SENATE BILL: Pregnant Women Support Act (Law'd)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The only coercion relevant to this bill is the coercion against a woman's choice that exists in nearly every clause of this bill. I see that you would rather toss out ad hominems then actually defend whatever merits you see in this bill that is indeed a disaster waiting to happen.

Section 3 is not worthy of support. Section 2, the problems have already been outlined. Section 5 harasses women repeatedly about their pregnancy. Section 6 and 8 have already been discussed by the President and Section 7 allows the government to collect personal information about pregnant women without their consent. I don't believe any party of this bill should be supported and I think the Senate should read these bills before forming their opinions. This bill would do a lot of harm and not much good, most of the services are already available and exist in this bill only to give the illusion that this anti-choice bill is helping women. I wont be fooled by it.

Well thus far- your opinion is unique as others have found positive aspects or at least recognized the intention. As I've announced- I'm working on an amendment to address productive concerns expressd by others...rather then propose some yourself as others have, you choose to flatly disregard the entire bill and assume its supporters haven't read it and assume that I fluffed it in an effort to "fool" Senators into supporting it

[Napoleon]

I am not going to do the Senate's job. I stopped by to offer my opinion as an Atlasian citizen. Not as Governor, not as a candidate, simply as a citizen who sees the irreparable flaws within this bill.

As Governor of the Northeast, I oppose this bill's attempting at reducing regional autonomy over health care policy further.

It is cute how you keep attacking me and can't even be bothered to defend the bill. Anything I say is "unproductive" even though it is true and I'm sure that many others will agree. There is a reason I said Senators must have the COURAGE to defeat this- because I knew you would do this, it is exactly why all the nice-sounding clauses that don't really do anything were included in the first place.

The best you can do is label your opponents "unproductive" and made other rude comparisons. All I've done is offer my opinion on this bill, as a citizen and constituent, and explain why I don't think they can be reconciled. Your tactics might be in more need of reflection, than mine, if this is your best defense of the bill.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am not going to do the Senate's job. I stopped by to offer my opinion as an Atlasian citizen. Not as Governor, not as a candidate, simply as a citizen who sees the irreparable flaws within this bill.

As Governor of the Northeast, I oppose this bill's attempting at reducing regional autonomy over health care policy further.

The second statement is one I will challenge...but that's for another time and place

[Napoleon]

Another time and place? I would think that this is the perfect time and place to discuss this bill.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Another time and place? I would think that this is the perfect time and place to discuss this bill.

What I was referencing was your general policy of opposing a reduction of regional autonomy over health care...not specifically as to this bill

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am not going to do the Senate's job. I stopped by to offer my opinion as an Atlasian citizen. Not as Governor, not as a candidate, simply as a citizen who sees the irreparable flaws within this bill.

As Governor of the Northeast, I oppose this bill's attempting at reducing regional autonomy over health care policy further.

It is cute how you keep attacking me and can't even be bothered to defend the bill. Anything I say is "unproductive" even though it is true and I'm sure that many others will agree. There is a reason I said Senators must have the COURAGE to defeat this- because I knew you would do this, it is exactly why all the nice-sounding clauses that don't really do anything were included in the first place.

The best you can do is label your opponents "unproductive" and made other rude comparisons. All I've done is offer my opinion on this bill, as a citizen and constituent, and explain why I don't think they can be reconciled. Your tactics might be in more need of reflection, than mine, if this is your best defense of the bill.

You added the last two paragraphs after I had responded so here is my reply to those-

If you go back to where I proposed this legislation...you will see a link to a bill which passed the US Congress (largely sponsored by Democrats) that was proposed to me by one of my constituents to edit and put forward here...I eliminated many other portions but to say that I specifically added portions to trick Senators with wording is false
I actually welcome a discussion on specific clauses- your mentioning of your issues with those clauses is produtive- but your first statement here is indicative of your abrasive style which I have seen and been warned of since I registered in Atlasia...I dont give much of a damn since this is an online board and no true lives will be affected by this legislation- but I do feel an obligation to point this out in the event you serve as President over here that you'll be a poor leader if you lead with abrasiveness, generalizations, and coercion

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Also- I am working on an amendment to meet the concerns of those who have engaged in this discussion...which I'll be proposing tonight

[Napoleon]

Clarence, I don't think you can claim not to be abrasive. I mean, I like you but you throw out personal attacks in debates from time to time.
Now, you may not have been the one to add those provisions but I know about the political tricks of the pro-life movement and many were visible here. I had assumed you wrote the bill since you sponsored it.

