NationStates Jolt Archive

As stated, I am willing to put my proposals up for vote.
This is the Canales amendment as it now stands. It will require strict federal and state government neutrality in regards to the issue of abortion. Government could neither promote nor discourage the practice.
Vote yes or no.


THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: a. The states shall pass no laws favoring or prohibiting abortion.
b. The states shall pass no laws denying funding to groups or persons on the basis of whether they support or oppose abortion.
c. Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny states the proper authority to apply general and routine health and safety regulations to businesses or charities engaged in providing abortion services.

Section 5: Nothing in this amendment shall be construed to deny the federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving abortion.

SECTION 6: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

Section 4 is amended with the friendly and intellectually honest input from The Sutured Psyche.
Section 5 is recently added to the amendment by myself for clarification of the role of the courts.

Contrary to the position espoused by Jacobia in the other thread this amendment would not allow states to ban abortion and contrary to the position of Muryvats it won't allow government use abortion to deny funding to people or groups.
Just read it for yourself and vote yes.

wanst this just done a little further down the front page?

wanst this just done a little further down the front page?
This is an amended version to take into account the legitimate concerns of legit US citizens who would be affected.
Read this version and then post one of the other thread for a comparison.

bump

Contrary to the position espoused by Jacobia in the other thread this amendment would not allow states to ban abortion and contrary to the position of Muryvats it won't allow government use abortion to deny funding to people or groups.
Just read it for yourself and vote yes.

Hmmm.. falsely presenting the facts, huh? Let's post the version of the amendment we were ACTUALLY arguing, shall we?

THE CANALES AMENDMENT
SECTION 1: CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAWS FAVORING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

SECTION 2:CONGRESS SHALL NEITHER FUND ABORTION NOR WITHHOLD FUNDING FROM STATES OR INDIVIDUALS ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THEY SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION.

SECTION 3: THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET SHALL NEITHER ISSUE OR ENFORCE ANY LAWS OR REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION BY ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN IN THE ABORTION PROCEDURE.

SECTION 4: THE STATES SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO ENACT AND ENFORCE ALL NECESSARY LAWS ENCOURAGING OR RESTRICTING ABORTION WIHTIN THEIR BORDERS, AS SHALL SEEM TO THEM TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.

SECTION 5: THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS IT SHALL HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS OF THE STATES, WITHIN ONE HUNDRED YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBMISSION HEREOF TO THE STATES BY THE CONGRESS.

There it is ladies and gents.

State your views on this here. Do you think it would over turn Roe V. Wade?
Bear in mind that there have been changes in the law since the time this was written. Hey, lots of things happen in 6 year periods.
And I attempted to take the interests of all sides into consideration, except the government's which really doesn't have any interest.

My objection to the amendment was due to it's original attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. Please note section 4 which explicitly allows one to ban abortion in the state legislature. The position espoused by Jocabia in another thread is a position relating to a DIFFERENT amendment.

I would prefer to back an amendment authored by someone who knows enough constitutional law to know the past amendments. I would also prefer an amendment that has been viewed by SEVERAL constitutional lawyers so as to collect information about the true scope and effect of this amendment.

Discredited states' rights claptrap.

The "intelligent design" of the abortion debate.

This is an amended version to take into account the legitimate concerns of legit US citizens who would be affected.
Read this version and then post one of the other thread for a comparison.


ah thanks

You deserve credit for trying to compromise, but I think it is working against you.

Since you seem to want to start with a clean slate with this version of the amendment and not refer to the previous version and the debate about it, I'll only refer to the language you present here.

This amendment effectively puts up a “Chinese wall” between abortion services and government. However, it does this for no other medical treatment or procedure. Why is abortion singled out this way? Or do you intend to amend the Constitution for each and every controversial aspect of medicine?

If no laws are to be passed concerning abortion, then what about the existing laws? Do they stand, or do they become unconstitutional?

If no laws are to be passed concerning abortion, then what is the jurisdiction of the state and federal courts? I say that, under your amendment as written, they would have no jurisdiction and thus, access to the law would be denied to people who have disputes concerning abortion.

I see only three possible outcomes to this amendment:

1. It will have no effect on abortion at all, and you will have amended the Constitution for no purpose; or

2. It will render existing laws governing abortion moot and will create an area of chaos in the medical profession; or

3. It will never make it into the Constitution.

I’m betting on 3. You are an anti-choicer. You cannot write a coherent law protecting a woman's right to choose when you oppose that very right. You will fail. Take that as a compliment. It means that, although I think you are perfectly ready to deny women their rights and lie about doing it, I do not think you are hypocritical enough to convincingly sell out your own beliefs.

Discredited states' rights claptrap.

The "intelligent design" of the abortion debate.
:D Well put.

Hmmm.. falsely presenting the facts, huh? Let's post the version of the amendment we were ACTUALLY arguing, shall we?



My objection to the amendment was due to it's original attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. Please note section 4 which explicitly allows one to ban abortion in the state legislature. The position espoused by Jocabia in another thread is a position relating to a DIFFERENT amendment.
What? Are you just figuring that out? Its not like you jumped in after there was an agreement to make these changes. :rolleyes: Cause you chose not to read the whole thread to see the development of the discussion. No. What happened was you saw that Whittier was the author and you jumped in to personally demonize Whittier.