MA: Abortion Reduction (Statute)

[California8429]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: A-Bob

[California8429]

Other ideas are welcome for the bill, I just though it would give us a good place to start.

[California8429]

For your first questions yes. Would changing exempt to inelligible cover it?

And yes, I do plan on defining what missing their childre support payments is via time frame. I was just waiting to see what everyone thought of the bill before debating how long it should be missed before these clauses kick in.

[California8429]

I see your point. However, I do feel we should strongly punish this people who violate their child support payments. By taking out "and or" and replacing with "or" that solves one of the problems. However, another idea would be for those who violate their child support payments, they have to pay up to $25,000 (or whatever price) for their child. And then that child would be exempt from any tax credits included in the bill, but would get much better compensation. Of course if jail is what is ordered, then the child should still be able to receive the child deductible.

[California8429]

I'm ardently pro-life, but where is the money for this coming from?

it will be created in our 1st budget so there's no new taxes because at the moment we don't have anything set per se

[California8429]

Why hunting or fishing? What do they have to do with child rearing and why are we targeting hunting and fishing, specifically?

Agreed. I would like to see that clause removed, unless a good explanation is made.

This is taken from Mitch Daniels. I made the bill not just abortion, but what happens after which is cruicial. Unpaying dads shouldn't be allowed to go out to the casinos or spend time hunting and fishing with their buddies and leave the kid and a single mother on their own. Granted, this wouldn't be as effective as in the west, but I still think it's an incentive as well as a penalty to those who screw up not only the child's life, but the mother's.

[California8429]

What I would like to know is why do you think these people who haven't paid to help their child over months or years deserve to enjoy these recreations, sports, and spend money on that before the kid.

[California8429]

Why hunting or fishing? What do they have to do with child rearing and why are we targeting hunting and fishing, specifically?

Agreed. I would like to see that clause removed, unless a good explanation is made.

This is taken from Mitch Daniels. I made the bill not just abortion, but what happens after which is cruicial. Unpaying dads shouldn't be allowed to go out to the casinos or spend time hunting and fishing with their buddies and leave the kid and a single mother on their own. Granted, this wouldn't be as effective as in the west, but I still think it's an incentive as well as a penalty to those who screw up not only the child's life, but the mother's.

Oh, I agree about casinos/gambling. But why hunting and fishing?

This is partly, of course, because if you go out to the casinos, that's purely recreational, but I can't say that about hunting or fishing.

And, of course, my other argument still stands. Why are we singling out these areas? Why should one's eligibility for a license involve something that has nothing to do with hunting or fishing?

Fishing and hunting in these days are mostly, unless you are part of a fishing/hunting business. The population that hunts and fish personally and every day in order to survive really doesn't exist anymore. If you would like, I suppose there could be an amendment addressing those that do...

[California8429]

Why hunting or fishing? What do they have to do with child rearing and why are we targeting hunting and fishing, specifically?

Agreed. I would like to see that clause removed, unless a good explanation is made.

This is taken from Mitch Daniels. I made the bill not just abortion, but what happens after which is cruicial. Unpaying dads shouldn't be allowed to go out to the casinos or spend time hunting and fishing with their buddies and leave the kid and a single mother on their own. Granted, this wouldn't be as effective as in the west, but I still think it's an incentive as well as a penalty to those who screw up not only the child's life, but the mother's.

Oh, I agree about casinos/gambling. But why hunting and fishing?

This is partly, of course, because if you go out to the casinos, that's purely recreational, but I can't say that about hunting or fishing.

And, of course, my other argument still stands. Why are we singling out these areas? Why should one's eligibility for a license involve something that has nothing to do with hunting or fishing?

Fishing and hunting in these days are mostly, unless you are part of a fishing/hunting business. The population that hunts and fish personally and every day in order to survive really doesn't exist anymore. If you would like, I suppose there could be an amendment addressing those that do...

Being a member of this region in RL, I know several people that heavily depend on hunting as their source of food. It is also a part of our economy, and in such trying times, I don't think it's the government's place to weaken the economy even more. While some may hunt and fish purely for recreation, it serves a larger purpose for many residents, including myself.

I disagree... I come from a big hunting state too, but there are cheaper ways for people to get food, and the majority of hunters aren't doing it for mainly food purposes.  I think this should stay.

I agree with your disagreement.

^

We aren't destroying the industry. We're banning people from these activities when they have a child that is struggling to survive with a single mother. And as I stated, we aren't stopping hunting and fishing businesses from this, just parents who are abandoning their kid when they have a legal obligation they aren't fulfilling.

[California8429]

To Badger:

Maybe we should get some funding for a regional or national Holiday. The "peace on earth" day.

---

But I still agree with Inks on a license. I think hunting, fishing, and casinos will be very appropriate actions as it is without doing harm to the deadbeat dad in finding a job and resources for the kid (gambling doesn't count )

[California8429]

This seems mainly focused on financial incentive to stop abortions, rather than regulations. I'm not proposing a huge overhaul, but maybe a new act could be proposed dealing with regulation. Also, is there anything in the bill dealing with adoption, access to places where children can be put up for adoption, and funding for orphanages?

nope, but you are free to add amendments

[California8429]

If no one else would like to add amendments, I will bring this to a vote tonight.

[California8429]

Voting is now open on the final version of the bill. Voting will last for 48 hours or until every Assemblymember has voted. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[California8429]

Aye

[California8429]

Voting is now closed. The bill has passed and will go to the Governor's desk.

Aye-5
Nay-0
Abstain-0

[California8429]

It looks like the Assembly is controlled by Compassionate Conservatives, or some variation there of, given the votes I've seen recently.

Well, at least conservatives anyway.

I totally forgot until now its too late: What about an amendment removing any extra prohibitions on adoption by otherwise qualified gay/lesbian families?

I'd support that as well.  But, I don't think we have any restrictions/prohibitions.  Or are you saying that we want to make those restrictions/prohibitions illegal?  If that's the case, I'd support that as well.

I don't see point in making legislation ending restriction on something that isn't restricted. If there is actual statute that you can bring forward then I think we should discuss it.