SB 111-13: Right to Choose Act of 2022 (Debating)

[Devout Centrist]

This bill would codify abortion rights into Federal law, while allowing the regions to develop and implement reasonable restrictions on the practice.

[Devout Centrist]

From the majority opinion in Politics Fan v. the South:

The limitations the state can place upon abortion access, must be tailored to only cover such legitimate government purposes without being overly broad. For example, hypothetically, a total ban against certain medical procedures would likely be unconstitutional, as no legitimate government purpose would exist to justify preventing doctors from performing procedures they believe to be appropriate and in the best interests of their patients.

   The law under scrutiny by the court, however, does not overreach legitimate government authority in such a manner. Regulating the locations where certain abortions can be performed to locations properly equipped to handle such procedures is legitimate, reasonable, and therefore constitutional.

…

As it is constitutionally permissible it is therefore a political question, left for Congress and to the Regions to decide. As there is no federal law on the issue, the Regional government has full authority to implement and enforce the law in question. The court therefore finds in favor of the regional government.

I agree with this reasoning here and I am happy to introduce new language that allows the regions to regulate when and where these procedures may occur prior to 20 weeks of pregnancy.

[Devout Centrist]

We already can.

Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.

[Devout Centrist]

object

[Devout Centrist]

We already can.

Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.

A. It shall be unlawful for any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, to ban pregnancy termination procedures prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

I mean c'mon, the current language clearly does not do anything like what you were suggesting earlier.

B. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that regulates access to pregnancy termination services prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy, so long as access to reproductive care, including pregnancy termination, is not substantially impeded or infringed.

i think this language accomplishes the same goal, no?

[Devout Centrist]

Nay

[Devout Centrist]

Perhaps I am simply not fluent in legalese but the second half of this sentence negates the first half. And "reproductive care" is already such a broad umbrella that this bill's own findings could cover every conceivable "pregnancy termination service" and prevent it from being restricted.

Well here's my proposal:

--Change the findings section to be more specific
--Alter the language of Section III to include a test on what counts as 'substantially impeded or infringed'

[Devout Centrist]

Perhaps I am simply not fluent in legalese but the second half of this sentence negates the first half. And "reproductive care" is already such a broad umbrella that this bill's own findings could cover every conceivable "pregnancy termination service" and prevent it from being restricted.

Well here's my proposal:

--Change the findings section to be more specific
--Alter the language of Section III to include a test on what counts as 'substantially impeded or infringed'

I'd be interested in seeing that, if leery of something that goes too far beyond the court decision text regarding "legitimate and reasonable" regulations on access.

I'll get on it!

[Devout Centrist]

Presenting an amendment:

Right to Choose Act of 2022

Senate Bill
to Respect a Woman's Right to Choose and to Codify Legal Precedent

SECTION I. Name

This Act shall be called the Right to Choose Act of 2022.

SECTION II. Findings

A. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia finds that-

I. Access to reproductive care, specifically procedures that ensure the safe carriage, resolution, or termination of a pregnancy, is a fundamental right for all citizens of the Republic of Atlasia
II. That the termination of a pregnancy constitutes reproductive care under this definition
III. That the termination of a pregnancy is a substantially private and personal decision
IV. That this procedure ought to be made with proper physical and psychiatric healthcare considerations
V. That any procedure directly or tangentially related to pregnancy termination ought to be regulated, and standardized., and protected
VI. That the regions of Atlasia ought to be able to enact certain laws past a certain point in pregnancy that regulate the practice and administration of pregnancy termination
VII. That reproductive care be provided to mothers who opt to carry a pregnancy to term, including all medically necessary pre and postpartum care

SECTION III. Statutory Right to Choose

A. It shall be unlawful for any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, to ban pregnancy termination procedures prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

B. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that regulates access to pregnancy termination services prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy, so long as access to reproductive care, including pregnancy termination, is not substantially impeded or infringed.

C. For the purposes of this section, substantially impeded or infringed shall be defined as any legal or regulatory action taken by a region, local, or nation subdivision that is found to be in noncompliance with the following test:
I. Furthers a valid regional or local interest in protecting the health of a pregnant individual
II. Creates, or increases, a benefit that outweighs the burden placed on people seeking pregnancy termination services
III. Is based on credible, scientific evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy termination procedures


C.D. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that restricts, bans, or otherwise regulates access to pregnancy termination services on or past twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

SECTION IV: Effective Date

A. This law shall go into effect on January 1, 2023.

[Devout Centrist]

What does that "certain" in (A)(VI) do and what is the distinction being made with it?

Certain just refers to the test for abortion regulations that is being applied later on in Section III C. It doesn't have a specific meaning beyong that.

C. For the purposes of this section, substantially impeded or infringed shall be defined as any legal or regulatory action taken by a region, local, or nation subdivision that is found to be in noncompliance with the following test:
I. Furthers a valid regional or local interest in protecting the health of a pregnant individual

So, would it take just one individual anywhere with a personal interest that diverges from the regional or local interest for any law or regulation to fall foul of the noncompliance test? Correct me if I'm wrong here, this wording is a bit hard to parse for me.

No, this language is meant to refer to pregnant individuals as a class, not specific individuals.

The wording here is borrowed from the undue burden test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was later expanded upon by Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt:

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, a plurality of the Court concluded that there “exists” an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion, and consequently a provision of law is constitutionally invalid, if the “purpose or effect” of the provision “is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” The plurality added that “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.”

...

We begin with the standard, as described in Casey. We recognize that the “State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient.” (Roe v. Wade) But, we added, “a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends.” (PP v. Casey). Moreover, “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.”

...

We conclude that neither of these provisions confers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access

[Devout Centrist]

Amendment adopted?

[Devout Centrist]

Motion for a final vote

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Aye