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

[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.

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 I'm not saying I'm opposed to a replacement bill (e.g. if the bill is not repealed, I want to reduce the punishment for violation of this bill to a large degree), but right now, I don't see how it's irresponsible.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?

[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 I'm not saying I'm opposed to a replacement bill (e.g. if the bill is not repealed, I want to reduce the punishment for violation of this bill to a large degree), but right now, I don't see how it's irresponsible.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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You missed my point on "why change now".  I'm not saying we can't change the law; I'm saying, what's your rationale for eliminating regional law on the issue and relying solely on federal law... something that hasn't been done in this region.

[Kitteh]

You missed my point on "why change now".  I'm not saying we can't change the law; I'm saying, what's your rationale for eliminating regional law on the issue and relying solely on federal law... something that hasn't been done in this region.

If we feel that federal law on this issue is sufficient, then why not eliminate the regional law? It's true that that isn't what the region has done before but I fail to see how that's relevant here. Federal law is different and the opinions of the citizens and elected officials of the Mideast are different then what they were before, is that not good enough reason to change the law, or to remove it entirely and default to the federal law? If you disagree with the federal law or believe we should have stricter regional laws that's fine, but I don't understand this line of argument that in the past we have had our own regional laws therefore we should continue to have our own regional laws.

Also, this discussion about what would happen if federal law changes seems like a moot point to me. If federal law changes in a way that the members of this body don't agree with, it's entirely possible to reintroduce regional legislation on this issue then. I don't see the need for a trigger motion or any other mechanism to account for that possibility when we can just change the regional law again if/when the federal law changes.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

[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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

Assemblyman Gass3268 is arguing that views of Mideasterners have fundamentally changed on this issue since the Mideast Abortion Statute II was passed to the point that it was out of touch with the views of Mideasterners.  Surely, the best way to test the accuracy of that position would be to let Mideasterners decide this issue at the ballot box.  And I agree that it is an issue that every Mideasterner should have a say on.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

Assemblyman Gass3268 is arguing that views of Mideasterners have fundamentally changed on this issue since the Mideast Abortion Statute II was passed to the point that it was out of touch with the views of Mideasterners.  Surely, the best way to test the accuracy of that position would be to let Mideasterners decide this issue at the ballot box.  And I agree that it is an issue that every Mideasterner should have a say on.

Well, a simple vote of: "Do you want to keep the status quo?" doesn't really test the accuracy of anything other than a single viewpoint.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So what exactly is it that people have a problem with in the law?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So what exactly is it that people have a problem with in the law?

Basically, I have major problems with sections 1 and 3.  Section 3 is simply far too harsh and I strongly oppose it.  Section 1 isn't quite as bad as section 3, but I still have problems with it.  My views on abortion are rather complicated.  On the one hand, section 1 essentially reflects my personal feelings about when abortion is an acceptable option.  At the same time, if I had a daughter and she called me one night; and said she'd made an awful mistake, or that a condom had broken, etc; and she decided that for whatever reason (I am trying my best to imagine an "unimaginable" situation) getting an abortion was what she felt she truly needed to do and she was aware of all of the alternatives; honestly, there would be only one thing that I could do.  And that is to give my opinion, let her do what she needed to do, forgive her, and then be there for her if she needs me (and either make sure that the guy who got her pregnant is at the clinic).  Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I honestly don't know what else I could do as a parent.  And its not like people who get abortions are off the hook either.  They will have to live with what they did and I am certain it weighs heavy on most of them for the rest of there lives (I am sure some never forgive themselves).  I also think that a good deal of the opposition to abortion is rooted in religion and that laws such as this bill basically use the government to legislate a specific religious morality. 

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!

[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.

[Gass3268]

While I would prefer just a straight vote on this issue, if a referendum is the only way we can get it passed, I'm down.

[tmthforu94]

Well, personally, I'd rather seek a compromise version to put forth to the voters, as that would be likely to pass and neither side would be extremely upset from it.

[tmthforu94]

I withdraw my other amendment, and introduce this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I withdraw my other amendment, and introduce this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would strongly support letting the voters...well...vote on Governor Tmthforu94's version of the bill and Assemblyman Gass3268's bill.  We have two proposals, so we can offer The People a choice.  I trust The People.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I want to add another compromise proposal for the voters to consider:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that between this, Assemblyman Gass' bill, Governor Tmthforu94's amendment, and simply keeping the current law, the voters should have a good set of options on this complex issue.

[Kitteh]

Not to add more complexity to this already complex process, but how would a vote with these four options work? Would it be FPTP (whichever proposal gets the most votes passes) or some type of IRV/Ranked Choice voting? I could see arguments for either being better. Part of me wants to limit the vote to just two options, but that wouldn't solve the issue because choosing which two options to include is hard. Any way we go about it will be very complicated and not necessarily representative of the will of The People. Honestly I think this is the best argument against a referendum.

[tmthforu94]

Another complication of voting on multiple proposals at once - what if The People pass more than one version?

[ZuWo]

I have a question about the idea of letting the people decide on multiple proposals by means of a popular vote. What is the constitutional ground for this? FTR, the regional constitution says the following about propositions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tmthforu94]

If 25% of Mideast citizens sign onto it, an initiative can also be voted on. Conceivably, I could personally introduce the version that fails the Assembly (Which don't expect me to do unless I'm actually supportive of it, which is unlikely to happen), then the other three versions could all be proposed. Whichever ones get to 25% will face a public vote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I have a question about the idea of letting the people decide on multiple proposals by means of a popular vote. What is the constitutional ground for this? FTR, the regional constitution says the following about propositions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well in that case, I suppose we'll have to decide this here.  What are everyone's thoughts on the various proposals?

[Kitteh]

As previously stated, I support Gass's Bill wholeheartedly.

I'm not quite sure about Tmth's amendment. If I follow correctly, it would have the effect of making the regional law the same as the federal law with the exception of harsher penalties in the regional law?

[tmthforu94]

Until there is a definite ruling on it, I don't think there really is a federal law on abortion, which is why I'm extremely opposed to Gass's bill, which would allow for full-term abortions, something I find to be horrific. My amendment would change current Mideast law by allowing abortions in the first trimester as well easing the punishments for doctors.