I do feel an obligation to point this out in the event you serve as President over here that you'll be a poor leader if you lead with abrasiveness, generalizations, and coercion

Would a better model of debate be the way you handled the Broadcaster bill? I doubt it. I come here as a citizen, not a President or Senator, and have no power to work a compromise. All I can do is point out that the bill in its current form is a disaster. If the Senate wants to amend it so that it is not a disaster that is their prerogative, but it has little to do with how I would act as President, or even as a Senator. I highly encourage you not to play the "abrasive" card considering some of the statements you've made in the past, and also think that your Presidential campaign should remain separate from your Senate duties. We did not elect you so you could run your Presidential campaign from the Senate floor. That is poor decorum.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Clarence, I don't think you can claim not to be abrasive. I mean, I like you but you throw out personal attacks in debates from time to time.
Now, you may not have been the one to add those provisions but I know about the political tricks of the pro-life movement and many were visible here. I had assumed you wrote the bill since you sponsored it.

I'll admit to being abrasive at times...I like you too Napoleon but though I can get riled up at times I try my best to see the other side and find the good in what others propose...even though I may disagree with some of it I work tof ind common ground. You chapped my ass by coming in here with no seeming effort to find common ground- instead simply calling my bill a "disaster". You call me and fellow Whigs "extremists" despite the fact that many of us are very moderate in many ways... this is another example of the black and white approach you take 

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Clarence, I don't think you can claim not to be abrasive. I mean, I like you but you throw out personal attacks in debates from time to time.
Now, you may not have been the one to add those provisions but I know about the political tricks of the pro-life movement and many were visible here. I had assumed you wrote the bill since you sponsored it.

I do feel an obligation to point this out in the event you serve as President over here that you'll be a poor leader if you lead with abrasiveness, generalizations, and coercion

Would a better model of debate be the way you handled the Broadcaster bill? I doubt it. I come here as a citizen, not a President or Senator, and have no power to work a compromise. All I can do is point out that the bill in its current form is a disaster. If the Senate wants to amend it so that it is not a disaster that is their prerogative, but it has little to do with how I would act as President, or even as a Senator. I highly encourage you not to play the "abrasive" card considering some of the statements you've made in the past, and also think that your Presidential campaign should remain separate from your Senate duties. We did not elect you so you could run your Presidential campaign from the Senate floor. That is poor decorum.

Regarding the Broadcaster bill- I sponsored the damn thing! I disagreed with nearly all of it but sponsored it because the idea had merit and deserved debate...nice try

[Napoleon]

I am a firm believer that you should NOT sponsor bills you will not support. It makes the entire debate process tedious.

Now, you continue discussing my character and personality here in this thread while dismissing my arguments against this bill as better left to "another time and place".

When Representatives in the Northeast Assembly have concerns with my proposals, I explain to them the merits rather than dismissing them outright and attacking their character.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am a firm believer that you should NOT sponsor bills you will not support. It makes the entire debate process tedious.

Now, you continue discussing my character and personality here in this thread while dismissing my arguments against this bill as better left to "another time and place".

When Representatives in the Northeast Assembly have concerns with my proposals, I explain to them the merits rather than dismissing them outright and attacking their character.

I sponsored it as the Senate was stalled and we needed to debate something...I stand by it

As for merits- I've mentioned several times now I am working on an amendment now to address concerns of those who have criticized parts of the bill...and I've not attacked your character- I've attacked your approach

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The bill is sound. Why should we compromise one inch on the bill when the Atlasian left regularly asks consessions of the right? It's the left that needs to give a little

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The bill is sound. Why should we compromise one inch on the bill when the Atlasian left regularly asks consessions of the right? It's the left that needs to give a little

Well, because the Bill will not pass as it stands, and there's no way I'll sign it.

Simple as that.

[Frodo]

The bill is sound. Why should we compromise one inch on the bill when the Atlasian left regularly asks consessions of the right? It's the left that needs to give a little

Because unlike the RL United States where conservatives have the run of things no matter which party is in power, Atlasia leans left-libertarian -you're dealing with an entirely different political landscape.

