Search the Community

NEWS • Politics Written by Yunisa DELGADO-FLORES • June 30th, 2022 — 6:20AM San Andreans' stances on the Roe v. Wade repeal Following Roe v. Wade's repeal, along with the responses to Senator Adrian Rossi's Preservation of Life Act, Minority Leader Senator Diana Jones and the SADEMs reveal their alternative; a constitutional amendment. Senator Adrian Rossi (R) and Senator Diana Jones (D), the authors of the two combating bills — image edited by Harold Kim, LSDN, June 30th 2022 Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case held in the Supreme Court that guaranteed access to abortions nation wide, was repealed on Friday, June the 24th, following the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson in a ruling of 6-to-3. Justices Kavanaugh, Barret, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts voted to repeal the ruling whereas Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer voted against. Now, senators and citizens of San Andreas must decide on how our state should treat abortions. The Republican Party of San Andreas’ Senator Adrian Rossi submitted their bill to the senate, the Preservation of Life Act 2022, on the 23rd of May. A month prior to the repeal of Roe v. Wade. If the bill were to pass and were to come into effect, citizens would be able to sue women who undergo the procedure as well as the medical practitioners who perform abortions for a minimum of $10,000 as well as any legal costs incurred. A person would be liable to pay $10,000 for each abortion performed or induced Abortions, under this law, would only be available without the threat of civil action if a fetal heartbeat isn’t detected or if the physician believes that an abortion is necessary due to a medical emergency. The act also provided exemptions when the patient was impregnated through rape, sexual assault, incest, or through another traumatic sexual crime. A fetal heartbeat is most commonly found via ultrasound within six weeks into pregnancy, however it can be found as early as five weeks, Medical News Today reported. In a study conducted by Amy M. Braum and Katherine A. Ahrens for Matern Child Health, published in 2018, they found that women remain unaware of their pregnancies until between 5 and 6 weeks gestation. A total of six states have introduced and passed laws that limit abortions to six weeks since last menstrual period. However, only three of them are currently enforced. The rest are facing either temporary or permanent freezes from court orders. The three states that have passed such bills are Texas, Ohio and South Carolina. South Carolina’s abortion restriction notably includes exceptions for abortions caused by rape, incest, and lethal fetal anomalies regardless of a fetal heartbeat. During the initial hearing for the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee (HELP) within the San Andreas Senate, held on June the 5th, SADEM’s Minority Leader Diana Jones expressed her concerns surrounding using a “fetal heartbeat” as a cutoff point. The Preservation of Life Act of 2022 is similar to a law passed by the Texas Legislature in 2021; the Texas Heartbeat Act. The Texas Heartbeat Act likewise enables citizens to sue medical practitioners for carrying out abortions once a fetal heartbeat is found. The Texas Heartbeat Act was the first act of its kind where citizens were able to sue others for abortions, essentially deputizing them, which led to more Senators from states like Oklohoma, Idaho, and now San Andreas to model their own acts after it. Much like with the Texas Heartbeat Bill, citizens of other states may levy suits against those in this bill. The first case brought to the courts in Texas suing a medical practitioner for carrying out an abortion was by an Arkansas man. Criticism has been levied against the Republican Party and Senator Rossi for the Preservation of Life Act. One person who made their grievances known was the Los Santos County District Attorney Terentiy Schwetz. DA Schwetz released a press statement condemning the act and dubbed the discussions surrounding the act in the senate chamber as “ludicrous.” “My office steadfastly stands against any legislation that purports to 'preserve life' by taking away freedoms which exist under Roe v. Wade - and frankly, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, my office would STILL support the right of women to have access to abortions.”, wrote Schwetz on June the 10th. “I took office with an oath to preserve the constitutional rights of San Andreas citizens, and I hold that if this bill passes it will be a terrible day for our beautiful state and a grave violation of our State's constitution.” While the bill makes no note of any criminal action being taken against the women nor practitioners who either perform or induce abortion, Schwetz acknowledged that, if that were to change, his office wouldn’t prosecute. He wrote that “We certainly would never prevent women from exercising their rights as it concerns decisions regarding their own bodies” The Chairman of the Republican Party, Jonathan Spencer, later condemned the District Attorney through a party press release. The party contested Schwetz’s claim that victims of violent sexual crimes were vulnerable under the Preservation of Life Act, citing section V (e) of the act. Section V (e) aims to nullify the law in cases where violent sexual crimes were committed. "I find it very amusing that the District Attorney's office is clearly commenting on a bill that they haven't bothered reading, which begs the question, did the District Attorney read the bill?”, wrote Chairman Spencer. DA Schwets listed victims of violent crimes as one of two noted reasons why abortions shouldn’t be