MA: Repeal of the Mideast Abortion Statue II (Vetoed)

[Talleyrand]

Does our current statute conflict with federal law?

[Talleyrand]

This is a deeply personal issue to many- not just those in the Assembly- and there is a chance that a decision will be impossible to reach here.

If no side has a majority to pass or a consensus can't be reached in a week, why don't we strategically vote down the bill so the Governor can call a proposition vote on this bill for all Mideast citizens? If he is unwilling to do that, I'm sure 11 citizens can be rounded up in support of this legislation to put it to a vote.

[Talleyrand]

A proposition of what?  Either way, a lone repeal is certainly not the way to go.  The last time public opinion was sought, the voters voted to uphold the legislation.  It would be drastically irresponsible to repeal something without having a replacement in place.

A proposition to repeal the existing statute. And what's wrong with a lone repeal from a purely legislative viewpoint? Wouldn't the region just revert to the federal laws on this issue? I'm not saying I'm opposed to a replacement bill (e.g. if the bill is not repealed, I want to reduce the punishment for violation of this bill to a large degree), but right now, I don't see how it's irresponsible.

And just because this legislation was upheld in the past doesn't mean it will be now. Our region has become much more ideologically diverse and such a vote would likely be close.

[Talleyrand]

A proposition of what?  Either way, a lone repeal is certainly not the way to go.  The last time public opinion was sought, the voters voted to uphold the legislation.  It would be drastically irresponsible to repeal something without having a replacement in place.

A proposition to repeal the existing statute. And what's wrong with a lone repeal from a purely legislative viewpoint? Wouldn't the region just revert to the federal laws on this issue? I'm not saying I'm opposed to a replacement bill (e.g. if the bill is not repealed, I want to reduce the punishment for violation of this bill to a large degree), but right now, I don't see how it's irresponsible.

And just because this legislation was upheld in the past doesn't mean it will be now. Our region has become much more ideologically diverse and such a vote would likely be close.

What if the federal law is eliminated or changes?

Adjustments will have to be made in that situation, but I'm confident the federal laws could change dramatically enough to cause disruption in our laws here. I could be wrong, of course, but maybe we should put in some sort of trigger motion in a bill to prepare for such an event.

[Talleyrand]

Or why not just have our own law in place as well?  We've used that system before... why chagne now?

To be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating we should get rid of our own law. We should give the people a choice to do so, and if they do not, it can be kept in place or refined.

As for "why change now", the Left now is once again strong enough to flex its political strength in the Mideast and most of its members hold strongly pro-choice views conflicting with this law. They should get an opportunity to attempt remove this law, which goes against their beliefs, just as those in favor of it should get an opportunity to fight for it. That's why I think setting off a proposition vote is a good idea.

Once again, this is a deeply personal issue, and I think every voter in the Mideast should have a say on it.

[Talleyrand]

If everyone thinks the federal law is sufficient, explain to me the harm in passing a bill with the same language.

I suppose we can, but what would be the point? The same law would be enforced either way.

[Talleyrand]

Honestly, this is one issue that I don't feel we should decide without giving everyone a say.  I would strongly urge my colleagues in the Assembly to strategically vote to defeat this proposal and any amendments.  I would also request that we get a vote on this sooner, rather than later.  After it fails, Assemblyman Gass3268's unamended proposal should be put to the voters.  Normally, I would say that we were elected to make these decisions, but abortion is a unique issue.  I sincerely believe that this is the right way to deal with this issue and I would request that the speaker bring it to a vote as soon as possible so that we can vote down the amendments and the bill itself, and let The People make their voice heard.  I place my trust in The People!

This reasoning is why I suggested forcing a proposition vote. If there's one issue I don't feel comfortable making decisions on the behalf of my constituents for, it's abortion- and as Mr. X said, it's a unique issue. I will be voting strategically against this bill, and I hope the Governor grants us a proposition where The People will decide this issue. Regardless, I'm sure at least 11 voters in the Mideast are ready to come out and publicly support having a proposition if he chooses not to, because he strongly opposes Assemblyman Gass's bill, and I have the utmost respect for his views.

[Talleyrand]

No one has an opinion about my compromise proposal?

I support it. It's an acceptable compromise to me.

[Talleyrand]

In that case my order of preference is Gass's bill>Mr. X's bill>>>>Tmth's bill>>>>>>>>>>status quo

Please don't take it the wrong way in me asking this, but could you explain your logic behind support for abortions at full-term? Actually, include in that the last month or two of the pregnancy in general, as a fetus can usually survive outside of the womb at this stage. Thanks.

I just don't think that this is something our region has to have a law on when there already is a federal law. Granted it's a weird time for this right now given that the federal law is in limbo but eventually there will be some law at the federal level and that is sufficient for me. It just seems redundant to have a second layer of laws at the regional level with only minor differences from the federal law when the only problem with the federal law is that it is temporarily in question.

But if the federal law is in limbo, doesn't that prove the need for a regional law?

Drj101 has said he will support Mr. X's compromise, Mr. Speaker.

And JCL, that idea would allow rapists to stop their victims from getting an abortion in case of a pregnancy, using your logic.

[Talleyrand]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

Nay

[Talleyrand]

The Governor does have a right to bring up a proposed amendment, but there is no need for further debate on this issue- minds will not be changed and it shall simply be repeated talking points over an issue that all Mideasterners are firm in their beliefs on. I support his amendment personally, and will vote for it, but I believe that the one Mr. X proposed and was passed immediately adequately represents the view of Mideast citizens as well.

