LC 3.13 Protect Reproductive Health Act (Passed)

[Pyro]

Protect Reproductive Health Act

Section I: Recognition

1. We recognize that reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a core component of women's health, privacy and equality.

2. It is the solemn duty of Lincoln to protect the right of women to access safe and legal abortion services.

Section II: Abortion

1. A licensed or certified health care practitioner acting within his or her lawful scope of practice may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and professional judgement, the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

Section III: Roe

1. In commemoration and celebration of the decision reached by the Supreme Court in the case involving Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) vs. Henry Wade, January 22nd shall be known as Reproductive Health Day.  

Section IV: Retroactive Tidiness

1. The Reasonable Limitations Act (L 603) is repealed.

Section V: Enactment

1. This act takes effect immediately upon signing by the governor.

Sponsor: Pyro

The Debating Period has commenced. It shall last no less than 72 hours.

[Pyro]

Following a trend of proposals that have sought to further restrict such services, this legislation is intended to move Lincoln forward regarding the state of women's healthcare. This provides a simple definition of legal abortion in order to ensure that it remains accessible, safe and, most importantly, a choice for women to make themselves. In short, the passage of this bill will prove our region's commitment to progressive reform on the issue of women's health. I hope to have the support of my fellow Councilors.

[Former President tack50]

Didn't Lincoln already handle abortion last session?

[DKrol]

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation in its entirety and without amendment. With the rights of reproductive health coming under attack more and more often, I believe that it is critical for this Council to pass this legislation and take a stand on the correct side of history.

[OneJ]

This bill has my support as it should ultimately be the woman's right to choose rather than having the law to interfere with her right, should have access to contraceptives and should she choose to have an abortion, it must be performed in a safe and legal manner.

[Pyro]

Didn't Lincoln already handle abortion last session?

Yes, we most certainly did.
We repealed the horrific Lincoln Abortion Ban Act.
I believe that the PRHA is a second step in the right direction.

[Pyro]

Three concerns -

(1) So iirc the Reasonable Limitations Act has the following text:

Section 1 (Title)
1. This act shall be known as the “Reasonable Limitations Act of 2017” or the “RLA”.

Section 2 (Regulations)
1. Abortions after 20 weeks are hereby prohibited.
2. The punishment for performing an illegal abortion shall be a fine on the doctor who performed the abortion, worth $2,000 for every week over 20 weeks.
3. Parts 1 and 2 shall be nullified in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother or child is at risk.

Section 3 (Birth Control)
1. Funding for health care administrators which provide free contraception shall be increased by 10%.

The new legislation doesn't include any provision for the consequences of performing an illegal abortion. What would they be?

Regarding Section 2-2 of the RLA, I have elected to strike this portion in the PRHA in order to remove abortion from the criminal code and shift it into public health law. Abortion is a medical procedure, not a crime. This would ensure that health professionals can provide women with appropriate health care without fear of criminal consequences.

Also, Section 3 is useful. Would repealing the above remove the funding? I'm not an abortion proponent per se, but I'm a huge advocate of increasing access to contraception (including emergency contraception such as the morning after pill). So funding should probably be increased further.

Section 3 of the RLA, to my understanding, was a one-time increase of 10% - albeit this language is certainly rather vague. If I am correct in that determination, then removing it would not have any effect. I am in favor of increasing access to contraception as well. Perhaps that should be in its own legislation.

(2) Section II of the new bill has the following segment: "or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health." Would the Speaker be fine adding language to clarify that this refers specifically to "physical health"?

I would not in favor of such a proposal. Eligibility is contingent upon the professional determination of the medical practitioner following consultation with the patient. Although it stands to reason that physical health is paramount in the judgement of the professional, there may be a variety of factors to consider with this decision - one of which may too be mental health.

(3) I think Section III of the bill could make for an uncomfortable situation considering that McCorvey became an anti-abortion advocate later in her life and considered her involvement in the ruling a huge mistake. She passed away in 2017, but I don't know how her family and/or estate would feel about being part of such an official proclamation.

I understand your point. However this is not intended to be a commemoration of the individual, but rather the legacy of the case itself and its impact on women's rights.

[Pyro]

Thanks Speaker Pyro, I appreciate the response.

I understand your positions RE: opposing penalties and keeping the commemoration day, we'll have to agree to disagree on those regards.

As for the contraception bill, fair enough. I am working on my next two pieces of legislation, if a contraception bill is not prepared by someone else in the interim, I'll work on one.

