Acceptance of Science Bill [Failed]

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I propose that sections 1 and 2 be amended to replace "true or scientifically legitimate" with "based on scientific evidence".  A number of these topics are touched upon in some religious beliefs and I want to avoid any implication that the government of Atlasia is determining the correctness of any religious belief.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye.  It's a minor but important distinction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay, but expect some amendments to declutter Section 1's attempt to define sin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Amendment 1:
To rename section 1 "Section 1: Human sexuality".

Amendment 2:
To strike clause 1 of section 1.

Amendment 3:
To strike clause 2 of section 1.

Amendment 4
To strike "sinful, wrong, or unnatural" in clause 3 of section 1 and replace with "an unnatural act observed only in humans" and to strike clause 7 of section 2.

Amendment 5
To strike clause 5 of section 1.

Amendment 6
To rename section 2 "Section 2: Origins".

Amendment 6
To strike "valid within" in clause 8 of section 2 and replace with "testable by".

Amendment 7
To strike "disproves" in clause 9 of section 2 and replace with "contradicts".

If amendments 2, 3 or 5 above fail, expect some additional amendments to edit those clauses to remove the word "sinful".  Clause 3 of section 1 and clause 7 of section 2 are somewhat redundant so striking the latter to leave mention of homosexuality solely in the human sexuality section makes sense.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As the proposer, an obvious Aye to all.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay to both of Senator Brandon H's amendments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Two more amendments, since the two of my amendments striking clauses failed, two different amendments to modify them to get government out of the sin business.

1. Section 1 Clause 2 is amended by striking "strange, unnatural, or sinful." and replacing with "strange or unnatural."

2. Section 1 Clause 5 is amended by striking "immoral, dangerous, or sinful." and replacing with "dangerous."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay
Aye
Aye

While the available evidence does indicate that there is not a statistically significant link between first trimester abortions and breast cancer, there may be a link between later term abortions and breast cancer.  Some studies indicate that the link may exist and there does not appear to a be a good human study to settle issue (due to problems arising from later term abortions being both much rarer and much more controversial).  Animal studies indicate a definite link in the case of rats.  I'd be comfortable with a funding restriction on indicating that there is a link between breast cancer and first trimester abortions, but not with one denying the possibility of a link with later term abortions.  The science just isn't sound enough yet.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Abstain, though I'm troubled by the use of the undefined weasel word "significantly" in clause 3.


Assuming that the current amendment passes, I offer an amendment to strike section 3 clause 3 from the bill.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ay on the amendment to strike section 3 clause 3

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nay

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Presumably the reasoning is that since the parents have made a conscious choice to have their kids learn scientific fallacies that choice should trump the concerns of the general public that would be paying for such miseducation.  I disagree with that reasoning as this bill does not require the teaching of any particular information nor require private schools to accept public money if they wish to teach scientific fallacies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Presumably the reasoning is that since the parents have made a conscious choice to have their kids learn scientific fallacies that choice should trump the concerns of the general public that would be paying for such miseducation.  I disagree with that reasoning as this bill does not require the teaching of any particular information nor require private schools to accept public money if they wish to teach scientific fallacies.

Obviously your support for federalism is inversely proportional to your distance from the Southeast.

How so?  This bill only pertains to funds spent by the Federal government.  If the Southeast government wishes to spend its own money to send children to schools that could not receive federal money as a result of this bill, that is up to the Southeast to decide. I believe in Federalism not Regionalism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When this amendment is done being vote on, could someone post an updated  version of the bill?

At present the bill is in the same shape as was the last time an update was posted.

--

Nay on the amendment to strike Section 3 clause 2

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Abstain

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is no prohibition from being acting president & VP at the same time.

Keystone Phil is not entitled to cast a tiebreaking vote after his term ends, although if he does so in the next two hours, it would be valid.

True, but there is a restriction on his powers as President of the Senate.  Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 says...

In the event that the President of the Senate should be exercising responsibility as Acting President of the Republic of Atlasia under the Constitution, then the powers given by this Resolution to the President of the Senate shall instead be exercised by the Dean of the Senate.

His power to break ties wasn't given the President of the Senate by the OPSR though.  Another half hour and it will be the new Vice President who breaks the tie.