Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2017, 01:54:33 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  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 18558 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9394


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #75 on: January 22, 2005, 04:07:34 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9135
View Profile
« Reply #76 on: January 22, 2005, 08:38:34 am »
Ignore

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.

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

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.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 22, 2005, 09:24:54 am »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: January 22, 2005, 01:45:50 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

WMS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5852


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 0.35

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2005, 01:48:21 pm »
Ignore

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.

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! ^_^
Logged

The political class has demonized the working class because the political class no longer represents the working class.  Neither Republicans or Democrats.
Political Beliefs Summarized:
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2005, 02:03:32 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2005, 02:04:44 pm »
Ignore

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.

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! ^_^

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

WMS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5852


Political Matrix
E: -1.81, S: 0.35

View Profile
« Reply #82 on: January 22, 2005, 02:09:10 pm »
Ignore

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.

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! ^_^

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
Logged

The political class has demonized the working class because the political class no longer represents the working class.  Neither Republicans or Democrats.
Political Beliefs Summarized:
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: January 22, 2005, 02:09:16 pm »
Ignore

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?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2005, 02:11:28 pm by Senator Supersoulty »Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #84 on: January 22, 2005, 02:47:32 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9394


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #85 on: January 22, 2005, 03:11:34 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #86 on: January 22, 2005, 03:20:01 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: January 22, 2005, 03:27:30 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9394


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #88 on: January 22, 2005, 03:39:48 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.

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.

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.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: January 22, 2005, 03:46:32 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #90 on: January 22, 2005, 03:51:58 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: January 22, 2005, 04:07:08 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 61500
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: January 22, 2005, 04:12:08 pm »
Ignore

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



Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #93 on: January 22, 2005, 04:15:47 pm »
Ignore

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

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: January 22, 2005, 04:18:57 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9394


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: January 22, 2005, 04:21:03 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.

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

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.

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?
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: January 22, 2005, 04:25:25 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18718
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #97 on: January 22, 2005, 04:27:24 pm »
Ignore

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.

Logged
Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #98 on: January 22, 2005, 04:31:41 pm »
Ignore

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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?

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.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: January 22, 2005, 04:32:13 pm »
Ignore

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