Therefore, I would like the following to happen. The Speaker should hold an up-down vote on the Governor's amendment, followed immediately by a final vote on whatever the final version of the bill is. I am disappointed at how long it is taking to have votes on bills, including the Bag Tax, Gubernatorial Vacancy Amendment, and PR-STV Act, even though debate has long expired and clear consensus exists among a majority of Assemblymen in all these cases. I urge my fellow Assemblymen to call for final votes on pieces of legislation as well. We are doing no service to anyone by postponing them.

If this is not done in an appropriate manner (the one I've detailed above), I will motion for a final vote on this bill, as well as the others.

[Talleyrand]

I am not concerned about the possibility of Mr. X being elected to the Senate affecting this debate. As you pointed out, the inauguration is three weeks away, and I'm fine without having a super majority. The Assembly has shown itself capable of passing good legislation and I still sincerely believe we have a strong working relationship with the Governor.

Even if you are going to propose another amendment, all we are asking for is a timely vote. Twenty-four hours should be enough time to debate and vote on an amendment, not a week. I believe that there has been substantive debate on this from both sides (if not in public, definitely in private). And as I've said, I actually support your amendment- I just don't want us to drag along for another month debating this and never holding a final vote.

And I understand both you and Inks have busy with finals, so I apologize if I'd appeared rude or insensitive. But now that they are over, holding a vote on something on which there is consensus and then certifying the results should not be an issue, especially when you still have some time to come on the forum, and I encourage the Speaker to hold votes on the aforementioned three bills quickly.

(And I hope you guys were rewarded with nice results )

[Talleyrand]

I'll support this amendment.

[Talleyrand]

I've held off on making votes because you guys complained I moved too fast when I held a vote after 24 hours of no debate.  Come on... If I'm going to get attacked for stalling, I'm just going to move stuff back to 24 hours.  I did this as a courtesy to you, TexasDem... your Gubernatorial Vacancy Amendment would've failed if I hadn't stopped the vote to let debate continue.  So assume some good faith... or we'll go back to the old rule, and votes will be held after 24-hours of no debate, and I won't stop a vote to let debate resume.  You guys can't have it both ways.  One week I'm being criticized for acting too hastily, and now I'm being criticized for acting too slow.

Okay, fair points there, and I guess that applies to this amendment well, but for the other three pieces of legislation, I think adequate time has been spent on them (unless you have objections?) and there seems to be a consensus based around them, so I'd prefer if we could get to a votes soon.

I'm not trying to turn this into an attack on you, by the way. I know that you've acted in good faith, and no one else has the long and illustrious record of service to the Mideast that you've accumulated in the Assembly. I'd just like to have final votes on those.

[Talleyrand]

AYE


But I'll support Gass's amendment too once it comes to a vote- I can't believe I forgot that...

[Talleyrand]

AYE


But I'll support Gass's amendment too once it comes to a vote- I can't believe I forgot that...

So I'm assuming people no longer want a final vote immediately after Tmthforu's amendment is voted on?

Well, I can't speak for others, but I don't; since Gass has made an excellent point. Plus the amendment Tmth proposed earlier was radically different from this one.

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Talleyrand]

I support the change from "parental" to "parental/guardian" and would be ready for a final vote after that alteration is made.

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[Talleyrand]

Before we put this bill up for another vote, why don't we wait to hear the Governor's suggested amendment/reasoning behind the veto?

[Talleyrand]

After a good bit of thought and personal introspection, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot vote for an override of the Governor's veto with this bill's current text.

I've always been, in my personal views, more or less pro-life, but not willing to impose my moral beliefs on others, and that's why I initially supported this legislation- for I believed it would create a law that would be acceptable to all sides; simultaneously protecting many unborn lives while allowing sufficient control to women over their bodily decisions. I voted for this bill because I thought it more adequately represented the ideals of this region than our previous regional laws, but seeing how acrimonious this debate has been and learning some things about my own friends, it's clear to me that this bill would not be the correct choice for the Mideast. And I personally have a number of qualms with it, which I will address below (I regret not speaking out on this earlier, and I sincerely apologize if my change-of-heart has upset anyway. Full responsibility lies with me for not making my position on this clearer).

I've stated numerous times that this is a unique issue and easily the one I feel least comfortable legislating on, but the following things are very important to me.

1. I am very indisposed to the idea of 2nd trimester abortions. While it is true that many minorities and teenagers choose to receive this procedure, it remains unclear to me why it is necessary for them to wait (thereby creating a more developed, baby-like fetus) when they can undergo a less dangerous and less cruel abortion earlier, removing a less-developed fetus. The dilation and evacuation method used during this period is quite frankly something that appears rather barbaric to me. The insertion of a cannula combined with a pump to remove the tissue from the predeceased baby (killed by a form of lethal injection) and subsequent use of forceps to "clean up" the uterus strikes me as a practice that would certainly be seen as disgusting in the 3rd trimester or for a stillbirth. This also occurs around the period where it is believed that a fetus may began to develop the necessary perceptual systems to feel pain. It is unclear to me why a person, with the obvious exception of threat to their own life, would choose to have a D&E when they had a clear option to have a less invasive or even nonsurgical abortion earlier in the pregnancy, with a less formed fetus. Banning 2nd trimester abortions will influence women to decide the fate of their pregnancies earlier and reduce the occurence of this procedure.

2. Parental consent is also a stretch. Mothers, no matter how old, should be the primary decision-makers on their own pregnancies and it is highly unfair to allow parents to choose for their children. However, parental notification is a must and will have to be inserted into this bill.

3. I do prefer the penalties in this bill to that of the other bill, but I won't vote for this bill unless the two changes I've suggested above are added.

[Talleyrand]

Nay.

I initially planned to abstain due to my support for the punishment changes, but our constitution does not define whether an abstention would in effect count as a "Nay" vote or rather not really count at all, allowing the override to pass 3-1. That would open up too much ambiguity- possibly even a court case.