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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Gass3268

[tmthforu94]

With this exact text, I will certainly veto this bill.

[Talleyrand]

Does our current statute conflict with federal law?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Does our current statute conflict with federal law?

No.

[tmthforu94]

Someone (Afleitch, I believe) actually sued the region on it, and former Superior Court Judge Franzl ruled in favor of the region.

[TJ in Oregon]

Someone (Afleitch, I believe) actually sued the region on it, and former Superior Court Judge Franzl ruled in favor of the region.

The Court has previously ruled that the Mideast Abortion Statute II is not unconstitutional and does not violate federal statute.

[Gass3268]

Personally I feel like this is the appropriate step for our region. The current law is extremely invasive into the personal life of the mother. How do we know for sure that a woman that had abortion was raped or needed the procedure in order to live? Where does the burden of proof lie? If it's on the mother, that's scary. Also there has been a shift to the left in our region over the past few election cycles and our current abortion laws are too strict for the current political makeup of the Mideast. It does't even allow for incest as an exception! Lastly the new federal law restricts abortions past the third trimester, so this repeal won't allow for a total legalization of abortion in the region.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

When do you believe life begins?

[Kitteh]

I won't have much time to debate this bill today but I'd like to briefly state my support for it in its current form.

[tmthforu94]

I'll propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I want to take a moment to express my support for Assemblyman Gass3268's bill in its current form.  I also don't think that I can support Governor Tmthforu94's proposed amendment.  Section 3 of the proposed amendment is a deal-breaker for me and I have serious problems with section 1.  Section 2 would also be a deal-breaker in any proposal that included section 1.

[Gass3268]

I also cannot support Governor Tmthforu94's amendment, as it does not do enough to satisfy the reasoning behind the original bill. 

When do you believe life begins?

Personally I believe that life begins at birth.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I also cannot support Governor Tmthforu94's amendment, as it does not do enough to satisfy the reasoning behind the original bill. 

When do you believe life begins?

Personally I believe that life begins at birth.

So should we have any restrictions on abortion?

[Gass3268]

I also cannot support Governor Tmthforu94's amendment, as it does not do enough to satisfy the reasoning behind the original bill. 

When do you believe life begins?

Personally I believe that life begins at birth.

So should we have any restrictions on abortion?

No, I don't think we need any restrictions, but if there absolutely needs to be some restrictions, the new Federal law is sufficient.

[tmthforu94]

I also cannot support Governor Tmthforu94's amendment, as it does not do enough to satisfy the reasoning behind the original bill. 

When do you believe life begins?

Personally I believe that life begins at birth.

So should we have any restrictions on abortion?

No, I don't think we need any restrictions, but if there absolutely needs to be some restrictions, the new Federal law is sufficient.

So you believe a woman at full-term should be able to walk in and have an abortion. Talk about extreme...

[Gass3268]

I also cannot support Governor Tmthforu94's amendment, as it does not do enough to satisfy the reasoning behind the original bill. 

When do you believe life begins?

Personally I believe that life begins at birth.

So should we have any restrictions on abortion?

No, I don't think we need any restrictions, but if there absolutely needs to be some restrictions, the new Federal law is sufficient.

So you believe a woman at full-term should be able to walk in and have an abortion. Talk about extreme...

I don't feel like it's my place to make that decision for the mother, that is her choice. Also the new federal law would prevent that from happening.

[tmthforu94]

I also cannot support Governor Tmthforu94's amendment, as it does not do enough to satisfy the reasoning behind the original bill. 

When do you believe life begins?

Personally I believe that life begins at birth.

So should we have any restrictions on abortion?

No, I don't think we need any restrictions, but if there absolutely needs to be some restrictions, the new Federal law is sufficient.

So you believe a woman at full-term should be able to walk in and have an abortion. Talk about extreme...

I don't feel like it's my place to make that decision for the mother, that is her choice. Also the new federal law would prevent that from happening.

Wow. If the fetus could survive outside the womb, which it almost certainly could at full-term, I find killing that fetus to be extremely inhumane, and it concerns me that we have legislators advocating for the right to do that.

The federal law is still in question, due to the argument of whether or not the President's veto is valid.

[Gass3268]

If the federal law is still in question, I'd be willing to copy the language of that bill into an amended version of our statue so we would have those same restrictions regardless of the legality of the federal law.

[tmthforu94]

If the federal law is still in question, I'd be willing to copy the language of that bill into an amended version of our statue so we would have those same restrictions regardless of the legality of the federal law.

Then would we repeal the Mideast Abortion Statue, which is essentially the same as the law proposed?

[Gass3268]

If the federal law is still in question, I'd be willing to copy the language of that bill into an amended version of our statue so we would have those same restrictions regardless of the legality of the federal law.

Then would we repeal the Mideast Abortion Statue, which is essentially the same as the law proposed?

I'm at an airport right now, when I get back my place I'll post an amended version of the bill.   

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If the federal law is still in question, I'd be willing to copy the language of that bill into an amended version of our statue so we would have those same restrictions regardless of the legality of the federal law.

Then would we repeal the Mideast Abortion Statue, which is essentially the same as the law proposed?

The section of the Mideast Abortion Statute dealing with penalties is still a problem, so yes, I'd hope so.

[tmthforu94]

If the federal law is still in question, I'd be willing to copy the language of that bill into an amended version of our statue so we would have those same restrictions regardless of the legality of the federal law.

Then would we repeal the Mideast Abortion Statue, which is essentially the same as the law proposed?

The section of the Mideast Abortion Statute dealing with penalties is still a problem, so yes, I'd hope so.

Well, I believe an amendment would be required - Inks may have to step in here, but if we repealed a law repealing a law, wouldn't it put the original law back in place? The doctor's punishments are actually stiffer from the federal government than we have in the Mideast - here you can obtain your license after only five years.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[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.