Talk Elections

Section 1

The Federal Government of Atlasia will appropriate $250 million over the next 5 years to assist in funding the opperations and opening of shelters for unwed mothers, all accross Atlasia.

          a) Shelters must pass regional and federal
              standards, in order to recieve funds.

          b) Atlasia reserves the right to discontinue
              funding of any group, organization or shelter
              that does not meet those standards.

          c) Women in the care of those shelters will be
              granted legal protection and adaquate monitary
              compensation to move to the nearest shelter that
              matches those standards.

Section 2

State and Federal funds to CHIP programs will resume to insure the protection of all children or fetus' classified as "unborn.  This will be done in such a way so that funding and coverage is  commensurate with pre-2004 levels.

Section 3

Nessesary living expenses for new mothers will be provided for by all of those who apply, by the Federal government of Atlasia, for up to and including 5 years after the birth of the child.

             a)  These benefits will be provided for food, rent
                  and medical expenses and are to be set at the
                  minimum rage for what is considered "Sandard
                  of Living" in the mothers municipality or county.

             b) These funds will be terminated if any of the
                  following occure with in that time span.
     
                       1a) Another child is born to the same mother

                       2a) The woman enters a state of marriage

            c) No woman living with a "perminant" male
                partner, or in a common law marriage will be
                allow to collect funding.

            d) Monthly interviews with each woman on the
                program will be required.  If that woman is found
                to be:

                       1c) Abusing the child

                       2c) Abusing legal or illegal subsatances

                       3c) Deemed to be in someother way
                             violating the spirit of the program

               Then her child will be put into foster care and she
               will be removed from the program and all benefits
               taken away.

              e) Any government employee found to be abusing
                  his or her clients, or in someother way impeding
                  their rights, will be immediatly fired or otherwise
                 or other wise punished in a court of law.

              f) Pamphlets advertising these benefits will be
                  made available at all Social Security offices,
                  OBGYN's offices and licensed abortion clinics
                  in Atlasia.  Failure to comply will bring about
                  fines of a maximum of $20,000.

continued on next post...

Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

          a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than
              $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned
              in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in
              Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates
              degree.

          b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections
              1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure,
              i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than
              $35,000 per year.  She will still have full access to the benefits
              mentioned in Sections 5-6.

Add

Section 7
All funds for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities will be cut, and those funds will be appropriated for this program.

also I think Akno's Education and Ripoff for Taxpayers Bill addressed the concerns of Section 5 about Child Day Care.

This bill is not a direct assult on abortion, it is merelt a measure to encourage unwed mothers to take a child to term.  This bill adresses and attempts to aleviate the harsh many of the harsh realities that women in such situations face.  It might seem like a lot of money, but the lives saved would be worth it.  

I ask all those on the right to put aside their bias against government programs and truley do something to save more babies from the abortion mills.

I ask those on the left to put aside their bias against social conservatives and embrase this bill which goes to the heart of what many of them claim causes abortion in this country.

It is time for us all to see if both the right and the Left truely believe their rhetoric on this issue or if it is all just an attempt to not seem extreme.

I yeild back the floor.

Hopefully that will go down in flames.


I like my bill better.  :)

I support this, but I'd much prefer it if it also included some sort of promotion of birth control for women (not abortion - I'm talking about before the pregnancy even happens).  It seems to me that the largest protection one can give is to not have these people become mothers in the first place.  That option will cost the government a lot less in the long run, too.

If someone else would like to propose that as an amendment, I would abstain.

OMG
*pulls out gun and pull it to head. conceals it again, after realizing how much a mistake it would be to leave them alone*

I knew you would be against it.  I'm still waiting for Nym to go crazy.

As far as our support for UNFPA, we have 34 million that is presently going overseas to support mothers overseas.  Reappropriate that money to support this program.

I think I'll have just enough votes to pass this.  I'm just going to sit back and enjoy all of the hypocrites scream about this.

What exactly is wrong with helping other nations?

I suppose I support this, although I'm curious how the 250 million number came to be.

$50 million a year... sounded reasonable.  I was going to put it at $500 million, but I figured the protest would be enormous.

I wouldn't mind :)

But even so, you have hundreds of buildings, you have to hire people to manage the system, plus all the grants. I figure we have a million people eligible for this, the cost will likely be higher than said. Again, not that it would lose my support if the cost was higher, but we should be as accurate as possible.

The money is better spent on this then aborting a child in Botswana or Papua New Guinea.  That's what is wrong with it.

Id support this and urge my Senators too as well, even with some of the problems I have with the federal government getting too involved in things like this.

FWIW, I like Gabu's amendment, as long as it specifies birth control before pregnancy, not afterwards and of course I think Jake's amendment is good.  :)

Now, I just wonder when we are going to close the abortion mills altogether.  That's the next necessity.  :)  Maybe some of the funding for that could go to fund this program (gets evil right-wing glint).

Do you think we allready have too much teenage pregnancy? Well, thighten your seatbelts, because we are going off to a teenage pregnancy party if this bill pulls trough. This effectively encourages our teenage girls to both sin against God in Heaven, ang ruin their lives on earth. By subsidizing teenage pregnancy, we will only get more and more teenage pregnancy, until no town, no neighbourhood, no street, no FAMILY is safe. Where we, mature, reasonable people see a destroyed life, teenagers will see a blank check for all the irresponsabilty, all the immorality they want in their lives, because after everything comes craching down to pieces, after our girls have been left pregnant by their runaway boyfriend, left to be dropouts from highschool, and otherwise forced, due to their irresponsability and immorality, by divine justice forced to suffer the consequences of their acts, big brotehr government will be there to offer them a dandy life, with child care à la carte, all provided by the Atlasian Taxpayer, the greatest dopey in the face of the earth.  You know, Zach Stevenson is a School Superintendent up in Massachusets. He lives in Boston and travels allover the area. He was telling me teenage pregnancy is so rampant in some of the schools in Massachusetts that have Lamaze classes instead of SexEd classes. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us? Do you want even more of that?

Sorry, this just screams 'welfare', and I think this oversteps the bounds of the federal government's authority. I doubt this would really help curb abortions, and I think you are underestimating the costs, and I think this bill is poorly planned. How many thousands of new unwed mothers are there a year? Did you even look up this information before going ahead and writing the bill? Good intent without knowledge, forethought, and reason is dangerous.

This is just a rough guess, but I think it is probably reasonable(and I'm guessing low), but say the costs per child is $5,000 per year for these shelters. If just 50,000 children are born to unwed mothers in a year(and I'm pretty sure the number is much larger than this), and they apply for this, you've already spent your $250 million meant for five years in a single year. You also may have spent the other money appropriated if enough people apply.

The likely result of this is spending in the billions if you want to keep the program running, and it is going to be a fiscal nightmare to say the least. Either that or you can have an underfunded, ineffective system. I also shudder at the prospect of the massive beauracracy that would be needed to implement this system - and that must be paid for as well, and it will no doubt be inefficient. Why on earth would you want such a mess?

For the above reasons, I urge all Senators to vote a strong NAY. We don't need the problems this will bring.

I support Gabu's amendment IF it specifies birth control pills as the only funded item and if it specifies that they're to be used to prevent pregnancy, not birth.  

Also, for the concerns of John and Bono, I think it is better to transfer all funding the feds provide for abortion and crap like that to be directed towards birth control pills, to be used to prevent pregnancy, and not to child care.  This is looking alot like Akno level BS.

Your view on this is quite warped.  This bill won't encourage anyone to get pregnant.  Why is it that we assume that a whole bunch of people are suddenly going to want to get pregnant because the government is willing to give them just what the need to get by?  Sure, there are scam artists, but the bill takes care fo that pretty well, I think.  Your just paranoid, Senator.

And as for sinning against God, would you rather they have an abortion and sin even more?

I never said doint it on purpose. But tenagers are, generally and to be frank, dumb, and hormone-driven, and will see this just as one more blank chack, aside from the one our moral stone-age society has given them, to engage in any kind of sexual behaviour they want.

It's the principle of it.

I would say that the defense of innocent life is a high principle.  One that we should all support.

Ok, I'm going to post this site, and if any information I reference contained within is erroneous or if I have taken it out of context, please tell me:

http://www.yppo.com/stats.html

Important stats:

Almost 1 million teenagers become pregnant each year, and more than 512,000 give birth. (average, based on 2000 census)

Over 1,000,000 babies were born to unwed mothers in 2002, however only about 300,000 of these were from teenagers. (2002 only)

So, let's assume that just half of these unwed mothers(annual average) apply(only half to take out multiple children and those who just don't apply) - so, 500,000. Let's also use my estimate of the cost to the shelters being $5000 per child annually. Total costs for the first year = $2.5 billion dollars a year on the first year. Oh, but wait, the system continues to pay for the first five years of the child's life, so once this really gets rolling it will cost 12.5 billion dollars annually - and this is only for the shelters, it does not include the costs for the $1000 for child care a year per applicant, $1500 per semester(there can be up to three a year in most places) per applicant that goes to college, and costs of the beauracracy. If you like to bitch about the deficit, pass this bill because it's gonna get bigger.

