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

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[OSR stands with Israel]

Aye

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Nay

[Utah Neolib]

Nay

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Nay

[Senator Spark]

Aye

[PragmaticPopulist]

Nay

[SevenEleven]

Nay.

[WD]

By a vote of 6-9-0-3 the motion to table is rejected and debate resumes.

[Devout Centrist]

Presenting an amendment:

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, specifically procedures that ensure the safe carriage, resolution, or termination of a pregnancy, is a fundamental right for all citizens of the Republic of Atlasia
II. That the termination of a pregnancy constitutes reproductive care under this definition
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, and standardized., and protected
VI. That the regions of Atlasia ought to be able to enact certain 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. For the purposes of this section, substantially impeded or infringed shall be defined as any legal or regulatory action taken by a region, local, or nation subdivision that is found to be in noncompliance with the following test:
I. Furthers a valid regional or local interest in protecting the health of a pregnant individual
II. Creates, or increases, a benefit that outweighs the burden placed on people seeking pregnancy termination services
III. Is based on credible, scientific evidence regarding the safety of pregnancy termination procedures


C.D. 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.

[Joseph Cao]

What does that "certain" in (A)(VI) do and what is the distinction being made with it?

C. For the purposes of this section, substantially impeded or infringed shall be defined as any legal or regulatory action taken by a region, local, or nation subdivision that is found to be in noncompliance with the following test:
I. Furthers a valid regional or local interest in protecting the health of a pregnant individual

So, would it take just one individual anywhere with a personal interest that diverges from the regional or local interest for any law or regulation to fall foul of the noncompliance test? Correct me if I'm wrong here, this wording is a bit hard to parse for me.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

As long as Lincoln's 20 week ban, born alive protections, and refusal of most federal abortion funding is not interfered with, I don't have a problem with this.

[Devout Centrist]

What does that "certain" in (A)(VI) do and what is the distinction being made with it?

Certain just refers to the test for abortion regulations that is being applied later on in Section III C. It doesn't have a specific meaning beyong that.

C. For the purposes of this section, substantially impeded or infringed shall be defined as any legal or regulatory action taken by a region, local, or nation subdivision that is found to be in noncompliance with the following test:
I. Furthers a valid regional or local interest in protecting the health of a pregnant individual

So, would it take just one individual anywhere with a personal interest that diverges from the regional or local interest for any law or regulation to fall foul of the noncompliance test? Correct me if I'm wrong here, this wording is a bit hard to parse for me.

No, this language is meant to refer to pregnant individuals as a class, not specific individuals.

The wording here is borrowed from the undue burden test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was later expanded upon by Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt:

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, a plurality of the Court concluded that there “exists” an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion, and consequently a provision of law is constitutionally invalid, if the “purpose or effect” of the provision “is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” The plurality added that “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.”

...

We begin with the standard, as described in Casey. We recognize that the “State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient.” (Roe v. Wade) But, we added, “a statute which, while furthering [a] valid state interest, has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice cannot be considered a permissible means of serving its legitimate ends.” (PP v. Casey). Moreover, “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.”

...

We conclude that neither of these provisions confers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access

[Devout Centrist]

Amendment adopted?

[WD]

24 hours to object to the amendment

[WD]

Without objection the amendment is adopted

[Devout Centrist]

Motion for a final vote

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Objection

[WD]

Objection being raised, a vote on cloture is now open. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain

[Devout Centrist]

Aye

[Senator Spark]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

abstain

[Utah Neolib]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

aye