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.
mr. assemblyman, you couldn't possibly be suggesting that you care more about the rights of an undeveloped clump of cells that has no sensory perception and no chance of surviving as an independent unit than about the rights of a fully grown adult, could you?
