Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2018, 04:01:30 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Print
Author Topic: The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill  (Read 18893 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35,608
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: January 23, 2005, 02:44:05 pm »

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.
Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch
He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a
The one thing everyone can agree on is that the media is biased against them.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: January 23, 2005, 02:54:15 pm »

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.
Logged

??????????
StatesRights
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,196
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: January 24, 2005, 01:04:48 pm »

This bill will gain another no vote from me.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: January 24, 2005, 01:36:59 pm »

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?
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: January 24, 2005, 03:36:55 pm »

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...
Quote
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: January 24, 2005, 03:37:35 pm »

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.


Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: January 24, 2005, 04:05:47 pm »

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.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: January 24, 2005, 04:23:00 pm »

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.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,467
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: January 24, 2005, 04:25:19 pm »

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.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Siege40
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,840


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: January 24, 2005, 04:25:26 pm »

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

Siege
Logged

President - July 1, 2005 - Nov 4, 2005
Secretary of State - Mar 6, 2005 - July 1, 2005
Senator - Nov 5, 2004 - Mar 1, 2005
Northeast Governor - Aug 29, 2004 - Nov 5, 2004
Northeast Lt. Governor - Apr 9, 2004 - Aug 29, 2004

PC Scores: Econ - -6.25 Social - -4.26

Canadian registered in Vermont
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: January 24, 2005, 04:52:30 pm »

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.

Life is generally unfair for different reasons according to who you talk to. I like your idea. I'll ponder it.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2005, 06:25:08 pm by Senator Supersoulty »Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,773
Japan


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: January 24, 2005, 05:03:09 pm »

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.

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.
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,323
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: January 26, 2005, 09:43:35 am »

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.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,323
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: January 26, 2005, 09:53:23 am »

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: January 28, 2005, 11:32:40 am »

Can we vote now, please?
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,693
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: January 28, 2005, 11:56:35 am »

Can we vote now, please?

I don't think it has gone up for debate yet.
Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,049


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: January 28, 2005, 01:51:27 pm »

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: January 28, 2005, 02:57:46 pm »

Can we vote now, please?

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

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.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,467
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: January 28, 2005, 04:07:48 pm »

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.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: January 30, 2005, 03:37:35 pm »

CAN WE HAVE A VOTE ON MY BILL NOW, PLEASE?
Logged

Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,719
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: January 30, 2005, 03:38:44 pm »

CAN WE HAVE A VOTE ON MY BILL NOW, PLEASE?

There's a huge qeue.
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,467
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: January 30, 2005, 05:49:16 pm »

CAN WE HAVE A VOTE ON MY BILL NOW, PLEASE?

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.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
CheeseWhiz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,552


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: February 02, 2005, 10:54:26 am »

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, Im 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.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2005, 11:41:38 am by CheeseWhiz »Logged

See all those words right above the divider right there?  Don't listen to them, they are the babblings of a moron.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,666
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: February 02, 2005, 12:56:57 pm »

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, Im 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.
Logged

King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,535
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: February 02, 2005, 02:37:05 pm »

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines