Proposed Modification to Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

[WMS]

I would like to open for discussion the possibility of amending the Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004. This Act was, quite frankly, a hideous abuse of power by the far left, specifically migrendel. It went far beyond correcting any restrictions on family planning enacted by the right and imposed a new set of authoritarian restrictions favored by the left. Specifically, I wish to strike sections (c) and (d) from the Act, as they establish their own set of leftist restrictions on family planning organizations, making a mockery of the claimed purpose of the Act, which was ostensibly to remove authoritarian restrictions enacted by the right. I intend to leave sections (a) and (b) as they are.

I welcome any and all reasonable comments and discussion.

Here is the current text of the Act, with my modifications in strikethrough.


Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

It shall be the stated policy of the Forum that:
(a) funds for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) shall be restored to their FY 2001 level.
(b) no organization receiving federal funding for family planning services domestically or abroad shall be prohibited from mentioning the full range of reproductive options, including abortion, to their clientele on pain of federal support.
(c) no funds shall be made available through the CHIP program for the care of zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses as described by regulation as an "unborn child".
(d) no law shall be construed to punish someone for an attack on a pregnant woman in such a way as to treat the act against the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus as a separate offense.

Passed by the Third Congress of the A.F.F. (September 25, 2004)
Presented to the President on October 16, 2004
Entered into law after 7 days with no executive action.

[Bono]

For all I care we could just get rid of it altogether?

[12th Doctor]

I agree, let's just strike the whole damn thing.

[A18]

What is the partisan makeup of the Senate, going by real parties?

[Colin]

What is the partisan makeup of the Senate, going by real parties?

Why do you want to know? We don't go by "real" parties here Phillip.

[Gabu]

Here's my take on it:

(a) funds for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) shall be restored to their FY 2001 level.

I don't really know what this means, so no comment on it for now.

(b) no organization receiving federal funding for family planning services domestically or abroad shall be prohibited from mentioning the full range of reproductive options, including abortion, to their clientele on pain of federal support.

I don't see anything wrong with telling women what all of their options are.  Anything else is a lie by omission.

(c) no funds shall be made available through the CHIP program for the care of zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses as described by regulation as an "unborn child".

As with (a), I don't really know what this is saying.

(d) no law shall be construed to punish someone for an attack on a pregnant woman in such a way as to treat the act against the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus as a separate offense.

I'd say to strike this part, but not just to leave it off.  In a legal sense, it makes no sense to allow abortion but to count it as a second death when the embryo/fetus dies long with a pregnant woman, so this should only apply to time period past when abortion is legal.  As well as that, murdering a woman past this time period should not be a double murder; it should more be something like a murder and manslaughter unless you were well aware that the woman was pregnant.

[A18]

6 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent

No way you're going to get them to throw this out completely.

[Colin]

6 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent

No way you're going to get them to throw this out completely.

What do you mean? Their are plenty of Democrats who are against Abortion at some point during delivery. I don't know if you count the two Canadians as Democrats since one votes Liberal in RL and one votes NDP in RL.

[12th Doctor]

6 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent

No way you're going to get them to throw this out completely.

We have Nation on our side, I am sure.

[Colin]

6 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 1 Independent

No way you're going to get them to throw this out completely.

Actually if you want the RL partisan breakdown, going by avatars, it would be 4 Democrats, 3 Republicans, 2 Independents and 1 Other.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's my take on it:

(a) funds for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) shall be restored to their FY 2001 level.

I don't really know what this means, so no comment on it for now.

Subsection (a) restored funding that was cut from UNFPA when Bush took office because funds provided to UNFPA from other sources (but not the US portion of that funding) were ysed to provide abortions.

(c) no funds shall be made available through the CHIP program for the care of zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses as described by regulation as an "unborn child".

As with (a), I don't really know what this is saying.

(d) no law shall be construed to punish someone for an attack on a pregnant woman in such a way as to treat the act against the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus as a separate offense.

I'd say to strike this part, but not just to leave it off.  In a legal sense, it makes no sense to allow abortion but to count it as a second death when the embryo/fetus dies long with a pregnant woman, so this should only apply to time period past when abortion is legal.  As well as that, murdering a woman past this time period should not be a double murder; it should more be something like a murder and manslaughter unless you were well aware that the woman was pregnant.

Subsections (c) and (d) are there because some in the pro-choice movement fear (and some in the anti-abortion movement hope) that if the unborn are treated as "persons" under some laws, that such treatment might be used as a wedge with which to cause abortions to be judicially declared illegal or at least more difficult under the due process claiuse of the XIVth Amendment.

