

Third Trimester Abortion Ban Act
Sponsor- Lt. Governor Hobbes
1. All abortions in the third trimester, except for cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, are hereby outlawed in the Pacific Region.

2. Any person who performs an illegal third trimester abortion will be sentenced to at least five years in prison.

3. Any mother seeking an illegal third trimester abortion shall be fined at least $50,000.

Clause 1: I think that the exceptions should include the health of the mother, not just life. If a last-minute serious complication develops, but it is just short of life-threatening, the mother should still be able to obtain an abortion. On the other hand, an exception for incest shouldn't be included here, as the woman has (a) performed the action in question voluntarily, and (b) had six whole months to decide to abort the baby.

I also strongly object to clause 3, which is in my opinion unduly harsh.

As to the rest of the bills: I support them wholeheartedly.

[Emsworth]

Aye on both.

[Emsworth]

Aye on amendments 1 and 2; No on amendment 3.

[Emsworth]

This seems to be a very good compromise (including a health exception, in particular).

Aye.

[Emsworth]

I propose the following amendment:

2. The minimum wage shall be indexed to inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. Any change in the minimum wage shall take effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year.

[Emsworth]

For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.

Perhaps my former region will forgive me for interfering, but to clarify the meaning:

There is no way to determine whether a person actually knows or does not know something. If someone who is obviously insane (for example) wants to buy a gun, the store owner can claim that he does not actually "know" whether the individual is sane or not. However, if the person purchasing the gun shows obvious signs of delusion, then the store owner "reasonably should know" that he is not sane. The same line of reasoning applies when the purchaser is a young child, for example.