This is the most alaming statistic, in my opinion.

So many abortions, and that is just for one sub-set of the population.

I will seperate the education part and the general social services part then.  Unwed mothers with another form of support, i.e. parents will not apply for the benefits unless their family has an annual income of less than $25,000 per year.

Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

          a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than
              $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned
              in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in
              Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates
              degree.

          b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections
              1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure,
              i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than
              $35,000 per year.  She will still have full access to the benefits
              mentioned in Sections 5-6.

There, that should fairly eliminate about 33% of all cases.

I still say the costs will be too high. Even if these changes cuts the total applicants in half, you still end up spending 6.25 billion a year, not including beauracratic costs. And as I said, my estimates for cost 'per child annually' was a low guess. It is probably more.

There's also the problem of where to build shelters - they need to be close enough to the workplace of the mother to be effective, otherwise the mother may be unable to afford to go to the shelter. Thusly these shelters would need to be all over the place, increasing costs. This also creates a dependency - it's not crazy to assume that most of these women will not go to college, grant or no - so when age 5 comes around they no longer have the money and support they depended on for the last 5 years, leaving them essentially stranded and in poverty.

There are far too many problems with this bill. I can't lend my support to it.

I have seriously ammended the bill.  I suggest you check it out.

My friend John Dibble seems to be concerned that this bill will cost far more than I have suggested.  If that is the case, then I think that maybe it would be a good idea to increase the funding of this program, designed to save lives and bring hope, to about:

$1.2 billion...  Oh, what a coincidence, that number is equal to roughly .001% of the 2001 Bush tax cut.

The real tragedy is that we could probably identify 3 sources of total waste from our government that would pay off all of this.

Explain

I'm not really saying that we should role back the cuts, or anything.  I just find it sad that we are some are having such a difficult time with this.

All four sides have extremeists and they all piss me off equally.

Well, I personally think it's a good idea, but I'm currently mulling over what exactly it should be.  If I recall correctly, birth control is already free.  I suppose we could replace abstinence-only education where it exists in public schools with education that combines abstinence with birth control in its explanation, but I don't really know how well that would be received.  I personally support it, but I'm not here to thrust my views on everyone else.

Barring that idea, I'm not sure what form the promotion would be in, though.

As I stated before, I do not think this will cause any serious decrease in the number of abortions, especially among teenagers.

And my concern is not about underfunding - it's about spending a gross amount of money on another beauracratic nightmare that only serves to create a welfare state. Also I believe this far oversteps the bounds in which the federal government should operate, not to mention you are spending other people's money on your moral cause - not everyone believes abortion is murder. You may not like it, but it's the truth. Fight for your cause with your money and that of willing donors, not the taxpayer's money.

If you are really so concerned, my advice to you is to start a private organization run by pro-lifers who sign up worthwhile couples who desire to adopt a child, have representatives stand in front of abortion clinics and ask people if they would instead consider bearing the child and adopting them out. I've heard numerous times from pro-lifers saying that they would adopt the children who are going to get aborted, now I say it is time to prove it. Put up or shut up.

Some people may not think abortion is murder (heck, I'm one of them, up until roughly the second trimester or so), but I don't really think that this bill is nothing more than an advancement of someone's moral ideas.  Of those people who don't think that abortion is murder, I would at least hope that most of them nevertheless don't like the thought of abortions.

As Clinton said, abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.  It's an extremely unpleasant process, even if you don't think it's murder.  This bill is simply providing other options, since many women may not have any.  I would wager (though I don't know) that the vast majority of the people who get abortions do it because they either don't want the child or because they can't support the child, and I would also wager that at least half of those people did not want to have an abortion, but simply felt that no other choice was available.  This bill addresses that and makes other options available.

Helping end overpopulation is a good use of our wealth.

Erm, I don't mean to be rude, but that's a very crass comment to make.  It's not exactly sensitive to the opinions of the many who think that abortion is murder.

Very distastful. I hope you're glad you weren't a victim of "helping end overpopulation."

Akno, AFAIK, Maryland public schools have to many students, should some "eliminated" to "curb overcrowding and overpopulation"?

Come on, guys, let's not turn this thread into a debate about abortion.  This bill isn't about either legalizing or banning abortion.  Both pro-choice people and pro-life people alike can (at least I hope) acknowledge that Supersoulty's bill is a good idea (at least in principle, disregarding its costs).

Democrats have been using this tactic for well over thirty years to end overpopulation in their own communities. 

If they want to vote to keep eliminating their own voters, I guess there's no way anyone can stop them from it.

I don't obviously feel well about ending the lives of other people around the world for.  The US should clearly keep doing that through invading their countires.  :)

I'm leaning toward support - that's right, John Dibble, support - since in principle this matches what I stated in my campaign speech, and damn it, I am a populist, NOT a libertarian. I still think the bill needs a little work - in particular, I have to insist on adding Gabu's birth control promotion amendment to it - one of my campaign planks, after all.

Jake, if you wish to eliminate funding for the UNFPA, then get a senator to propose an amendment to my proposed modification to the Family Planning Act, but don't propose the amendment here unless the amendment is enacted there. I'm sure States will be glad to propose it for you.

There are things that are worth more than a tax cut, and this is one of them. Given the conservative and libertarian nature of my district, this may be unpopular, but I never pretended to be anything other than what I am, and I said I'd support this type of idea during the (admittedly short) campaign. Or in other words, object to my stance if you like - I ain't changing it. :D

I've given you my reasons against it. I urged you not to support it for those reasons. If you still wish to support it, fine. I still say it will be an ineffective beauracratic nightmare that will create people who are dependent upon the government.

I tend to agree with John Dibble. This is none of the federal government's business.

Oh, com'on Gabu.  You can't blame him for wanting to "reduce the surplus population".  Scrooge promoted that... before his transformation.

I believe the exact quote was, "Well, if they are going to die, then they better do it quicky and decrease the surplus population".  You can't go much quicker than before you are even born.

Now, at this time, I could go into my usual argueement, back with facts, about how "over-population" is just a boogie man, that doen't really exist, but I've done that so many times and on so many occations that I really don't care to get into it again.

Good for you WMS.  I knew that, if no one else, I could count on you.  If anyone wants to propose such an ammendment, they are more than welcome to it.  And yes, there are some things that are more important than a tax cut.

No, Gabu, this is about what I expected to be honest with you.  Just like when I proposed, as Vice-President to end both abortion and capital punishment is all but the most extreme cases.  No one would back it, which is about what I expected.  Everyone tunred into a hypocrite instead.

Well, okay, then the above is what it should be.  Honestly, I can't see what's so horrible about this bill.

The amount of money is large.

So are is the number of unessesary abortions that occure every year.  We could help curb that with this bill.

Besides, if few people utilize this, then we can just reduce the funding and help out those who accept it.  Everyone is a winner.

If you want to curb abortions, please do it with your own money.

Since I already do, I fail to see your point.

P.S. And we can now see that the truth comes out.  The argument has finally been reduced to its most basic point.

For that matter, we once again see libertarianism reduced to its most basic points: greed and rampid individualism.

Oh? You do? Good for you, continue to do so.

And how is this point any different from what I have been arguing? I've been arguing against cost. I'm trying to save the taxpayers money. Is it wrong to wish to save people the money that they earned? Is it wrong to not wish to take it from them and spend it on my own causes?

I just have to laugh when people say things like "Do it with your own money".

Yes, it is apparently a laughable concept that people pay for their own causes and not do so off the work of the unwilling.

It is laughable when people can't spare a few bucks to help out those who really need it.  Especially in this case.

Guess you need that other latte, though.

1. Greed and self-interest are not necessarily the same. I feel it's in my self-interest that I don't take what isn't mine - I'm not greedy, what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours. I'm more than happy to keep only what I've earned with my labor, not a penny more do I seek. If I start taking what isn't mine for my own causes, it only becomes a matter of time when someone starts taking what's mine for theirs. Don't believe me, well here's a novel concept for you - publicly funded abortions. This works both ways, you know.

2. Apparently individualism is bad now. Collectivism it is then - we live for the whole, the individual doesn't matter. And apparently rampid is a word.


I give to charity. I give to those whom I feel I need it and deserve it, and I give what I feel is necessary, not a penny more. And it's hardly 'sparing' a few bucks when the money is taken from people forcibly. This bill, like all welfare, is forced charity - which is a contradiction.