[Sam Spade]

Scrapping the whole thing sounds like a good idea to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

While the last thing I want to do is get involved in a row over abortion, when I was elected I pledged that I would try to write and vote for good legislation, and kill bad legislation.

The Family Planning Amendments Act is a classic example of bad legislation.
It is absurdly ideological, it is very restrictive, it is confusing and hard to understand in places.

I support scrapping c) and d)

[Colin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Subsections (c) and (d) are there because some in the pro-choice movement fear (and some in the anti-abortion movement hope) that if the unborn are treated as "persons" under some laws, that such treatment might be used as a wedge with which to cause abortions to be judicially declared illegal or at least more difficult under the due process claiuse of the XIVth Amendment.
[/quote]

So Ernest you are basically saying that under the Family Planning Act so called Laci Peterson laws are illegal and go against the spirit of this law?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes and no.
Subsection (d) would clearly repeal any such federal law, but no such law is on the books, altho the Unborn Victims of Violence Act has passed the US House the past few Congresses, and if the Senate were to pass it, I'm certain Bush would sign it.

However, such laws would have no effect on State and/or Regional laws, and about half the States have laws that do make the death of the unborn during an assault on the mother a seperate crime.  Personally, I take a middle stance on this. If the intent was to harm the unborn, without the consent of the mother, then that clearly should be a crime in and of itself.  If the intent was to harm the mother, then in most cases, that should not be a seperate crime, but rather a circumstance that would increase the penalty imposed.  Given that my personal preference is to have capital punishment as the sole punishment for murder, it is rather moot for a case such as the Peterson case, as unless you are James Bond, you only live once.

[PBrunsel]

I'll veto this.

[Colin]

I'll veto this.

And why is that Mr. President?

[PBrunsel]

I'll veto this.

And why is that Mr. President?

Pro-Choice bill, especially the first part.

I may line item the first part though.

[Colin]

I'll veto this.

And why is that Mr. President?

Pro-Choice bill, especially the first part.

I may line item the first part though.

'

This bill is for the taking out of the most pro-choice part of this act. You veto it the most pro-choice parts of this most pro-choice act would stay in place.

[Gabu]

I'll veto this.

And why is that Mr. President?

Pro-Choice bill, especially the first part.

I may line item the first part though.

Uh, this is an amendment to an act already in place, Mr. President, not a new law.

[WMS]

Mr. President, as the Honorable Senate Candidate Colin and the Honorable Senator Gabu have indicated, this is a modification of an already existing Act in order to remove atrocious and extremist language from. Given your strong pro-life leanings I would have expected support at the very least! I hope you were not kidnapped by nclib and subjected to NARAL brainwashing or something...

------------------
OOC (as it were): ;-P

[Sam Spade]

Mr. President, as the Honorable Senate Candidate Colin and the Honorable Senator Gabu have indicated, this is a modification of an already existing Act in order to remove atrocious and extremist language from. Given your strong pro-life leanings I would have expected support at the very least! I hope you were not kidnapped by nclib and subjected to NARAL brainwashing or something...

------------------
OOC (as it were): ;-P

What exactly is NARAL brainwashing like?

[PBrunsel]

Mr. President, as the Honorable Senate Candidate Colin and the Honorable Senator Gabu have indicated, this is a modification of an already existing Act in order to remove atrocious and extremist language from. Given your strong pro-life leanings I would have expected support at the very least! I hope you were not kidnapped by nclib and subjected to NARAL brainwashing or something...

------------------
OOC (as it were): ;-P

I was off line saying I opposed it all WMS. My apologies to you.

That first part of this bill makes the Government give money to the UN to kill innocent unborn children in forign nations.

I will in the least line item veto the first part.

[Gabu]

That first part of this bill makes the Government give money to the UN to kill innocent unborn children in forign nations.

I will in the least line item veto the first part.

No, Mr. President, you don't understand what we're saying.  The Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004 is an act made by migrendel that has already passed in September of 2004.  What WMS is proposing is that we temper this bill by throwing parts of it out.  That's what this topic is about.  Nothing new is being proposed.

[WMS]

Mr. President, as the Honorable Senate Candidate Colin and the Honorable Senator Gabu have indicated, this is a modification of an already existing Act in order to remove atrocious and extremist language from. Given your strong pro-life leanings I would have expected support at the very least! I hope you were not kidnapped by nclib and subjected to NARAL brainwashing or something...

------------------
OOC (as it were): ;-P

What exactly is NARAL brainwashing like?

Rumors indicate that you're strapped to a chair and screamed at by feminists until you admit your utter guilt and adopt an all-abortions, all-the-time position.

;-)