restricted. He wrote in his press release that “we have women who cannot afford the burden of being a mother, we have victims of violent sex crimes, we have people who could not support children who seek this process in order to ensure that if they make the decision to have a baby, they can eventually properly support them.” Criticism also came from Senator Rudy Benson (R). Senator Benson initially supported the bill as a co-sponsor, however, as criticism grew against the bill, his office released a statement deeming the bill unconstitutional and expressed his intent to vote against the bill. “While I am a proud Republican, I have always made clear that I am a moderate and will not give into political extremes.”, Senator Benson wrote. “I have a duty to my constituents and cannot in good consciousness endorse such a draconian and unconstitutional proposal. Let me be clear. I, Senator Benson, will not be the vote that gets this terrible proposal passed.” Chairman Spencer and the SAGOP later released a press statement condemning Benson following his statement, where Spencer claimed that Benson expressed support to them in private. Spencer dismissed the claims that the law itself is unconstitutional due to the difficulties of it being challenged in a court of law. Spencer wrote that "Senator Benson, of all people, should know the most, having called the bill unconstitutional when I know very well that the law will be extremely difficult to challenge in court due to its unique enforcement mechanism, which prohibits state officials from enforcing the law and instead authorizes private individuals to sue anyone who performs or assists in an abortion.” The Texas Heartbeat Act has faced numerous challenges in court from pro-choice groups, however the courts in Texas has allowed the act to stand. One of the difficulties that this challenged against this act faces, as well as the difficulties that challenges against the Preservation of Life Act would face if passed, is that, due to state officials not enforcing the bill and enforcement is placed upon private citizens, court justices and attorneys cannot be sued on the grounds that the act isn’t constitutional. The SAGOP's bill is currently awaiting a hearing from the senate’s HELP committee. The hearing remains unscheduled, and the senate is seeking healthcare professionals to weigh in with expert advice during the hearing. During the first hearing on the Preservation of Life Act, which was held on June the 9th, Senator Jackie Lu expressed her support for the bill where she said “as long a fetus has a heartbeat, it's alive.” In a previous statement written for the Daily News however, given on May the 15th, Lu cited socioeconomic reasons as to why a woman may wish to seek abortion and expressed her desire to keep abortions accessible for these reasons. She wrote that “We will not be denied the authority to make choices about our own bodies. I will not stop working until everyone, and I mean everyone, regardless of poverty, zip code, or race, has access to safe, legal, and accessible abortions. If [women] are not prepared. How can you maintain a child if you are still in education with over more than $50,000's in student debt? The correct response is no; you cannot.” The San Andreas Democratic Party as a whole expressed their stance against the bill on June the 24th, where they shared and supported Democrat Senator Kaoru King-Yagami’s (D) post on Facebrowser. The SADEM’s social media page wrote “Every woman has the right to choose” as well as a brief sentence reaffirming the party's pro-choice stance alongside King-Yagami’s post. Senator King-Yagami wrote from his Facebrowser account that he will “fight to the bitter end” to ensure a woman has access to abortions. He wrote “I would like to make it abundantly clear; I believe in a woman's right to choose. I will fight to the bitter end for a woman's right to make the choices about anything to do with her bodily autonomy.” SADEM’s Minority Leader in the Senate, Diana Jones, called upon other republican senators to vote against the Preservation of Life Act in a press release on the repeal of the Roe v. Wade ruling. “The San Andreas State Senate currently faces a Republican majority, and while Republican Chairman Jonathan Spencer and President Pro Tempore Adrian Rossi have made their stances clear, I have faith the other Republican senators of the senate to block their attempts at taking women's rights away. “ In the same press release, Minority Leader Jones announced her and the party’s intent to submit a bill to amend the San Andreas Constitution to include provisions to secure abortions; intending to give the same securities provided from the ruling from Roe v. Wade. “I will move to enshrine women's rights to have an abortion in our own state's constitution. Abortion has been a constitutional right for half a decade, and I will fight to keep it that way. My office stands with women. We believe abortion care is health care and we will not stop working to defend these most basic, and truly personal freedoms.” For a law to pass in the San Andreas senate, it would need a majority of senators to rule in favor. There are currently six republican and four democrat senators. If senators vote according to party lines, where Republicans vote in favor and Democrats vote against, the Republican's Preservation of Life act will most likely pass through the senate and the Democrat's bill to amend the San Andreas Constitution would be expected to fail. However, with Senator Benson (R) expressing their intent to vote against, and Senator Lu (D) stating their support for the republican's bill on the 5th, the bills' future remain uncertain. Comments are enabled: Username: Comment: