Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 20, 2019, 10:48:40 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
| | |-+  The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill  (Read 19191 times)
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« 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: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #1 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
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2005, 03:20:56 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, Iím 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.

Income tax cuts aren't going to help these people, since most pay little or no tax to begin with. However, I would support a sales tax cut, or a payroll tax cut for the poorest Atlasians.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,311
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2005, 09:50:11 pm »

Yea.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines