SB 111-13: Right to Choose Act of 2022 (Debating)

[WD]

Right to Choose Act of 2022

Senate Bill
to Respect a Woman's Right to Choose and to Codify Legal Precedent

SECTION I. Name

This Act shall be called the Right to Choose Act of 2022.

SECTION II. Findings

A. The Senate of the Republic of Atlasia finds that-

I. Access to reproductive care is a fundamental right for all citizens of the Republic of Atlasia
II. That the termination of a pregnancy constitutes reproductive care
III. That the termination of a pregnancy is a substantially private and personal decision
IV. That this procedure ought to be made with proper physical and psychiatric healthcare considerations
V. That any procedure directly or tangentially related to pregnancy termination ought to be regulated, standardized, and protected
VI. That the regions of Atlasia ought to be able to enact laws past a certain point in pregnancy that regulate the practice and administration of pregnancy termination
VII. That reproductive care be provided to mothers who opt to carry a pregnancy to term, including all medically necessary pre and postpartum care

SECTION III. Statutory Right to Choose

A. It shall be unlawful for any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, to ban pregnancy termination procedures prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

B. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that regulates access to pregnancy termination services prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy, so long as access to reproductive care, including pregnancy termination, is not substantially impeded or infringed.

C. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that restricts, bans, or otherwise regulates access to pregnancy termination services on or past twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

SECTION IV: Effective Date

A. This law shall go into effect on January 1, 2023.

Sponsor: DC

The gentleman from Arizona is recognized

[Devout Centrist]

This bill would codify abortion rights into Federal law, while allowing the regions to develop and implement reasonable restrictions on the practice.

[Mr. Reactionary]

This seems unconstitutional.

[Devout Centrist]

From the majority opinion in Politics Fan v. the South:

The limitations the state can place upon abortion access, must be tailored to only cover such legitimate government purposes without being overly broad. For example, hypothetically, a total ban against certain medical procedures would likely be unconstitutional, as no legitimate government purpose would exist to justify preventing doctors from performing procedures they believe to be appropriate and in the best interests of their patients.

   The law under scrutiny by the court, however, does not overreach legitimate government authority in such a manner. Regulating the locations where certain abortions can be performed to locations properly equipped to handle such procedures is legitimate, reasonable, and therefore constitutional.

…

As it is constitutionally permissible it is therefore a political question, left for Congress and to the Regions to decide. As there is no federal law on the issue, the Regional government has full authority to implement and enforce the law in question. The court therefore finds in favor of the regional government.

I agree with this reasoning here and I am happy to introduce new language that allows the regions to regulate when and where these procedures may occur prior to 20 weeks of pregnancy.

[Spark]

Big nope.

[Mr. Reactionary]

From the majority opinion in Politics Fan v. the South:

The limitations the state can place upon abortion access, must be tailored to only cover such legitimate government purposes without being overly broad. For example, hypothetically, a total ban against certain medical procedures would likely be unconstitutional, as no legitimate government purpose would exist to justify preventing doctors from performing procedures they believe to be appropriate and in the best interests of their patients.

   The law under scrutiny by the court, however, does not overreach legitimate government authority in such a manner. Regulating the locations where certain abortions can be performed to locations properly equipped to handle such procedures is legitimate, reasonable, and therefore constitutional.

…

As it is constitutionally permissible it is therefore a political question, left for Congress and to the Regions to decide. As there is no federal law on the issue, the Regional government has full authority to implement and enforce the law in question. The court therefore finds in favor of the regional government.

I agree with this reasoning here and I am happy to introduce new language that allows the regions to regulate when and where these procedures may occur prior to 20 weeks of pregnancy.

We already can.

[Devout Centrist]

We already can.

Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

We already can.

Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.

Might as well since this wont pass.

[Saint Milei]

motion to table

[Devout Centrist]

object

[Spark]

Second the motion to table.

[Joseph Cao]

We already can.

Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.

A. It shall be unlawful for any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, to ban pregnancy termination procedures prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

I mean c'mon, the current language clearly does not do anything like what you were suggesting earlier.

[WD]

Vote is now open on the motion to table. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

[Devout Centrist]

We already can.

Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.

A. It shall be unlawful for any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, to ban pregnancy termination procedures prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

I mean c'mon, the current language clearly does not do anything like what you were suggesting earlier.

B. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that regulates access to pregnancy termination services prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy, so long as access to reproductive care, including pregnancy termination, is not substantially impeded or infringed.

i think this language accomplishes the same goal, no?

[Devout Centrist]

Nay

[Joseph Cao]

We already can.

Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.

A. It shall be unlawful for any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, to ban pregnancy termination procedures prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy.

I mean c'mon, the current language clearly does not do anything like what you were suggesting earlier.

B. Any regional, local, or national subdivision thereof, may enact statute that regulates access to pregnancy termination services prior to twenty (20) gestational weeks of a pregnancy, so long as access to reproductive care, including pregnancy termination, is not substantially impeded or infringed.

i think this language accomplishes the same goal, no?

Perhaps I am simply not fluent in legalese but the second half of this sentence negates the first half. And "reproductive care" is already such a broad umbrella that this bill's own findings could cover every conceivable "pregnancy termination service" and prevent it from being restricted.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Nay

[Devout Centrist]

Perhaps I am simply not fluent in legalese but the second half of this sentence negates the first half. And "reproductive care" is already such a broad umbrella that this bill's own findings could cover every conceivable "pregnancy termination service" and prevent it from being restricted.

Well here's my proposal:

--Change the findings section to be more specific
--Alter the language of Section III to include a test on what counts as 'substantially impeded or infringed'

[Joseph Cao]

Perhaps I am simply not fluent in legalese but the second half of this sentence negates the first half. And "reproductive care" is already such a broad umbrella that this bill's own findings could cover every conceivable "pregnancy termination service" and prevent it from being restricted.

Well here's my proposal:

--Change the findings section to be more specific
--Alter the language of Section III to include a test on what counts as 'substantially impeded or infringed'

I'd be interested in seeing that, if leery of something that goes too far beyond the court decision text regarding "legitimate and reasonable" regulations on access.

[Devout Centrist]

Perhaps I am simply not fluent in legalese but the second half of this sentence negates the first half. And "reproductive care" is already such a broad umbrella that this bill's own findings could cover every conceivable "pregnancy termination service" and prevent it from being restricted.

Well here's my proposal:

--Change the findings section to be more specific
--Alter the language of Section III to include a test on what counts as 'substantially impeded or infringed'

I'd be interested in seeing that, if leery of something that goes too far beyond the court decision text regarding "legitimate and reasonable" regulations on access.

I'll get on it!

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

 Nay

[West_Midlander]

aye

[Saint Milei]

aye

[WD]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye