MA: Abortion Reduction (Statute)

[Junkie]

A question about the funding.  It appears that the bill intends some of the tax credits and cost of enforcement to come from the $25,000 fine.  I think that might be a problem.  The defendants may be sentenced to prison and of course will still have to pay the child support.  Does it really make sense to add fines on top of that.  Even if they are ordered, the chance that they are paid at all is questionable.  I do not think we want to create a situation where defendants have to choose between paying a fine so that other people may get a tax credit or paying the child support for their own children.

[Junkie]

I see your point. However, I do feel we should strongly punish this people who violate their child support payments. By taking out "and or" and replacing with "or" that solves one of the problems. However, another idea would be for those who violate their child support payments, they have to pay up to $25,000 (or whatever price) for their child. And then that child would be exempt from any tax credits included in the bill, but would get much better compensation. Of course if jail is what is ordered, then the child should still be able to receive the child deductible.

You could leave the punishment as is and find another revenue stream for the credits.

[Junkie]

Why hunting or fishing? What do they have to do with child rearing and why are we targeting hunting and fishing, specifically?

Agreed. I would like to see that clause removed, unless a good explanation is made.

This is taken from Mitch Daniels. I made the bill not just abortion, but what happens after which is cruicial. Unpaying dads shouldn't be allowed to go out to the casinos or spend time hunting and fishing with their buddies and leave the kid and a single mother on their own. Granted, this wouldn't be as effective as in the west, but I still think it's an incentive as well as a penalty to those who screw up not only the child's life, but the mother's.

Oh, I agree about casinos/gambling. But why hunting and fishing?

This is partly, of course, because if you go out to the casinos, that's purely recreational, but I can't say that about hunting or fishing.

And, of course, my other argument still stands. Why are we singling out these areas? Why should one's eligibility for a license involve something that has nothing to do with hunting or fishing?

Fishing and hunting in these days are mostly, unless you are part of a fishing/hunting business. The population that hunts and fish personally and every day in order to survive really doesn't exist anymore. If you would like, I suppose there could be an amendment addressing those that do...

Being a member of this region in RL, I know several people that heavily depend on hunting as their source of food. It is also a part of our economy, and in such trying times, I don't think it's the government's place to weaken the economy even more. While some may hunt and fish purely for recreation, it serves a larger purpose for many residents, including myself.

I disagree... I come from a big hunting state too, but there are cheaper ways for people to get food, and the majority of hunters aren't doing it for mainly food purposes.  I think this should stay.

I agree with your disagreement.

[Junkie]

Aye

[Junkie]

It looks like the Assembly is controlled by Compassionate Conservatives, or some variation there of, given the votes I've seen recently.

Well, at least conservatives anyway.

I totally forgot until now its too late: What about an amendment removing any extra prohibitions on adoption by otherwise qualified gay/lesbian families?

I would certainly support that.

So would I.

[Junkie]

My only thought is that he's saying he wants us to instruct adoption agencies that they are not to consider the sexuality of the adoptive family...?

If that is what we are talking about, it is still a good idea and I support it.

[Junkie]

My only thought is that he's saying he wants us to instruct adoption agencies that they are not to consider the sexuality of the adoptive family...?

If that is what we are talking about, it is still a good idea and I support it.

Well, I was assuming there may be many of the RL restirctions on gay adoption in the Mideast. If that is already the current state of regional law though....

Is it?

I'm not sure I followed your question...

Sorry, I'll rephrase:

"Is it?"


Just kidding. My question is: Has the Mideast (or federal) government previously removed legal restrictions on gay/lesbian couples adopting?

If that hasn't specifically been done, arguably any current RL legal restrictions still govern the region. Though obviously that may vary among the regions various states.

Found this law:

The Mideast Equal Rights Under the Law for All Act

Text of Legislation:
All Mideastern statutes and regulations which prohibit discrimination or disparate treatment under the law on the basis of, or guarantee legal rights or privileges regardless of, a subject's race, national origin, religion, or gender, shall henceforth be amended to include "sexual orientation" as a similarly illegal basis of discrimination or denial of legal rights.

Assembly Actions:
31 August 2009: 06:00:21 P.M.:
Legislation introduced by Badger.

2 September 2009: 01:14:02 P.M.:
Voting is opened.

2 September 2009: 01:54:10 P.M.:
The legislation is declared passed 3-0, with Swedish Cheese, Peter, and Badger voting AYE.

3 September 2009: 02:40:55 P.M.:
Governor Inks.LWC signs the legislation into law.

I believe that this statute should take care of your concerns.  Hey, check out who introduced it!