I don't drink latte, don't be a jackass. And can you please sum up your points in a single post.

Not more of this Ann Rand crap, please.  I've had enough from KEmp.



Typical of most extremeists, you see only one extreme or the other.  The word I was going for was "rampant" sorry I didn't match your standards.  The individual matters, but so does the community.  The community matters very much.  That is why I dispise Libertarianism above all political ideologies.


I give to charity. I give to those whom I feel I need it and deserve it, and I give what I feel is necessary, not a penny more. And it's hardly 'sparing' a few bucks when the money is taken from people forcibly. This bill, like all welfare, is forced charity - which is a contradiction.
The learned gentleman is entitled to his opinion, no matter what I think of it, which isn't much on this issue to be honest.


I don't drink latte, don't be a jackass. And can you please sum up your points in a single post.

Okay, Bud Light then.

It would seem to me that this bill would pretty much pay for itself if it works, in the long run.  All of the women who fit the description of this bill would otherwise have two options: get an abortion, or have the child and not have nearly enough money to raise the child with.  The first option is obviously not one we'd want to promote, although it should be an option, but women who can't bring themselves to abort the child would be stuck with the second option.  Anyone who would do that would likely find it extremely hard to be a functioning, capable member of society and would probably have to go on welfare or other social programs.  Consequently, the child would probably not have a very good upbringing, and would have a much higher probability of turning out as the mother did, and then that child's children would be the same, and so on.

On the other hand, if the taxpayers instead chipped in what will be roughly $6/taxpayer, they could break this vicious cycle and enable this mother and her offspring to be functioning members of society.  This will enable them to get good employment, and thus become tax-paying citizens themselves who give input into the economy, which will benefit everyone in the long run.

No man is an island; there are some cases where it simply does not work to attempt to work purely with the money of those who decide to donate out of their own volition.  It's in everyone's benefit, in the long run, that these mothers not be forced to deal with it purely on their own.

Regarding my idea of the amendment about birth control, I still can't think of anything other than having all public schools teach about birth control along with abstinence, and I'm afraid that that would be too regulationistic.  Anyone have any other ideas?

Of course it would, but many are far to short sighted to understand that.  It is "socialism", as though that word were all bad and so easily definded.

At anyrate, you are correct, Gabu, in 20 years the benefits to our economy would make this all well worth it, but that will still offend some.  Oh well, to Hell with them.

Senator Bono asked me if I would be willing to explain to others why their hard earned tax dollars were going into this bill.

I told him, "Yes, I be more than willing to.  In fact, I would walk up to thier door.  Pound on it, and tell them right on thier dorrstep why this was so important.  And if it costs me thier support or their vote... Then f**k 'em".

I said that, in those exact words, and I stand by it.

You don't like my ideology, then fine. But apparently you like communism better - heck, you said so.

Never read Ayn Rand, actually. Still, I'll play your game - you think this is important for the community. Well, I think it will damage the community. Here's how:

Your bill, if it's intents are met, will result in more children being born to unwed mothers. It is a statistical fact that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to be criminals. Thusly, it logically follows that there will likely be more criminals, and more murder along with that. Also, it follows that these sorts will get girls pregant and walk out as well, thusly creating a cycle. More crime is bad for the community.

And, since tax cuts will probably have to be roled back to pay for this(or deficits will increase, still bad), the economy will likely suffer some. A bad economy is bad for the community.


And once again I state that by condoning the use of taxpayer money for your personal moral crusade, you do open up the prospect of others using taxpayer money(which includes yours) to projects that you will not approve of - i.e. publicly funded abortion and the like. And guess what, it will be done in the name of the community. It always is done for some 'common good'.

Gabu, you do realize that not all the mothers who enter this program will go to college. I don't see how this will change must as far as their situation. Sure, some might, but I think I can safely say most won't. I think that those who enter will come to depend on the program, and then suddenly get dropped out of it 5 years in, which makes the problem worse.

ADD - 'everyone's benefit'? Thusly it's to my benefit. But how did you determine it's to my benefit? You don't necessarily know my interests, so how can you really determine it is to my benefit? Don't I know what's in my benefit far better than you?

Problem is, Gabu, some people hate abstinence education and some hate sex education.

Yes, I know; that's why I want to think of something else, because I don't think that'll fly very well.

As I said, extremeists see the world in extremes.  Everything social program is communism.  Whatever, I feel sad for you if you really believe that.


Really? Because you sound just like her.



Is this more crap about how more teens are going to want to get pregnant because of this, or are you finally admitting that this bill is going to say lives?



Funny, I was born to an unwed mother.  I guess you could say that that is why I am so interested in this topic.  Am I, in your opinion, a criminal.  I must be, if I am trying to take away your money and send it to Washington.



I say again, if we need to roll back the tax cut a bit it would equal about 0.001% of the tax cut.  And you once again ignore the fact that this is an investment in the future of this country and will increase the standard of living for these people.



Laughable.  If you don't believe that human life and dignity are moral principles that trancend all moral fiber, then you are barely fit to live.

YES OR NO. You stated you despise libertarianism over ALL other political ideologies.

If yes, then you despise it over communism, facism, nazism, ect. Don't blame me for your own words.


I said IF. Simple logic - more people will be born if your bill succeeds in stopping some abortions. That implies nothing more.


'More likely' does not imply 'all'. Serioulsy, you don't seem to understand basic logic. Statistics show that children born to unwed mothers are more likely to turn to crime - why? Because unwed mothers are more likely to be irresponsible(they got pregnant out of marriage, an irresponsible act), and thusly their kids will not be taught properly. Of course, once again 'more likely' does not imply 'all' as you seem to believe. It's my belief that abortion shows irresponsibility - I imagine you agree - so following this train of thought, it is logical to assume that those whom you might convince to go with this program instead of abortion will have a higher chance of being irresponsible people, and therefore their kids will not get a decent upbringing, and will be more likely to turn to crime.


It only increases the standard of living in your mind. I do not believe it does.


Once again - not all people believe that abortion is murder. I don't like abortion, but I don't hold that it is murder. I value human life, but I'm not exactly convinced that a fetus in early development is 'human' in the same sense that I am.

And all that one does not require money to live with dignity. Dignity is attained through acting in a dignified way.

As I said, I respect my fellow man. I don't seek to use what is his when he does not consent. If respecting the rights of my fellow man makes me unfit to live, then so be it.

Supersoulty, if you want, respond to my last post, but I will not respond back. I've made my arguments against this bill, you've made yours for it. That's enough. This is not the place to debate ideology.

I counted a total of 13 typos/spelling errors in this bill. Whilst I undoubtedly look like a pedant for doing this, could people please read over legislation and/or run it through a spell checker before they propose it, since, if it passes it does actually have to become law and sit on the Statute thread for all time.

I am also compelled to ask why the bill doesn't extend to those mothers who live with female partners. Whilst its not terribly common, it does nonetheless happen.

I'n not sure how Section 3 clause e is supposed to work and seems to me to be a bizarre legislative requirement. I don't pretend to know much about how US healthcare works so please humour me if I screw up.

I was under the impression that a good number of OBGYNs and abortion clinics are privately run; Legislatively requiring them to have a pamphlet with the threat of fines seems to be a bit over the top. I am probably correct in thinking that they receive federal funding for their work; The general way to compulse private organisations to carry the pamphlet is to say they have to carry it qualify for federal funding.

The government fining social security offices? Doesn't the government already own the social security offices? I wonder what happens when the government fines the government.

Section 3 clause c: Is there anyway for her to get the child back longer term? Also what the hell is "violating the spirit of the program", because whilst I know what you are trying to get at, thats not the way the law works.

Beyond the above hair-splitting points, I have little to no ideological objection to the bill.

Peter Bell,

Federal funds no longer go to abortion in the US, so we cna't threaten to withdraw funding to get people to comply.

Super,

Go easy on the libertarians, they have their own little world and they're happy in it.  In true libertarian form, what they really want is for everyone to say "That's an interesting philosophy." and them we all leave them alone.

John Dibble,

We don't live in vacuums.  Nearly everything we do affects someone else in some way, and to pretend otherwise is fantasy.  Its also absurd to suggest that Super is on a moral crusade that is any different from any manner of laws that govern morality that you wouldn't object to.  Banning murder governs morality.  Banning theft governs morality.  It just so happens that Super's bill doesn't impose your morality, it imposes his.  So lets be honest about your objections.  You want laws consistent with your morality (based in Objectivism), and Supersoulty wants laws consistent with his morality (based in Catholic social teaching).  All laws impose morality, Super and you have a different morality, and so you disagree on the bill.  That doesn't mean he wants to legislate morality and you don't, it means you both want a different version of morality legislated.  And Supersoulty is not a communist, you know full well it was rude and foolish to say so.

