The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill

[12th Doctor]

Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

          a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than
              $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned
              in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in
              Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates
              degree.

          b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections
              1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure,
              i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than
              $35,000 per year.  She will still have full access to the benefits
              mentioned in Sections 5-6.

[12th Doctor]

Overall, I'm neutral on this bill, but there are some provisions in it I don't like.

Section 3(b)(1): I'd prefer if it merely provided that children beyond the first don't qualify for these benefits rather than taking away the benefits provided the first child because of a second.

Section 3(b)(2): Do we really want a provision of law that will discourage unwed mothers from forming a stable married relationship with a loving partner?

Section 3(d)(3): I can see terminating benefits of the mother violates the spirit of this program, but I can't see that justifying placing the child in foster care.

I see all of your points.  I'll change things to suit your points.

[12th Doctor]

I'm planning on making some of the changes that Gov. Ernest suggested, probably all of them.

Is there anything about the bill, in particular that you don't find favorable?

[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) While the mother is permitted to have another
                 child in this time period without violating the
                 spirit of the agreement, she will recive no
                 additional funding for that child.  The mother
                 must be informed of this by a social worker.
                 There after, any attempts to collect additional
                 funds or in any other way fraud the government
                 will be met with termination of all funds and
                 possible prison sentance.
                 
            c)  If at anytime during the afore mentioned time period
                a woman recieving benefits enters into a state of
                marriage, her benefits will be cut by 10% every fiscal
                year until the 5 year mark has passed.  If she is divorced
                then she may once again recive benefits at the
                pre-marriage level.

                       1c) This does not apply to those benefits
                             mentioned in Sections 5 and 6.

            d) No woman living with a "perminant" male
                partner, or in a common law marriage will be
                allow to collect funding.

            e) Monthly interviews with each woman on the
                program will be required.  If that woman is found
                to be:

                       1e) Abusing the child

                       2e) Abusing legal or illegal subsatances

               Then her child will be put into foster care and she
               will be removed from the program and all benefits
               taken away.

              f) Any government employee found to be abusing
                  his or her clients, or in someother way impeding
                  their rights, will be immediatly fired or otherwise
                 or other wise punished in a court of law.

              g) Pamphlets advertising these benefits will be
                  made available at all Social Security offices,
                  OBGYN's offices and licensed abortion clinics
                  in Atlasia.  Failure to comply will bring about
                  fines of a maximum of $20,000.

continued on next post...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[12th Doctor]

Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

          a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than
              $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned
              in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in
              Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates
              degree.

          b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections
              1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure,
              i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than
              $35,000 per year.  She will still have full access to the benefits
              mentioned in Sections 5-6.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty - I'd still like a work provision for those women not entering college(or still in high school). If one of the points of this bill is to get them out of poverty, and if they aren't currently in some level of the educational process they need to be employed in order to do that. If they aren't working by the end of the program(or a degree, in the college cases), they are left with a child and no income, and thusly sink back into poverty.

True, but I honestly don't know what to do about that.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty - I'd still like a work provision for those women not entering college(or still in high school). If one of the points of this bill is to get them out of poverty, and if they aren't currently in some level of the educational process they need to be employed in order to do that. If they aren't working by the end of the program(or a degree, in the college cases), they are left with a child and no income, and thusly sink back into poverty.

True, but I honestly don't know what to do about that.

Maybe you could create a tax incentive for companies who hire people who are receiving assistance from this bill or something?

I'm not sure; that might be unfair to everyone else.

Life is generally unfair for different reasons according to who you talk to.  I like your idea.  I'll ponder it.

[12th Doctor]

Can we vote now, please?

[12th Doctor]

Can we vote now, please?

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

This bill has been debated more than anyother bill out there.


I move that we for-go Senate rules (since the fact that we haven't put this up for debate is obviously an over-sight) and hold a vote.

[12th Doctor]

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

[12th Doctor]

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, I’m not sure what to put in there but we should definitely collaborate to support parents as primary caregivers.

