The Mideast Right to Life Act

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There is currently an attack on the Mideast Right to Life Act in the Mideast Assembly in the form of the "No Heart of Stone Act."  It has been claimed that the "No Heart of Stone Act" would provide emergency care and legal protection for illegal immigrants. The truth is that this is already provided by the Right to Life Act.  The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development. Mideasterners should not fall for the lies being made against this bill's opponents.  Having a heart for the child in the womb does not mean that we have a "heart of stone."

-assemblyperson shua

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

Yes, I am in favor of a few regulations when it comes to keeping children from being deliberately killed.  Crazy, huh?   The MRLA established protections both for the unborn and the immigrant, to further a consistent ethic of life. The NHOSA is not pro-immigrant or compassionate just because it intends to jetison the protections for the unborn. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The inexplicably named "No Heart of Stone Act" amounts to little more than a repeal of all protections for the unborn throughout development.

This is blatantly false. The sole function of the MRLA was to surround abortion services in miles of bureaucratic red tape. Funny how the people who supposedly support a "small government" are all in favor of regulations when they suit their purposes.

As for the "inexplicable" name, I explained it thoroughly in the debate thread. I had to, as you have spent the last 24 hours arguing about the title of the bill instead of the bill itself. I am glad that you're finally explaining your objections to the proposal. It would have been better if you'd done so the first three times I asked, but "better late than never".

Yes, I am in favor of a few regulations when it comes to keeping children from being deliberately killed.  Crazy, huh?   The MRLA established protections both for the unborn and the immigrant, to further a consistent ethic of life. The NHOSA is not pro-immigrant or compassionate just because it intends to jetison the protections for the unborn. 

I'm starting to feel like a broken record here. What you just said is a standard, right-wing argument against abortion. There's nothing wrong from that, but it is far from incontrovertible fact. Furthermore, the MRLA did not actually prohibit abortions (that would be unconstitutional), it merely mandated a waiting period and a whole bunch of tests before one could have an abortion. That's not going to stop someone from having an abortion if they're set on it, but it does create needless obstacles to getting a procedure that is perfectly legal.

You're comment that you oppose children being "deliberately killed" is misleading because there is serious debate over when a fetus can be considered a living human being. No-one is talking about hunting down five-year-old kids and shooting them; we're merely debating a question that is as yet unanswered. While I do not agree with your definition, I respect your right to hold it. We can and should have an intelligent, level-headed debate on this issue, but fear-mongering and taking to the pulpit every time someone questions your beliefs is getting us nowhere.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is whether you're a pundit or a public servant. If it's the former, then feel free to make bombastic statements and argue about petty details. If you intend to continue representing the people of the Mideast, however, I ask that you set aside the vitriol and the distractions and do the job you were elected to do.

You sound like a broken record to me as well. You keep insisting that I "do the job I was elected to do" as though there is something inconsistent between being an elected representative and opposing bills one disagrees with.  The name of a bill is not a minor detail, it frames the debate and perception of a law. If it were a minor detail, you would not insist so strongly on a name that does not reflect the actual legal changes you seek to make.  It is not a minor detail that the MRLA already contains protections for illegal immigrants.  I find it ironic that you accuse me of "taking the pulpit" on this issue since your office first attacked me publicly before I opened this thread clarifying the record on what this bill really is and why it should be opposed. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I would have thought "this bill removes the right to life from being protected" made the reasons for my opposition fairly clear.