SENATE BILL: The It's Not Up To You Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this bill.


And for the love of god don't repeat that stunt you pulled on the Wikimaster Bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

MOTION TO TABLE


You are really pushing this "I Don't Care" routine a little excessively, Nappy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm away.

See you monday

Three Words: Leave of Absence

Use it.

And do it right too (Seperate Thread in AFG Board, LOA included in title so it is seen and dates specified. Ask sbane, I think he did it right.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm away.

See you monday

Monday you could fall apart
Tuesday, Wednesday break my heart
Oh, Thursday doesn't even start...

Or how about another relevent 80's work:
I don't like Mondays
Tell me why?
I don't Like Mondays
Tell me why?

Someone better try to justify clause 1 at least, if not the whole bill, lest I go back to the 60's for a song about Tuesday.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: Waiting for Feedback.

Polnut, going forward be sure to state your intent to offer amendments in the same post as the text. Fortunately, you had that previous post to fall back on in this case.

Contrary to the recent criticism, this strict interpretation of the procedures actually serves to create a liberated (of procedures) track where texts can be formulated by collaboration and consensus and then offered with agreement of the major actors in the debate and thus avoid votes even in some cases, thus saving time. Obviously it doesn't apply to every situation and the benefits increase with the attentativeness and engagement of the Senators, but there have been enough to justify doing it this way.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find it fascinating that those who turn first to government coercion as their answer suddenly doubt the abilities of said entity's enforcement power to sufficiently achieve the desired results, in this case, stop people like Gosnell.

Gosnell was the result of four things in my opinion, the lack of oversight, lack of enforcement, lack of stiff penalties and the devaluation of and delegimizing of life to achieve political results, not because of late term abortion bans. If Gosnell was operating without regulation and unchecked, that calls for regulation, oversight and enforcement of the industry, and stiff penalties for those who violate life. Any other medical practice, any other industry, and I am sure every last one of you would be demanding they be strung up, sent to jail for 100 years and have Beth Warren all over them six ways to Sunday to ensure it never happens again. But here we are powerless, here the only answer is to legalize it. Why?

Is the most powerful country on the face of the earth so weak as to not be able to provide protection and support to the weakest and most defenseless individuals, individuals which our level of science allows the ability to live and exist in most cases outside of the mother's womb, why should we have to tolerate it being legal at such point to exterminate the existance of these individuals? This is not about religious values at this point, this is about whether or not to utilize our scientific resources to protect and preserve life where possible or to sacrifice them on the basis that "they are going to do it anyway and this way we can regulate it". In my view, it is a case of misplaced priorities. On another thread, the President considered this "viability argument" illegitimate, I would tend to insist he articulate why. 

I find the last clause of this bill to be the most sickening, not because of what it does (which we should most certainly do if this is passed), but instead because of what it concedes. If the death penalty rises to the level of cruel and unusual punishment in atlasia, just what would you consider the torture that is to be inflicted upon these children who are born "because their extermination was a failure"?

Jack up the penalties, increase access to birth control and sex education, encourage people to refrain from unsafe sex, but don't do this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.

At this stage of the pregnancy, it isn't that presumptuous at all really.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.

I don't think so, considering that in the time frame we are discussing here, many would be able to survive outside of the womb.

But its still a fetus, not a person

This will be a never-ending argument. Personally, I find it very wrong to kill a fetus that could survive on it's own, and I would hope that at least a majority of Senators feel the same way.

But you think it's okay to 'kill' a fetus that couldn't survive on its own, Tmth? What's the difference? Even if a woman carries a fetus to term and gives birth to a child it's not very likely that a fully developed child could 'survive on its own' without the attendant care of its mother or father, or a substitute parent of some sort.

Of course not, but that doesn't give the parents the power of life or death over a child born fully developed, nor does society condone such at this present juncture. Humans need nuturing from a family setting early on, and if the biological parents cannot do it, we have ways to deal with that. Safe Surrender, Adoption, etc. None of them are perfect, but if the alternative is infanticide I will take the imperfect system.

I don't see why we make a distinction on the basis of birth when the evidence suggest that the mother can be "removed from the equation" earlier and the child still has a rather high rate of survival afterwards. Is it preferable? Of course not, but it is much more desirable then destroying life.

I also don't see why there is such a reluctance to side with the preservation of life, to take advantage of our advances in medicine and technology to save it where possible even in the most limited and restricted situations, from people who in every other case would seek to utilize every resource available to protect the weak and powerless or why such skepticism develops amongst such people about the same tools that they themselves would advocate in numerous other circumstances, namely the power of the gov't to enforce its own will and the benefits of regulation, when it comes to the issue of life.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would certainly support your amendment Polnut. The repeal of the ban, can stand on its own merits just as easily in an amendment vote as a final vote.

Also it might help to state what the amendment was aiming to achieve, as I have noticed an unfortunate need to spoon feed people such information.
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Late-Term_Abortion_Restriction_Act

What's your point? As the bill's name clearly states, it's not up to you to put restrictions on women and their doctors... at any point of the process. As Senator Napoleon has said, abortions should be SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE. This bill does that.

Polnut's amendment revokes a specific section of a previous bill, and presumes that others know what that section is. I have reached the conclusion that too few are that attentative and thus provided the link, especially when I got the vibe from Polnut of "well too few are interested in this amendment, so....".

Is it also not up to you to use the Gov't to protect the weak?

You're assuming that a fetus is a person, which is a pretty big assumption to make.

Exactly

Doest that mean you would object to using the government to protect wildlife? To protect the environment? To reduce resource depletion, pollution, or destruction? Those aren't persons either, but that doesn't prevent the government from doing those things for the purpose of preserving life.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Polnut's idea, minus the other changes for the sake of simplicity purposes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote to come after minimum floor time expires.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to expand the exceptions for medical situations, then lets discuss that Senator.

I find it no more arbitrary then the point of birth considering how common it is that children are born within a week, two weeks, four weeks prior to nine months.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

no amendments?

"Shocking, positively shocking" - because some times you need Sean Connery.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am going to withdraw 56:46. I will offer another one if necessary removing the repeal of the ban and strengthening the medical standards.

I will wait and see what Nappy's looks like though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Seeing no objections the amendment has been adopted.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am MUCH more comfortable with this being outlined.

Are you stating approval of the addition being made or calling for a defintion for the circumstances surronding the mother (like what Nix posted) to be included here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In that case, are we finished here or are there loose ends to be tide up?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. FL 18-1 Reproductive Rights Act is hereby repealed.

3. Funding for Safe-Sex Education and Contraceptive Services

a. $30,000,000 shall be appropriated to each region each year for the purpose of expanding safe-sex education programs and access to contraceptive services.
b. Programs shall also include information regarding adoption.
c. The Department of Internal Affairs shall be charged with designing a criteria of what constitutes a qualifying sex education program in each region.
d. The Department of Internal Affairs will be in charge of distributing all the said monies to each region.
e. Any region that fails to construct or maintain a qualifying program or expansion of services, will have their money withheld until the standards are met.

4. $60 million per year shall be appropriated for the purpose of caring for viable children born during a failed abortion procedure.[/quote]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Apparently the listing in the final Senate text was the format shown above and the sub clause was meant to be attached to clause b. However, on the wiki, it got posted as a paragraph format and thus created a disconnect between b and dependent it's sub clause, hence why the previous amendment inserted c ahead of b's sub clause. I have corrected it here, since it just corrects formatting type. If anyone has issue with it being corrected in this fashion, please speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This bill is now at final vote, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is the final text?

Like three posts before yours?