Gabu,

You are a worthy successor to StevenNick.  In this debate you've proven yourself to be a voice of reason and cooperation in the Senate.  Sorry for ever doubting you.

Teaching both abstinence and encouraging the use of contraceptives is the best solution. Obviously, abstinence is the preferred method, but what a health teacher says isn't exactly going to stop two people from having sex. They at least need to be educated about birth control, and encouraged to use it. And that should be regulated by the government, because I don't know if it would fly in all areas, but it's neccessary.

1. As I've said, I have more than one reason to oppose this law. Laws against murder and theft protect my rights - rights to my life and rights to my property. I believe the only purpose of government is to protect our rights - this bill goes beyond that. I realize we don't live in a vacuum, but just because one's actions affects others does not necessarily justify action against those actions, so long as they don't violate the rights of others. As I said, I don't see how this protects my rights in any way. Abortion is a deeply philisophical issue.

2. Also as I've said, I don't think it is the business of the federal government to do this. Why does the Senator not encourage the regions to do this? There's an abortion initiative that the Senator would no doubt approve of in the Southeastern region. One more reason I'm against federal legislation such as this is that it is 'one size fits all', which distributes evenly rather than where it is actually needed. Also, as mentioned, the beauracracy needed for this will be cumbersome and expensive. My reasons to oppose this bill extend to the realm of practicality as well. I appreciate that Supersoulty has good intentions, but good intentions alone are not sufficient - he clearly did not do the proper research on the subject in order to estimate the costs before he proposed the bill, and it would likely have resulted in disaster(and I'm still convinced it will) had this bill gone uncriticized.

3. I never said Supersoulty was a communist. I was merely pointing out a place where he put his foot in his mouth - saying that he despises libertarianism over all other political ideologies, it logically follows that he does not despise communism(or facism, or any of those other ideologies that have absolutely no respect for the individual) over libertarianism(which instead respects the individual almost absolutely). You have to be careful with your words, because people do draw conclusions from them. I know he isn't a communist, he obviously prefers his own brand of conservative/populist(whatever it is) ideology over all others(why else would he be that ideology), but he said something that I could make some logical conclusions from, and I stated them. If I did the same, I expect the same done to me. Words are a means of expressing your beliefs, so picking your words carefully is adviseable.

Peter, to answer your second question, no, not all social service offices in the United States are government owned.  In fact, though I don't know the exact number, I would say about half of these services are not government owned at all.

Remember, that section is only for the pamphlets.

Let me pause from the entertaining populist-libertarian clash for a moment to add my agreement to the above statement. Gabu, you have been a very good Senator and probably the most reasonable person in the entire Senate. Well done! ^_^

What possible right does the government have to tell businesses what pamphlets they should be putting out on display, especially if they aren't run off government money?

To me, this looks like one person trying to force his ideological views onto business practices, as opposed to what the spirit of the bill seems to be, which is to give people an alternative to an abortion.

I agree that I like Gabu as a Senator. He listens and considers all arguments, in my opinion. A good quality to have.

Oh, I listened to and considered your opinion, I just disagree with it. ;-P

They need to be licensed by the government.  A doctor probably needs to botch 15 abortions before he loses his license, because no one will talk, but we cannot make them pass out pamphlets about a government program, when we are paying for those programs?

How are poor women to learn of this option if they are not provided the information?

If you are paying for the abortion clinic (or other place), then yes, you are free to put requirements on the clinic in terms of what it must do to qualify for federal funding.

You don't have the right to say if you don't conduct your business (when you aren't funding them) in this particular way (where your dictation has nothing to do with health & safety requirements or other protection issues) then we are going to fine you simply because you're not conforming to an ideological specification.

I would expect most doctors with ethics to provide information of these services when discussing the question of abortion with a patient. Obviously this doesn't apply to all doctors since some aren't totally ethical, but on balance, with a requirement on all federal money spent in the area, there would be few who would fail to find out directly from services, and those who it missed would probably find out by other means anyway.

What's the difference between imposing pro-life ideology on business and imposing pro-environment ideology on business?  All laws impose ideology/morality in some way.

Presuming that you are flat out making a company do it, as opposed to incentivising, then in my opinion you have to meet a compelling interest test. Basically the State has to come up with a compelling reason why it has to be able to force the company to do something. Protection of the environment by stopping certain companies polluting excessively is in my opinion a compelling interest (minus any special circumstances) because of the environmental damage that the pollution has been caused to prove which can ultimately lead to various problems in terms of public health. The State has an interest, if not a duty to protect public health. If you can provide a compelling state interest in this case, then I'm all ears, but I can't think of one.

I've proposed an alternative idea to this to Supersoulty. If he likes it, he'll post it as a bill. If he does not, I'll post the idea and see what others think. My idea is much different, but the intended end result is the same - less abortions - however it does not contain the nasty side effects of welfare dependency, and it spends less taxpayer money because it is dependent upon user fees.

Let them eat cake, I guess.  The reality is that man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains. *

A woman born into privilege has the ability to procure whatever prenatal and postnatal care she needs, while a woman born into poverty cannot.  Soulty's bill directly addresses this question, a question you seem intent on treating as a "philosophical matter", when really it’s a practical matter.  Women often have abortions because they cannot care for the child.  Seems a bit unequal to me, so the idea that you're protecting the rights and liberties of the individual falls a little flat, since you care not one bit for "the individual" except in the abstract sense.  You don't care at all for "individuals" but only the idea of "the individual" So while your ideas may work well on paper, when applied to the real world your abstract concept of the law having its only purpose to respect your rights seems to be little more than a bourgeoisie sham that preserves a separate set of rights to a privileged class.  It's the intellectual justification of injustice.

The reason that two Republicans have been attacking your position with Marxist rhetoric is that your position is a self-evidently ludicrous defense of unrestrained capitalism.  While Marxist solutions to these problems have proven ineffective, Marxist and socialist criticisms of the system have proven spot on.  Without safeguards to ensure the proper conduct of citizens and the economic security of those who are not born to privilege, society cannot function.  Like all ideologies in their pure form, libertarianism is an internally consistent philosophy that cannot and will not adjust itself to fit the practical realities of the world.  Its like the bubble boy, it can't survive in the real world, only in a little bubble where the germs of human imperfection can't touch it.  But it's all right, as long as we have plenty of cake.

*-I promise, this will be the last time I quote two French people back to back.


Of course you don't find a compelling state interest, you're not pro-life.  If you believe that protecting fetal life is important, then you think there is a compelling state interest in that case.  If you believe the environment should be protected from pollution, then you believe there is a compelling state interest in that case.  You object to the bill because you disagree with it ideologically, not because you have developed a universal and objective standard for making laws.

You haen't proven that there isn't a compelling interest, you've only proven you're pro-choice.  Therefore, the state interest is not compelling because the fetus has no rights and does not deserve rights.  I disagree, therefore the compelling state interest is the protection of the fetus.

I appriciate the efforts of my collegues, but I will not budge on this bill.

My bill does not force a moral agenda on anyone.  It provides a resonable alternative.  Anyone who has tried to charecterize this bill as such, honestly makes me wonder whether they are taking advantage of this situation to advance their own political agenda, in face of what all reasonable people agree is in the benefit of the people of Atlasia and all of humanity.

Those who suggest that I am enforcing my moral will unto others would have no problem enforcing their agenda of the rest of the country, if given the chance.  And so, I ask all the supporters of this bill to stand fast in the face of the ever more shrill screams of the detractors of this policy.

No ones hand is being forced.  No ones rights are being violated.  No one need follow my "moral leanings".  I only ask that this government take better care of her citizens and offer more options to the marginalized of our society.

I would like to start by saying how dare you paint as whatever you care to paint me as without either personally knowing me or having seen any sort of declared position on the issue of abortion.

I'm not talking about the programme itself (the one providing the shelters), I believe there is plenty of compelling state interest in that case. I DO NOT OBJECT TO THIS BILL. I STATED SO RATHER CLEARLY EARLIER.

I object to the State interfering in a business's right to provide whatever documentation (which is what I was talking about) to its clients/patients that it likes when it receives no funding from the federal government. There is no compelling state interest that means a business should have to provide documentation about one particular government programme.

The FDA forces companies to supply nutritional infomation on their products.

I'm reading the proposed bill at the moment... I'll comment when I've finished...

Thats a consumer protection issue. Obviously the protection of consumers is a State interest, since the consumers are for the most part, citizens.

I'm still waiting to find out compelling companies to promote Super's plan, (however well-intenioned, effective and ideologcially agreeable to myself it is) over every other plan is a compelling State interest.