[Napoleon]

The left has had to compromise on issues like health care and foreign policy. This bill is unsound anti-choice propaganda.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The bill is sound. Why should we compromise one inch on the bill when the Atlasian left regularly asks consessions of the right? It's the left that needs to give a little

Because unlike the RL United States where conservatives have the run of things no matter which party is in power, Atlasia leans left-libertarian -you're dealing with an entirely different political landscape.

You call Obama and Clinton conservatives..... They are liberal.

[tmthforu94]

The bill is sound. Why should we compromise one inch on the bill when the Atlasian left regularly asks consessions of the right? It's the left that needs to give a little

Because unlike the RL United States where conservatives have the run of things no matter which party is in power, Atlasia leans left-libertarian -you're dealing with an entirely different political landscape.

You call Obama and Clinton conservatives..... They are liberal.

I think that what he is getting at is in general, the United States is more conservative than it is liberal, while Atlasia is more liberal than it is conservative.

[Frodo]

The bill is sound. Why should we compromise one inch on the bill when the Atlasian left regularly asks consessions of the right? It's the left that needs to give a little

Because unlike the RL United States where conservatives have the run of things no matter which party is in power, Atlasia leans left-libertarian -you're dealing with an entirely different political landscape.

You call Obama and Clinton conservatives..... They are liberal.

From your tea-party perspective, perhaps.  From a broader view, these are Democrats who are having to deal with a predominately conservative landscape -one that's been in the making ever since Reagan won the presidency.  They are sort of the mirror image of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon who had to make do with the New Deal liberal consensus of their time.   

[ZuWo]

The goal of this bill is to reduce the number of abortions, and regardless of your stance on the abortion issue I think this is an idea almost everyone can support. Thus, I hope the constructive comments on the first page of this thread can result in a compromise which makes it possible that this goal is achieved. I think the Senate has demonstrated in the recent months that it is capable of debating on a level above simple catchphrases and can find common ground and sensible solutions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The goal of this bill is to reduce the number of abortions, and regardless of your stance on the abortion issue I think this is an idea almost everyone can support. Thus, I hope the constructive comments on the first page of this thread can result in a compromise which makes it possible that this goal is achieved. I think the Senate has demonstrated in the recent months that it is capable of debating on a level above simple catchphrases and can find common ground and sensible solutions.

Which were my points early on, the idea of reducing abortions is a good thing... but it won't be through government support for pro-life organisations or to use medical technology to compound the emotional pain that comes with such a decision.

Nor will I support measures which treat women as idiots who need 'to understand what they're really doing'.

We need to make sure women, regardless of their choice, have the support to make them.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My proposed amendment is the following-

2- DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON ABORTION.
(a) In General- Health facilities that perform abortions in or affecting interstate commerce shall obtain informed consent from the pregnant woman seeking to have the abortion. Informed consent shall exist only after a woman has voluntarily completed or opted not to complete pre-abortion counseling sessions.

(b) Accurate Information- Counseling sessions under subsection (a) shall include the following information:

(1) How the abortion procedure is performed.

(2) Possible short-term and long-term risks and complications of the procedure to be performed.

(3) Options or alternatives to abortion, including, but not limited to, adoption, and the resources available in the community to assist women choosing these options.

(4) The availability of post-procedure medical services to address the risks and complications of the procedure.

(c) Exception- This section shall not apply when the pregnant woman is herself incapable, under State law, of making medical decisions. This section does not affect or modify any requirement under State law for making medical decisions for such patients.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

As you can see- I've gotten rid of 2b1 which involved the OBGYN dscribing the gestational age and characteristics of the unborn child. I do believe that this could be heavily scarring for a woman in this position...

I want to be clear- this bill is not designed to hurt women- it IS designed to encourage them not to have an abortion. By knowing the govt is on their side to help them as they go thru an incredibly difficult period in their lives, women will hopefully be encouraged to continue with the pregnancy and the unborn child will  have a chance

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I also want you all to consider that this bill removes pregnancy as a preexisting condition in the health care industry... this is a major step for women

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I don't believe the state should be in the business of taking sides, which is clear by how this issue is being approached.

There are clear rights that women have, but I want to make sure that support exists to enable to women who want to keep their baby, as well as support for those who choose an alternative. Not trying to convince them to change their minds.

Also I'd be startled if this information is not already discussed by a responsible doctor.

Interesting we're not talking about avoiding the pregnancies in the first place, which I see a step too often ignored.