Proposed Modification to Family Planning Amendments Act of 2004

[PBrunsel]

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.

Of course, now I remember.

[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

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

Apology accepted, Mr. President, and it's good to see you've recovered from your ordeal.

[Jake]

Scrap the whole bill.  It is utter trash proposed by a pro-abortionist and approved by the most radically left wing senate we've had.  I call on my senators to scrap this entire bill.

[JohnFKennedy]

I hereby open the debate on this bill.

[Gabu]

I support the bill as it currently stands, although I personally would like a replacement for subjection (d) that roughly conforms to what I said in my initial post.  (a) I'd be okay with scrapping; (b) I would not be, however, for the reason that I stated.

I don't think we should make this scrap the whole thing, as, while that might be what some want, that would have a very high likelihood of torpedoing the whole thing, including the parts of which nearly everyone is in favor, due to the inescapable ideological makeup of the current Senate.

[WMS]

Any changes to my original proposal should probably be offered as amendments to the bill, unless I have Senate procedure wrong.

As for (a), while I support providing birth control overseas, I do not consider abortion to be birth control. However, a pragmatic look at the ideological composition of the Senate leads me to conclude that any attempt to scrap (a) altogether will lead to the defeat of the entire bill. I'm sure my statement of brutal political honesty may be shocking, but let's be realistic here.

As for (b), I would prefer leaving the decision on whether to mention abortion to the organization itself. A careful reading of (b) indicates that it does not demand that these organizations mention abortion, it merely allows it. Believe me, if (b) insisted that abortion be mentioned as an option, I would insist on striking it down as well.

As for (d), is this not currently an issue for the regions to decide as it is? Leaving (d) in is an authoritarian act that, IMO, violates regional power by not enabling regions to establish such laws if they choose.

If I have made any mistakes in my understanding of the current law, I'm sure you will inform me.

[Gabu]

As for (b), I would prefer leaving the decision on whether to mention abortion to the organization itself. A careful reading of (b) indicates that it does not demand that these organizations mention abortion, it merely allows it. Believe me, if (b) insisted that abortion be mentioned as an option, I would insist on striking it down as well.

Yes, that's the reason I wouldn't want to scrap (b).  If it specifically required that of every organization, I wouldn't support it, but it simply doesn't allow the government to prohibit an organization from doing that.

As for (d), is this not currently an issue for the regions to decide as it is? Leaving (d) in is an authoritarian act that, IMO, violates regional power by not enabling regions to establish such laws if they choose.

Yes, that's a good point.  Having thought about it in that light, I support this bill in its entirety.

[Akno21]

Take away c and d if you must, but leave a and b.

We are setting a very dangerous precedent if we repeal the whole thing. Nothing will get done if every time the Senate switches hands, all that gets done is a repeal of bills passed by the past Senate.

[Jake]

Take away c and d if you must, but leave a and b.

We are setting a very dangerous precedent if we repeal the whole thing. Nothing will get done if every time the Senate switches hands, all that gets done is a repeal of bills passed by the past Senate.

Because all the real Congress does is repeal bills.  I think B should be left, but A should go if we are to pass Supersoulty's Bill.  It isn't an anti-abortion thing, it is just that I don't think money should go overseas, when we need it at home.

[WMS]

*bump*

Come on, you other Senators who haven't commented yet, say something...

[12th Doctor]

I have spoken.  I think we should toss the whole thing out.  I will say no more.

[King]

It's been about a week since the bill's intro, debate has stopped, and it looks like the bill is ready to be voted on. Phil, will ye do the honors?

[12th Doctor]

Can I see the final version of the bill?  I'm not exactly sure what is going on here.

[Gabu]

Can I see the final version of the bill?  I'm not exactly sure what is going on here.

The bill hasn't been changed from its original form on the first page, to my knowledge.

[Jake]

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.

I think it is still this.

[??????????]

Nay

[WMS]

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.

I think it is still this.

Unless someone wishes to propose a change, that is correct: I am proposing removing sections (c) and (d) from the Family Planning Amendments Act but leaving the rest unchanged. I don't think voting has begun yet on this.

[WMS]

Nay

Not time for voting yet, so I figured I'd just ask:

What is your objection to this? Seriously, read the entire thread and you'll see that I'm modifying a migrendel bill that has already been enacted by a previous Senate to make it far, far, less extreme. Voting Nay is a vote for a Far-Left Act, instead of the Centrist Act I'm trying for.

[12th Doctor]

I think he knows this.  States has become a hard core abstructionist, and he won't answer any of my PM's.  >(

[WMS]

I think he knows this.  States has become a hard core abstructionist, and he won't answer any of my PM's.  >(

Ah, that's too bad, if true.

[Bono]

Aye.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think he knows this.  States has become a hard core abstructionist, and he won't answer any of my PM's.  >(

Ah, that's too bad, if true.

Part of the problem seems to be the (grotesque) way he was treated when he said he was running for President.
Some apologies are in order

[WMS]

I think he knows this.  States has become a hard core abstructionist, and he won't answer any of my PM's.  >(

Ah, that's too bad, if true.

Part of the problem seems to be the (grotesque) way he was treated when he said he was running for President.
Some apologies are in order

I never criticized him for that, so he shouldn't take it out on my bill...

[??????????]

I have no problem with your bill whatsoever. But I want the whole thing struck. Not just a part of it.

[Bono]

I have no problem with your bill whatsoever. But I want the whole thing struck. Not just a part of it.

half a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.