Well, let me differentiate here. Peter is opposing the idea of forcing a business to provide information on something that is outside of the product they are offering(abortions, in this case). The government service is not the product being offered, it really has nothing to do with the product itself. Since the clinic is not being paid any money from the government, it seems unreasonable to force them to point out an alternative that gains them nothing.

FDA food labels, on the other hand, are directly relevant to the product - it is a way to ensure that the customer knows what is being purchased, protecting the customer against fraud(one of the legitimate functions of government is to protect against fraud, in my view). Now, requiring abortion doctors to truthfully explain the abortion procedure and it's risks to a woman is similar, as it ensures the customer knows what is being purchased and the risks entailed.

You can't simply declare that there is no compelling state interest, simply because you don't believe there to be.  Supersoulty obviously believes there is a compelling interest, or he wouldn't have proposed the bill.

You most certainly do object to the bill, you object to section 3e.  Don't pretend otherwise.

So what if I don't know you personally?  None of us know each other personally.  It absurd to say I can't disagree with you without knowing you.


So if I shot a tourist, would that be alright?  he's not a citizen of my nation, what government interest does Washington or Sacramento have to regulate the killing of tourists?

Since Supersoulty doesn't seem to want to go with my idea, I'll post it for all other Senators and citizens to view. This is the main body of the letter:

"I propose a compromise to the Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill, since it seems it will pass and I’m rather unhappy about that. The intent of your bill is not to create a form of welfare (though, I believe it does do that) but to decrease the number of abortions – I’m not against the intent, but I disagree with the means. My idea is one that would make both the populists and the libertarians happy, because eventually becomes self-sustaining if everything works out as planned since it is funded almost entirely by user fees rather than taxes.

So, my proposition is thus – create a federal service that works with abortion clinics to provide a second option in the form of adoption. The agency created would set up a list of families that wish to adopt a child(or more than one) that might be aborted(families would of course, as all families wanting to adopt, be subject to social services inspection, or inspection by agents of this agency, to ensure they would be fit parents – whichever is cheaper or more workable). These families, upon being told there is a mother willing to bear a child for them to adopt, will be made to pay the adoption fee (I’m thinking somewhere in the realm of $3-3,500, perhaps allowing the agency to set the fee according to it’s needs within a state, but within limitations to ensure average people can afford to pay), which can be paid in installments if necessary (possibly with interest), should they still wish to adopt at that time.

Now, you may ask why abortion clinics would go along with this? It’s rather simple – appeal to their desire for money. A piece of the user fee, $500 I’m thinking, will go to the abortion clinic – this serves them because they get money without even having to perform a procedure, so it is virtually money for nothing. I’d think then that clinics would be more than willing to propose this alternative without much or any coercion. Even though it is a requirement for them, it seems to me to be one they’ll be happy with since they still make money off the alternative. Also, possibly, the mother will be given $500 as well to pay for the birth procedure, though if already willing to pay for an abortion it might be wiser to have them pay for it, to ensure the agency has enough money to keep running, still it is a possible incentive to bear the child. Of course, the mother is allowed to change her mind at the last minute and keep the child if she wishes to do so. Payments of all sorts are only rendered upon completion of the adoption process.

To establish the agency, I would be willing to compromise on $250-500 million (though less would be better, but this system works better than that already proposed because we only need to spend the money once, and after which the system should sustain itself) being spent on initial costs of building offices, infrastructure, and initial pay for employees. It may even be possible for these agencies to make a profit and pay some of the money back to the government eventually, but that could be done in a later bill if the case happens. Any profit made initially will go into improving the agency and advertisement for the program (to find willing parents, the clinics present the option to the mothers). In the end, if the agency proves unworkable, the project can be scrapped, but the taxpayer expense will still have been minimal.

Ok – logistics. Let’s set the initial cost at $350 million to get things going. $200 million goes to paying employees – each is paid $50k a year, probably throw in some vacation time too, but this gives us 4000 employees to work with, or 80 per state (this is only an average, certain states will have need of more and others will need less, varying by population, number of abortion clinics, and other factors, but I think the total is enough). The total number can increase or decrease according to the agency’s policy and need over time – this is just an initial estimate. $100 million will go to constructing/buying/renting buildings for the workers, average $2 million per state. This leaves $50 million to pay for any employee benefits established(keep it minimal to start, simple stuff like dental or vision, work over time to establish better if possible, since the agency is non-profit any extra money made can go to this), advertisement of the program, and other expenses. The last thing may need an increase on the initial cost. Perhaps small amounts can be appropriated later on, but I think this initial estimate is good enough.

I figure that we can probably get at least 100,000 families yearly to participate, and hopefully that many mothers as well. This is how I determined wages and fees and whatnot. If we go with the minimum fee I said, $3k, and we only pay the clinic and not the mother (or raise fee to $3.5k and pay the mother), that means $250 million dollars in revenue a year, provided things go well (and I think it will, since this relies on both the altruism of pro-life families and on the self-interests of abortion clinics to make money) which will pay the annual $200 million in employee salaries, and leaves $50 million to pay for benefits, advertisement, maintenance, ect.  So, if more service than 100,000 is given, profit is made, if less than 100,000 is served we can downsize accordingly.

I think this service would be much more effective than the already proposed idea in decreasing the number of abortions. Though I still think this exceeds the authority of the federal government, it is still far preferable to me than what is already proposed. It spends less taxpayer money, and eventually spends none if things go well. Still, my libertarian self would rather see this established as an entirely private interest."

An unmentioned benefit is to the children adopted - it provides them with a loving family capable of providing for them, and it does it without giving something unearned to the mother, so it's not welfare. Less abortions, many babies are better off, parents get a new bundle of joy, and with minimal taxpayer expense. Practically, I think it is more workable and reliable.

Section 1

The Federal Government of Atlasia will appropriate $250 million over the next 5 years to fund the opperations and opening of shelters for unwed mothers, all accross Atlasia.

          a) Shelters must pass regional and federal
              standards, in order to recieve funds.

          b) Atlasia reserves the right to discontinue
              funding of any group, organization or shelter
              that does not meet those standards.

          c) Women in the care of those shelters will be
              granted legal protection and adaquate monitary
              compensation to move to the nearest shelter that
              matches those standards.

Section 2

State and Federal funds to CHIP programs will resume to insure the protection of all children or fetus' classified as "unborn.  This will be done in such a way so that funding and coverage is  commensurate with pre-2004 levels.

Section 3

Nessesary living expenses for new mothers will be provided for by all of those who apply, by the Federal government of Atlasia, for up to and including 5 years after the birth of the child.

            a) These funds will be terminated if any of the
                following occure with in that time span.
    
                       1a) Another child is born to the same mother

                       2a) The woman enters a state of marriage

            b) No woman living with a "permenant" male
                partner, or in a common law marriage will be
                allow to collect funding.

            c) Monthly interviews with each woman on the
                program will be required.  If that woman is found
                to be:

                       1c) Abusing the child

                       2c) Abusing legal or illegal subsatances

                       3c)Causing harm to the child's development

               Then her child will be put into foster care and she
               will be removed from the program and all benefits
               taken away.

              d) Any government employee found to be abusing
                  his or her clients, or in someother way impeding
                  their rights, will be immediatly fired or otherwise
                 or other wise punished in a court of law.

              e) Pamphlets advertising these benefits will be
                  made available at all Social Security offices,
                  OBGYN's offices and licensed abortion clinics
                  in Atlasia.  Failure to comply will bring about
                  the following penalties.

                    1e) First offense, the clinic/office will be fined $ 1,000
                  
                    2e) Second offense, the clinic/office will be fined $ 5,000

                    3e) Third offense, the clinic/office will lose it's license to operate.
Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5
Funding for the above will also be provided by cutting funding for the UNFPA and diverting the money to pay for Section 3.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

I have said that I am more than open to suggestions. Since Supersoulty "obviously believes there is a compelling interest" perhaps he would care to share. Remember, the burden is on him to prove that what he is doing is a compelling interest, as opposed to being on a business (or me) to show that it is not a compelling interest.


I object to one particulary co-incidental part of the bill; Its removal (or appropriate modification to not apply to companies who receive no federal funding) would have little effect on the bill, and I would then find it entirely acceptable barring spelling mistakes.


You are totally misconstructing my remarks. You said that I was pro-choice. I stated that you had no basis to make such remarks. You are now saying you are disagreeing with me, when in fact you were just painting my position for me in the first place. Your response is totally non-sequitur.


Don't be ridiculous. Everybody has a right to life, whether they be citizens or not. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of a straw man.

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Sections 5 & 6 actually help solve the problem, as opposed to just funding the problem.

Section 5 is redundant.  Akno's bill already provides Day Care for all poor kids from the day they're born until they are a teen.

Section 6 is alot of money to spend.  College is expensive and 1.5 K isn't going to make a difference to some women.

