The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill

[12th Doctor]

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

[12th Doctor]

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).

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.

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".

[12th Doctor]

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).

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.

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.

[12th Doctor]

Guess you need that other latte, though.

[12th Doctor]

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

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.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

Guess you need that other latte, though.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, Bud Light then.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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?

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

[12th Doctor]

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

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? Because you sound just like her.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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, 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.

[12th Doctor]

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

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.

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.

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?

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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 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.

[12th Doctor]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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

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?

[12th Doctor]

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.

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).

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.

[12th Doctor]

You had to know the moment you said that the government's responsibilities are limited to protecting the rights of citizens

...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.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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).

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?

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.

[12th Doctor]

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

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?

Akno's Bill passed in October.

May I see it?  Do you have the thread?

[12th Doctor]

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...)

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

[12th Doctor]

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

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?

Akno's Bill passed in October.

May I see it?  Do you have the thread?

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.

[12th Doctor]

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

[12th Doctor]

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.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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.

[12th Doctor]

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...