MA: Abortion Liberalization Act (Passed over veto)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nay

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Parental consent? That flies in the face of the whole mantra of "freedom of choice". Why does it matter what the grandparents of the fetus think?

Anyways, everything except section one is terrible, so I hereby would like to propose an amendment striking sections 2 through 4.

I object to that amendment.

I am by no means anti-abortion, and even a cursory examination of my record will show that I have been at the forefront of the movement to repeal MRLA and other reactionary abortion laws since my first term in the Assembly. That said, eliminating all regulations on this issue goes too far. Allowing a woman to receive an abortion in, say, the 35th week of the pregnancy crosses a moral line and is far outside the grey area on this issue. And while I oppose burdensome limitations on the rights of women to receive legal medical services, I have serious doubts about the ability of a 13-year-old to make such a serious decision without adult guidance. Note that Section 4 does not require the consent of the parents, but rather that they be notified, so the "problem" addressed by this amendment does not even exist.

If this amendment is adopted, I will not support this bill, period.

Having the parents notified is a horrible idea. It could ruin the poor girl's life. Not all parents are loving and forgiving individuals.

I will in no way support this bill as long as Section 4 is in place. As a father, I personally find it repugnant.

I'm surprised that as a father, you would oppose parental notification. What if the pregnancy was not via consensual relations. Yes not all are forgiving and loving but what about the ones that are and would step up to care for that life.

(Pro-Life sane person)

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

In addition, the doctor performing the abortion should be sentenced to jail time. A monetary fine is a sad slap on the wrist.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

With regards to section three: 18 months prison /50,000 fine is too generous. More like 5 years/250,000 fine and permanent revoking of medical license at minimum.

Section four: the current bill unamended should suffice. Why the reason for adding parental/guardian abuse?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I'm alright with having section 4 as it was, but I definitely want to hear some opinions. Maybe we'll have to remove the amended section.

Well, EarlAW has stated that he won't vote for this bill unless Section 4 is struck out, and I'm guessing that JCL will be voting against it regardless. I understand the reasoning on both sides of this issue, so my main objective is to craft a bill that is acceptable to the greatest number of people.

And that is laudable Mr Speaker. My fellow Assemblymen and fellow citizens,

My convictions regarding the issue of abortion are clear and well known. I believe we have alternatives that are more beneficial to the life and liberty we all hold dear. The recent controversy (in real life) regarding the ethics of a family planning organization with regards to some of their procedures of aborting babies is causing serious discussions that are causing even the most pro-choice advocates to reconsider.

For those who don't know why I'm pro-life without exceptions, you can look no further than both my faith and my Conservatarian view on the role of government. God is the author of life and the taking of a human life should only be considered in the defense of another or for the sake of the general public peace, freedom and order. While the most vile of criminals and terrorists are afforded the right of defense by legal counsel, the most innocent of us are denied advocacy. Where is the justice in that? In the videos you even hear some of the abortion providers admit to calling the child in the womb life. Has any of you who are pro-choice reconsider your position? We as a regional government should carefully examine our current abortion policies and consider the merits of laws that promote life which is our first Liberty.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I object. I'm wondering why the Speaker wants to remove parental notification when a minor child is having an abortion? I'm not sure that is a wise idea.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Motion to restore section four. The parents have guardianship over the child thus they have final authority.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Motion to restore section four. The parents have guardianship over the child thus they have final authority.

Under my authority as Speaker, I find this amendment to be frivolous and will not bring it to the floor. As a majority of the Assembly has already voted to strike Section 4, another vote on the matter is pointless and only wastes the time of this chamber and the people of the Mideast.

This amendment is not frivolous. The merits were not discussed intellectually on either side. Simply put, parents have certain rights over a minor child and this assembly should preserve, rather than undermine, those parental rights. Also, what about the perspective father in the situation? He should be able to advocate for the life of the child in the womb. This issue is not a waste of time and the people want an intelligent discussion on the issue. So again, I restate my motion to restore section 4.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

BUT MAH MEN'S RIGHTS

We get it, you're pro life. This bill is not about implementing the beliefs of the pro-life movement. Quite the opposite.

What does the pro choice movement believe? That a woman has the choice of what to do with her body, which includes the fetus inside her.

That means:
A) If a woman is old enough to be pregnant, she is old enough to have the choice of what do with the fetus inside her. Even if she is a minor. (18 is an arbitrary age anyways; for issues like this, biology is much less arbitrary)
B) Since this doesn't effect the father's body in any way, what he thinks is moot.

I also believe this means that a woman has the right to have an abortion beyond the 20th week, but this belief does not have the majority support in this assembly.

The people want Pro-Life legislation and this undermines that.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Nay

While I disagree with the governor on ending parental notification, not requiring ultrasounds and ending the waiting period, we agree on the 16 week limit.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

With a vote of 3 Ayes and 1 Nay, the Ayes constituting more than 2/3 of the sitting members of the Assembly, the motion to override the Governor's veto has passed.


This concludes my career as a member of the Mideast Assembly. Thank's to everyone who's served with me over the last five months and good luck to the next Speaker. It's been a pleasure.

The vote fails as we have five members prior to your swearing in to the senate. Veto sustained.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Using Article 4 Section 9 Clause 2 to count it as passed I see. I'm contesting override under Article 3 Section 1 Clause 1

Sworn in or not he is considered a member and as such the override is considered as having failed.