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

These women won't have as much time to work as, say a traditional working class college student, so every little bit helps.  The day-care is to assist in that as well.

Where is Akno's bill?  Has it passed yet?

Actually, it was your argument that was weak enought to be a straw man.  You had to know the moment you said that the government's responsibilities are limited to protecting the rights of citizens that my response would be exactly what it was.  You walked right into it, so you don't have much ground to be mad at me.

Its like Randy Moss says: If you don't want me to celebrate, keep me out of the end zone.

I strongly support reducing the economic need for abortions and generally helping people live happier lives... and as this bill does that I strongly support it.

Now, there's a few bits than need tweaking and generally cleaned up (although the spelling isn't really Super's fault as IIRC he's dyslexic) and I'd be happy to post an ironed out bill tomorrow (after I've got some much needed sleeeeeeeep...)

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

...when they are obligating a company to do something for which they pay the company absolutely no money whatsoever to do. In these situations, all the government should be doing is protecting rights.

The government has many responsibilities, and they all ultimately return to the point of protecting rights or providing services. Supersoulty's proposal is in the business of providing a service that will reduce abortions, which is great, but he doesn't have the power to make companies advertise it for him without anything approaching a compelling interest.

Except for when you unfairly and without basis painted my position on abortion for me, I'm not mad at you.

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.

1. You said it would solve the problem. I'm saying that so few will use this part of the service that it will be ineffectual, that your expectations are too high. That's all.

2. But aren't 'living expenses' still provided? That's what I meant when I mentioned the shelters. So, how much will these living expenses be?

As for you... The interest lies in assuring that governemnt funding is not going to waste and that people aren't being cheated out of options that should know they have.  Its called education, and we certainly work to enforce it in other ways.  I find no reason why this case is fundamentally different from anyother that can be suggested.

The government has an interest in protecting its people from both extermination and poverty, making sure that they know what their rights are and enforcing that, if need be.

I knew this would happen, but I still find it amazing that people are so threatened by the amazing oppertunities presented in this bill.

Perhapes you don't understand something... the money will be granted mostly to private organizations that are already up and running so that they can expand their facilities and care options.  These will not be government run shelters, or at least 90% of them won't be.

Akno's Bill passed in October.

May I see it?  Do you have the thread?

Thank you for your support, Senator, both personal and for the bill.

Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act
Section A
From the second a child is born into a family that is below the poverty line, that child's parents will have the option of sending the child to a day-care center, operated from 6 AM until 7 PM, until the child is ready to attend the normal public school. The day-care center will be cost free, and it will attempt to instill positive traits in children at a young age, so that they will be better adults. The federal government will allocate funds for this, but will leave all decisions up to local governments.

Section B
For children who live with families below the poverty line, totally free before and after-school care will be provided until the child graduates middle school. The rest is the same as Section A.

Section C
The estimated cost of this is 18.9 billion dollars this year, and 17.65 billion dollars every other year. That cost is split between hiring people to run the programs, providing equipment for the programs, and, if needed, constructing new facilities.

Passed by the Third Congress of the A.F.F. (October 20, 2004)
Presented to the President on October 22, 2004
Entered into law after 7 days with no executive action.


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=9882.0

Danke.  I will review this and give a response in a minute.

My proposal differs from this bill in that my bill provides for child care unwed women living with a family or gaurdian above the poverty line, but not far above.

I refere you to Section 7, which I added after some debate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15608.15

The government can't make other entities do things because of its own impotence in implementing its policies.


Thats certainly reasonable, though I wouldn't agree that compelling abortion providers to promote these shelters is a particularly good way to promote them. Generally most people who go to an abortion clinic have already made up their mind. A genuine OBGYN wouldn't need to be compelled by law, he would already have offered the subject in a discussion with the patient. Social security offices seems a bizarre place to put it in my opinion if only because they rarely deal with abortion, though obviously your bill is directed at poorer women, so that might explain that partly.


Well obviously, but in my opinion you need to draw a compelling link between this bill and that interest in order for you to compel other entities to assist you. I can begin to see a casual link certainly, but not enough IMO.



I am not opposed to the ideological goals of this bill, and I stated so before I engaged in this tete with the Secretary. I am opposed to the State unnecessarily compelling businesses to do things without basis, which I also stated.

Ok, well, 'operations and opening' in the first section seems to imply these will be government run, at least to me. Consider rewording. I still don't approve, but that makes things slightly better since the burden is no longer entirely on the taxpayer.

Still, you haven't answered my question - how much is the 'necessary living expenses' provided in section 3 of the bill, per year? Defining 'necessary' might also help - that word is often up to interpretation.

But not all OBGYN's will, and therefore, we should have some sort of way of distributing information if they don't.  This honestly isn't so that I can enforce my moral will on others, as you have suggested.  It is just so that we know the information is out there and accessable to people who don't have internet access.

And, my suggestion for Social Security and Social Service offices is because poorer people do tend to spend so time there and those considering the economic asspects of abortion/having the child will be able to find the information there.  You might think this trivial, as the social workers should tell them, but there are some people out there who acctually promote abortion as opposed to simply condoning it, and they really want to see as many abortions as possible happen.

I don't want a single abortion to occure in this country simply because a woman did not have access to the infomation that could have prevented it.


We are approuching this for two different viewpoint.  I see the interest as being obvious and self-evident, and thus I don't really know how to debate you on it.

I'll rewrite those parts of the bill in order to make them more clear.  I was hoping that we could have a debate on what is "nessesary" while debating the bill.

Super,

This is an excellent piece of legislation.  I hope that the differences can be worked out and this bill can become law.

Section 1

The Federal Government of Atlasia will appropriate $250 million over the next 5 years to assist in funding the opperations and opening of shelters for unwed mothers, all accross Atlasia.

          a) Shelters must pass regional and federal
              standards, in order to recieve funds.

          b) Atlasia reserves the right to discontinue
              funding of any group, organization or shelter
              that does not meet those standards.

          c) Women in the care of those shelters will be
              granted legal protection and adaquate monitary
              compensation to move to the nearest shelter that
              matches those standards.

Section 2

State and Federal funds to CHIP programs will resume to insure the protection of all children or fetus' classified as "unborn.  This will be done in such a way so that funding and coverage is  commensurate with pre-2004 levels.

Section 3

Nessesary living expenses for new mothers will be provided for by all of those who apply, by the Federal government of Atlasia, for up to and including 5 years after the birth of the child.

         a)  These benefits will be provided for food, rent
                  and medical expenses and are to be set at the
                  minimum rage for what is considered "Sandard
                  of Living" in the mothers municipality or county.

             b) These funds will be terminated if any of the
                  following occure with in that time span.
     
                       1a) Another child is born to the same mother

                       2a) The woman enters a state of marriage

            c) No woman living with a "perminant" male
                partner, or in a common law marriage will be
                allow to collect funding.

            d) Monthly interviews with each woman on the
                program will be required.  If that woman is found
                to be:

                       1c) Abusing the child

                       2c) Abusing legal or illegal subsatances

                       3c) Deemed to be in someother way
                             violating the spirit of the program

               Then her child will be put into foster care and she
               will be removed from the program and all benefits
               taken away.

              e) Any government employee found to be abusing
                  his or her clients, or in someother way impeding
                  their rights, will be immediatly fired or otherwise
                 or other wise punished in a court of law.

              f) Pamphlets advertising these benefits will be
                  made available at all Social Security offices,
                  OBGYN's offices and licensed abortion clinics
                  in Atlasia.  Failure to comply will bring about
                  fines of a maximum of $20,000.

continued on next post...

Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

          a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than
              $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned
              in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in
              Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates
              degree.

          b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections
              1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure,
              i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than
              $35,000 per year.  She will still have full access to the benefits
              mentioned in Sections 5-6.

Even though I still detest the bill, I'd like to suggest some improvements - I want to minimize abuse of the program and minimize the amount of taxpayer money spent.

Section 3, part a - Some spelling errors(rage should be rate, Sandard should be Standard). Now, more importantly, while I would view those as mostly 'necessary', I do want a stipulation placed. The mother needs to find work after some period of time if she is not already working(though, this might apply to a different degree, or perhaps exempt entirely, if the woman is in college using section 5), and must not stay in an unemployed status for too long, otherwise benefits should be taken away. Perhaps make there be a max total time for unemployement rather than time between employment always being the same, so they can't get a job, quit, and then get a job again when their time runs out. Benefits for living expenses given will be dependent upon the income of the job - the benefits basically would add to income, rather than being an absolute amount, so that total income does not exceed $30k a year, which is the limit to exempt the woman from the program. i.e. a person who makes $10k a year will receive more benefits than someone who makes $25k. I ask for this work stipulation because we do not want these women dependent upon the program, because after five years if they are unemployed the child will still need care that costs money, and they will no longer have any income at all. We also don't want people simply mooching off society. So, this stipulation would encourage them to become or productive members of society.

