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 "perminant" 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) 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.
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
fines of a maximum of $20,000.
continued on next post...
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.