Lastly, regarding the physical/mental health qualifier, I do think it is potentially dangerous. I can't support the bill because of other concerns, but I would like to put the following clipping on the record:

In Virginia, Democratic Delegate Kathy Tran introduced a bill—with the backing of her party and of Democratic Governor Ralph Northam—that would significantly loosen existing restrictions on abortion in the final three months of pregnancy. Currently, third-trimester abortions are permitted only if three doctors certify that a woman’s health otherwise would be “substantially or irremediably” impaired. Under Tran’s bill, only the physician who would perform the abortion must provide that certification, and the “substantially or irremediably” language is dropped, in favor of a provision that allows for an exception if the continuation of the pregnancy is determined to “impair the mental or physical health of the woman”—a provision that may appear commonsensical, but is in fact intentionally vague.

Health exceptions like these have been used to allow abortions of viable fetuses for reasons other than medical emergencies, relying on the broad definition of maternal health laid out by the Supreme Court in the 1973 Roe companion case Doe v. Bolton: “All factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.” Virginia’s law offers an exception for “mental or physical health,” and New York’s simply for “health.” These laws leave the decision up to the person performing the abortion.

These bills represent some of the most lenient abortion policies in the country. Tran said her bill would allow a woman to receive an abortion at term, while in labor, and she offered no explanation of what potential maternal or fetal health complications would necessitate it. Defending the bill in an interview, Northam appeared to suggest that it would permit a physician to deny medical care to a newborn infant: “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.” (Northam’s spokesperson later insisted that his remarks had been misconstrued, and that he had been describing only what might happen in the event of “a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities.”)

To be clear, third trimester abortions are extremely rare anyway. They comprise generally between 1 and 3 percent of all abortions iirc. If one believes that those are unborn children, life is still life. I likely won't vote against this bill because I will always support a mother's physical health, but at this point I see myself abstaining from the final vote.

For me, it comes down to the patient, alongside her doctor or medical practitioner, having the ability to make the final decision depending on the case at hand. It does women a great disservice to legislate barriers for the services they may need.

As you mentioned, third trimester abortions are incredibly uncommon, and it would be a gross mischaracterization of this bill to insinuate, as the article you brought up does, that abortion would be legal "at term". The PRHA states that late abortions must be reserved for those cases in which it is, "necessary to protect the patient's life or health." If complications occur during pregnancy that would endanger the health of the mother, then the practitioner should have the right to pursue their judgement.

[lfromnj]

Can you just not celebrate Griswold v Conneticut instead of Roe V wade?

Seriously why do you need to bring up abortion's legalization as a holiday?

[PSOL]

I 100% support this bill.

[fhtagn]

Oh look, a bunch of men making decisions on women's "healthcare"...

[PSOL]

Oh look, a bunch of men making decisions on women's "healthcare"...

Can someone call in security to get the VVitch of Virginia out of our Council?!

[Former President tack50]

Oh look, a bunch of men making decisions on women's "healthcare"...

To be honest, Atlas' demographics make this almost inevitable lol. And that goes both ways.

[Pyro]

I motion for a final vote.

[OneJ]

I motion for a final vote.

I second.

[Pyro]

Councilors, a Final Vote is now OPEN on the Following Legislation

Protect Reproductive Health Act

Section I: Recognition

1. We recognize that reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a core component of women's health, privacy and equality.

2. It is the solemn duty of Lincoln to protect the right of women to access safe and legal abortion services.

Section II: Abortion

1. A licensed or certified health care practitioner acting within his or her lawful scope of practice may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and professional judgement, the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

Section III: Roe

1. In commemoration and celebration of the decision reached by the Supreme Court in the case involving Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) vs. Henry Wade, January 22nd shall be known as Reproductive Health Day. 

Section IV: Retroactive Tidiness

1. The Reasonable Limitations Act (L 603) is repealed.

Section V: Enactment

1. This act takes effect immediately upon signing by the governor.

Please vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain.
The vote shall last for 48 hours or until all Councilors have voted.

[PSOL]

Aye

[Pyro]

AYE!

[NyIndy]

Aye

[OneJ]

Aye

[DKrol]

Aye

[Pyro]

The Final Vote on LC 3.13 Protect Reproductive Health Act is now closed.
All Councilors have voted. Therefore, the time automatically expires.

Aye: 5 (PSOL, Pyro, NyIndy, 1J, DKrol)
Nay: 1 (Thr33)
Abstain: 0
Not Voting: 0

The Ayes have it! The legislation has PASSED.

[Peanut]

Protect Reproductive Health Act

Section I: Recognition

1. We recognize that reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a core component of women's health, privacy and equality.

2. It is the solemn duty of Lincoln to protect the right of women to access safe and legal abortion services.

Section II: Abortion

1. A licensed or certified health care practitioner acting within his or her lawful scope of practice may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and professional judgement, the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

Section III: Roe

1. In commemoration and celebration of the decision reached by the Supreme Court in the case involving Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) vs. Henry Wade, January 22nd shall be known as Reproductive Health Day. 

Section IV: Retroactive Tidiness

1. The Reasonable Limitations Act (L 603) is repealed.

Section V: Enactment

1. This act takes effect immediately upon signing by the governor.