Overall, I'm neutral on this bill, but there are some provisions in it I don't like.

Section 3(b)(1): I'd prefer if it merely provided that children beyond the first don't qualify for these benefits rather than taking away the benefits provided the first child because of a second.

Section 3(b)(2): Do we really want a provision of law that will discourage unwed mothers from forming a stable married relationship with a loving partner?

Section 3(d)(3): I can see terminating benefits of the mother violates the spirit of this program, but I can't see that justifying placing the child in foster care.

I see all of your points.  I'll change things to suit your points.

This bill will gain another no vote from me.

I'm planning on making some of the changes that Gov. Ernest suggested, probably all of them.

Is there anything about the bill, in particular that you don't find favorable?

Section 1

The Federal Government of Atlasia will appropriate $250 million over the next 5 years to assist in funding the opperations and opening of shelters for unwed mothers, all accross Atlasia.

          a) Shelters must pass regional and federal
              standards, in order to recieve funds.

          b) Atlasia reserves the right to discontinue
              funding of any group, organization or shelter
              that does not meet those standards.

          c) Women in the care of those shelters will be
              granted legal protection and adaquate monitary
              compensation to move to the nearest shelter that
              matches those standards.

Section 2

State and Federal funds to CHIP programs will resume to insure the protection of all children or fetus' classified as "unborn.  This will be done in such a way so that funding and coverage is  commensurate with pre-2004 levels.

Section 3

Nessesary living expenses for new mothers will be provided for by all of those who apply, by the Federal government of Atlasia, for up to and including 5 years after the birth of the child.

         a)  These benefits will be provided for food, rent
                  and medical expenses and are to be set at the
                  minimum rage for what is considered "Sandard
                  of Living" in the mothers municipality or county.

             b) While the mother is permitted to have another
                 child in this time period without violating the
                 spirit of the agreement, she will recive no
                 additional funding for that child.  The mother
                 must be informed of this by a social worker.
                 There after, any attempts to collect additional
                 funds or in any other way fraud the government
                 will be met with termination of all funds and
                 possible prison sentance.
                 
            c)  If at anytime during the afore mentioned time period
                a woman recieving benefits enters into a state of
                marriage, her benefits will be cut by 10% every fiscal
                year until the 5 year mark has passed.  If she is divorced
                then she may once again recive benefits at the
                pre-marriage level.

                       1c) This does not apply to those benefits
                             mentioned in Sections 5 and 6.

            d) No woman living with a "perminant" male
                partner, or in a common law marriage will be
                allow to collect funding.

            e) Monthly interviews with each woman on the
                program will be required.  If that woman is found
                to be:

                       1e) Abusing the child

                       2e) Abusing legal or illegal subsatances

               Then her child will be put into foster care and she
               will be removed from the program and all benefits
               taken away.

              f) Any government employee found to be abusing
                  his or her clients, or in someother way impeding
                  their rights, will be immediatly fired or otherwise
                 or other wise punished in a court of law.

              g) Pamphlets advertising these benefits will be
                  made available at all Social Security offices,
                  OBGYN's offices and licensed abortion clinics
                  in Atlasia.  Failure to comply will bring about
                  fines of a maximum of $20,000.

continued on next post...

Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

          a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than
              $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned
              in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in
              Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates
              degree.

          b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections
              1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure,
              i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than
              $35,000 per year.  She will still have full access to the benefits
              mentioned in Sections 5-6.

Supersoulty - I'd still like a work provision for those women not entering college(or still in high school). If one of the points of this bill is to get them out of poverty, and if they aren't currently in some level of the educational process they need to be employed in order to do that. If they aren't working by the end of the program(or a degree, in the college cases), they are left with a child and no income, and thusly sink back into poverty.

True, but I honestly don't know what to do about that.

Maybe you could create a tax incentive for companies who hire people who are receiving assistance from this bill or something?

I'm not sure; that might be unfair to everyone else.

I'm on the fence for this one...

Siege

Life is generally unfair for different reasons according to who you talk to.  I like your idea.  I'll ponder it.

Well, I don't see how it would be much different than the requirement that those on welfare have to prove they are searching for work to keep benefits. Basically I'd say that the woman has to prove she's been actively searching in the monthly interviews specified in Section 3e. She must find work, even if it is minimum wage, in some set limit of time or lose benefits. My suggestion is that limit should be somewhere between 6 months to 2 years. If you go with a higher end limit, then any time spent unemployed should tally up(so that the woman couldn't live off the system two years, work one year, quit and then mooch off the system for the remaining two years), as to encourage maintained employment status. Of course, if a mother lands a job that makes over $30k a year, then she loses benefits as per Section 7a.

Also, I hope you will consider the idea of ensuring that benefits are not a fixed rate - they should only serve to bring income up to what is deemed the 'liveable' level. In this case, I would think that level would be $30k a year. So a working mother getting $18k a year would get more in benefits than a working mother making $27k a year - the $27k mother does not need as much, so it wouldn't make sense to give her the same amount as the $18k mother.

Wow. Sorry I didn't get to this sooner. I've been quite busy of late, but I'll give my assessments now.

This bill is mostly good, and in its current form I would likely support it, but there are some problems with it.

I completely agree with sections 1 and 2.

As for section 3, I have some serious objections to it. For one thing, how would "permanent" be defined in terms of a long term male partner?

I also fail to see how a child living with a mother and a live in boyfriend is worse off than one living with a mother alone. I agree that living with a married couple is a better situation, but I don't think that women who live alone should receive funding and those who live with a boyfriend shouldn't. As long as the man isn't abusing the child, the child is going to probably be better off having at least some male influence in his/her life, rather than none at all. The live-in boyfriend is almost certainly assuming at least some of the duties of being a father; if he didn't care about the child or the woman long-term, he would not likely be living with them in the first place. The type of men who need to be kept away from children because they would be a bad influence aren't likely to want to tie themselves down in this manner to begin with.

I also don't think that the funds should terminate when a woman gets married, so long as she and her husband are still, cumulatively, below the income requirements.

I also don't think that the funds should terminate when a woman has another child in instances where the child was conceived through rape or incest. If a woman is raped and chooses to have the child anyway, she shouldn't be punished for that. This particular section actually seems to encourage abortion.

I agree with Section 3, parts 1c and 2c, but not 3c. This gives too much discretion to those conducting the interview. The particular reasons for why the funds are being cut off should be specifically laid out. Or, at the very least, there needs to be an appeal process for the woman in cases where funding is terminated for some such violation under 3c.

As for 2c, for that matter, I don't think abuse of legal substances should be cause for withdrawal of funds unless there is abuse of the child (which doesn't just have to be physical abuse, I might add; mental, pscyhological, or emotional abuse can and should be considered here). Abuse of a legal substance should be permitted on the part of the mother as long as it isn't affecting the child in any way.

Otherwise, I agree with this bill wholeheartedly, and I strongly support its overall goal. I would also like to see better sex education in schools, which wouldn't be limited to abstinence-only education, and better promotion of birth control (as Gabu said, not abortion). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent the pregnancy from occuring in the first place.

I just now saw the revisions to the original bill. I'll comment on those.

As for section 7, I don't think the funds should be cut off just because the woman has an assosciate's degree. In many places, you need at least a bachelor's to find decent work.

Although the reduction of funds due to the woman getting married is not as bad as cutting them off altogether, I still don't like the fact that this will actually discourage marriage. Like I said, even for married mothers, receipt of funds should be based on income, not marital status.

All maximum incomes for qualifying under funds should be set at a local level to conform to typical incomes within that area; the maximum income for which to qualify for receipt of funds may be too low in some areas, particularly in major cities.

7b should be eliminated; only the woman's income should be looked at, not those with whom she is living. Unless she is under the age of 18, they have no legal obligation to provide her with any assistance, so it's wrong to assume that they are.

Can we vote now, please?

I don't think it has gone up for debate yet.

In my experience from the last session, it generally takes an average of a month from initial introduction onto the Senate floor by a Senator until a bill actually manages to become Law. Problem is that the concept of "debate time" is now totally redundant since bills spend so long queueing for debate time that they are actually fully debated by the time they get into debate time. Problem is that for an SPR to change the debate time rules, it needs to get debate time itself.

Its a funny old world.

This bill has been debated more than anyother bill out there.


I move that we for-go Senate rules (since the fact that we haven't put this up for debate is obviously an over-sight) and hold a vote.

I second the motion.  Maybe we should just eliminate debate time and make it such that a week after a bill is introduced it goes up for a vote.  "Debate time" is pretty redundant as it is right now, since it's not as if no debating is done before that time.

