SB 111-13: Right to Choose Act of 2022 (Debating)
Mr. Reactionary:
Quote from: Devout Centrist on September 29, 2022, 10:39:21 AM
From the majority opinion in Politics Fan v. the South:
Quote
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:
Quote from: Mr. Reactionary on September 29, 2022, 07:20:31 PM
We already can.
Great! Then I think we can move ahead with the current language of the bill.
Mr. Reactionary:
Quote from: Devout Centrist on September 29, 2022, 07:38:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Reactionary on September 29, 2022, 07:20:31 PM
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page