There's a huge qeue.

Unfortunately, this one may be a while.  See Harry's topic to see how many bills are in the queue ahead of it.  I'll do my best to speed things along, but it still will unfortunately probably take some time before this one gets looked at.

I encourage my Senators and all Senators of Atlasia to send a strong no vote on this bill; my reasons follow:

We need to find ways that the mothers can take care of their babies, not put them in a day care and leave them all the time.  We need to make some sort of provision for this, I’m not sure what to put in there but we should definitely collaborate to support parents as primary caregivers.

Parents should not be subjected to regular invasions of their privacy and right to raise their children without interference unless there is real cause for concern.  An annual, not monthly, interview should be sufficient enough to collect information which will help determine eligibility status and any additional services the person may require in order to successfully participate in the program. 

Child and substance abusers should be incarcerated, and children placed with relatives. There is also strong evidence of frequent abuse in the foster homes and shelters themselves! so I question the use of social workers in these cases.  Children are also moved around a lot, so they often get lost in the system and are never reunited with their families. 

Also, tax cuts mean that parents have more money to help their teens out in this situation, effectively relieving the burden on the government to provide these kinds of services.

I'm I too assume that you have a better suggestion.  Because, if you don't, I would like to remind you that half a cake is better than no cake at all.

This bill was a compromise between Senators and a compromise with reality.  Though we would all like things to be perfect and ideal, they aren't.  If they were, the need for this bill would be eliminated all together.

So, while I respect your oppinions, I would like you to consider the consequences of doing nothing at all, rather than something you don't totally agree with.

10 pages and still not open for debate? This is absurd and just shows how lacking the Senate performance is!!!

Income tax cuts aren't going to help these people, since most pay little or no tax to begin with. However, I would support a sales tax cut, or a payroll tax cut for the poorest Atlasians.

Let's just say that not everyone who commented on this thread is a Senator.

Actually, what it really shows is how much of a bottleneck is created when pieces get mandatory one week for debate even when it's not used one bit.  We really need to update that.

Back when I was a Senator, we interpreted that procedure law has official debate beginning at the bill's introduction. We only used the 4 bills max for opening votes.

I personally think that the best way to do it is to go with something like the 24-hour rule in this resolution (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15640.msg351725#msg351725), in that a vote gets called if debate ceases for 24 hours.  It seems much more sensible to me than to require everyone to wait a week regardless of how much people have to say about a piece of legislation (although there is a method in place to motion to end debate).

Speaking of which, I think I'm going to use that method.  This waiting around for debate time to end is getting stupid.

May I inject my thoughts?  First, I agree completely with the objections that Mr. CheeseWhiz raised.  I would also like to add that this bill does nothing to get rid of what I believe is the root cause of the problem you are trying to tackle, i.e., the decreasing number of Parents who take an active role in the raising of their children. 

Senators, I also urge you to vote no on this bill.  I have nothing against Senator Supersoulty personally, and in fact would like to express a sense of understanding for his stance on this issue because I have a niece who was born to an unwed mother, but this bill has too many inherent problems for me to remain silent any longer.

This bill encourages welfare-like programs and more bloating of the Federal Government, which I consider dangerous and even deadly to the nation. I believe that we should encourage Families, whether the couple is married or not, to stay together, and this bill does not do that.  Payroll and sales tax cuts are a step in the right direction, I think, but it's still not enough.

We should encourage at least one of the parents to take primary charge for their children and not dump them off at daycare.  Again, I believe the decrease of parents who take charge in the upbringing of their children, 24/7, is a part of the reason we have so much teenage pregnancy, deadbeat dads, and other problems in our society.

Finally, I am concerned about the role that the CPS, an agency that is currently under investigation in many states (including our own) for abuse of their power and privilege, will play in determining exactly which parents are considered abusive as per section 5e. 

So, in closing I urge that all senators vote a strong NO on this bill as proposed.  Thank you for your time.

So, then basically what you are telling me is that you want more abortions?  I've heard "we should tackle the real problem".  How in the Hell do we do that?  Are we going to force parents to spend more time with their children?  We cannot inact social change from here.  We just have to do what we can.

You can bitch and whine and moan about how it doesn't tackle the real problem, but that won't get anything accomplished and in the mean time, more babies who don't have to die will have and more misery that wouldn't have to occure, will have occured.  You can get everything you want, or we can have nothing.  I'm sick and tired of people being against solid initiatives, because they don't meet their specific requirments.

Leave your egos at the door and try to understand that the if we want anything done, we need to work to achieve something that most people can agree on and we need to do what we can do not what we wish we could do.

Senator, I hear your frustration and concerns loud and clear, and I agree that these are serious problems that need to be addressed.  I am not content to follow the status quo, however, and this looks like just another "aid" program destined to inflate the welfare state to bursting!.  I do not believe that this bill will reduce the number of abortions significantly.  People don't want to be saddled with a kid because many of their own parents were taught by our society to feel the same way -- that raising children is a second-class job, a hassle and a burden.    I'm saying what we need to do is get the government out of people's business and trust them to handle their own affairs.  I'm saying that we need to get rid of government programs which usurp the family. 

 

You are correct, we can't force people to spend more time with their kids, but we can stop encouraging the opposite!  We need to close the Government-funded babysitters and tell people that the State is not in the business of raising the next generation!  Let free enterprise and service organizations provide childcare, if necessary.  If we can get to the root of the problem, we will be able to find ways to enable both mothers and fathers to spend more time with their children and that will be the first step toward curbing abortions and teenage pregnancy without creating "new & improved" programs in an ever-growing government bureaucracy!  Thank you, I yield the floor (been glued to the Senate debates on C-SPAN all week ;P)

For the fourth time, can we please have a vote on this bill?

Unfortunately...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15165.0

It still has a fair bit of stuff on top of it.  I personally would like to skip to this bill given how it's been debated to death already, but I don't really want to blatantly ignore regulations.

Maybe we should introduce a resolution saying that we can motion to bump a piece of legislation to the top of the pile... I'll introduce something like that when we've lessened the legislative load.

EDIT: Actually, I just realized that that list is horribly out of order.  This bill is actually at the top.  I'll just say that debate has already happened and skip to voting the moment a spot opens up.

But you have called for an end of debate of three bills that were proposed after this one.

Yes, I know; as I said above, I just realized how horribly out of order Harry's list is.  Many apologies for that.

Well... eh, what the hell, it's not as if it's going to hurt anything.

Given that debate has obviously already been done, let's just skip that.

---

I hereby declare voting on this bill to be open.  All senators in favor, vote "yea"; all senators against, vote "nay".

Thank you, Mr. President.

Yea

Yea.

As unpopular as it may be with the conservatives and libertarians in District 4, I vote my conscience.


[/size]

Quiet in the gallery there. ;-P

Yea.

Yea.

Abstain.

Siege

With five in favor to zero against, and with one abstention, this bill has passed.

I hereby present it to the president for his signature.

Nay for the record.

VETO please

Ditto.

+1

Well, if I was running for reelection this move would kill me, it may kill me anyway with Conservatives. But as President, I must do what I feel is right, and i'll take the heat:

President PBrunsel

Thank you, so very much, Mr. President.

And let me second that - thank you for also voting your conscience, Mr. President.

Good show, Mr. President. :)

We need more people who refuse to toe the partisan line.

Thank you for this increase in beauracracy Mr. President.

As much as I disapprove of this bill, I made a pie-chart:

()

Green- Yea
Orange - Nay
Dark Gray - Abstain
Gray - No vote


You just lost my vote...  Oh wait...  Nevermind.

What was the point of the chart?

He seems to like making charts, so let him make charts.

(Shrug)

Okay, I have nothing against it.  Just wondering.

Ha, looks good.

Siege

I really wish you hadn't abstain.  That way, we could have had a real majority rather than just not having 5 people against.

For what counts, I think this is a spectacular bill & would like to congratulate Senator Supersoulty for introducting it.

Yea

There you are, Supersoulty, now you do have a majority. :)

Danke

You do realise that Bono is challenging this in Court right?

(sigh) no I did not.  Thank you.

Might want to look here (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=16390.0)

Looks like Senator Bono had the last laugh in this matter.

Perhaps, but we populists aren't simply going to go away on these matters, regardless of what the libertarians may want. Perhaps the bill was unconstitutional - although I'd like to see what Texasgurl's dissent says first - but I would be surprised if Supersoulty didn't submit a revised version that fixes the flaws.

In any event, I will be reading all the commentary on this decision to see what the more litigious members of Atlasia think about it...

Once I see the dissent I will be writing a commentary on the case which I will put on here and on the AtlasWiki.

Thanks to the Mideastern Governor for that, regardless of whether or not I will end up agreeing with him. :)