Parents should not be subjected to regular invasions of their privacy and right to raise their children without interference unless there is real cause for concern.  An annual, not monthly, interview should be sufficient enough to collect information which will help determine eligibility status and any additional services the person may require in order to successfully participate in the program. 

Child and substance abusers should be incarcerated, and children placed with relatives. There is also strong evidence of frequent abuse in the foster homes and shelters themselves! so I question the use of social workers in these cases.  Children are also moved around a lot, so they often get lost in the system and are never reunited with their families. 

Also, tax cuts mean that parents have more money to help their teens out in this situation, effectively relieving the burden on the government to provide these kinds of services.

I'm I too assume that you have a better suggestion.  Because, if you don't, I would like to remind you that half a cake is better than no cake at all.

This bill was a compromise between Senators and a compromise with reality.  Though we would all like things to be perfect and ideal, they aren't.  If they were, the need for this bill would be eliminated all together.

So, while I respect your oppinions, I would like you to consider the consequences of doing nothing at all, rather than something you don't totally agree with.

[12th Doctor]

May I inject my thoughts?  First, I agree completely with the objections that Mr. CheeseWhiz raised.  I would also like to add that this bill does nothing to get rid of what I believe is the root cause of the problem you are trying to tackle, i.e., the decreasing number of Parents who take an active role in the raising of their children. 

Senators, I also urge you to vote no on this bill.  I have nothing against Senator Supersoulty personally, and in fact would like to express a sense of understanding for his stance on this issue because I have a niece who was born to an unwed mother, but this bill has too many inherent problems for me to remain silent any longer.

This bill encourages welfare-like programs and more bloating of the Federal Government, which I consider dangerous and even deadly to the nation. I believe that we should encourage Families, whether the couple is married or not, to stay together, and this bill does not do that.  Payroll and sales tax cuts are a step in the right direction, I think, but it's still not enough.

We should encourage at least one of the parents to take primary charge for their children and not dump them off at daycare.  Again, I believe the decrease of parents who take charge in the upbringing of their children, 24/7, is a part of the reason we have so much teenage pregnancy, deadbeat dads, and other problems in our society.

Finally, I am concerned about the role that the CPS, an agency that is currently under investigation in many states (including our own) for abuse of their power and privilege, will play in determining exactly which parents are considered abusive as per section 5e. 

So, in closing I urge that all senators vote a strong NO on this bill as proposed.  Thank you for your time.

So, then basically what you are telling me is that you want more abortions?  I've heard "we should tackle the real problem".  How in the Hell do we do that?  Are we going to force parents to spend more time with their children?  We cannot inact social change from here.  We just have to do what we can.

You can bitch and whine and moan about how it doesn't tackle the real problem, but that won't get anything accomplished and in the mean time, more babies who don't have to die will have and more misery that wouldn't have to occure, will have occured.  You can get everything you want, or we can have nothing.  I'm sick and tired of people being against solid initiatives, because they don't meet their specific requirments.

Leave your egos at the door and try to understand that the if we want anything done, we need to work to achieve something that most people can agree on and we need to do what we can do not what we wish we could do.

[12th Doctor]

For the fourth time, can we please have a vote on this bill?

[12th Doctor]

For the fourth time, can we please have a vote on this bill?

Unfortunately...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15165.0

It still has a fair bit of stuff on top of it.  I personally would like to skip to this bill given how it's been debated to death already, but I don't really want to blatantly ignore regulations.

Maybe we should introduce a resolution saying that we can motion to bump a piece of legislation to the top of the pile... I'll introduce something like that when we've lessened the legislative load.

EDIT: Actually, I just realized that that list is horribly out of order.  This bill is actually very near the top.

But you have called for an end of debate of three bills that were proposed after this one.

[12th Doctor]

Thank you, Mr. President.

Yea

[12th Doctor]

Well, if I was running for reelection this move would kill me, it may kill me anyway with Conservatives. But as President, I must do what I feel is right, and i'll take the heat:

President PBrunsel

Thank you, so very much, Mr. President.

[12th Doctor]

As much as I disapprove of this bill, I made a pie-chart:



Green- Yea
Orange - Nay
Dark Gray - Abstain
Gray - No vote

Well, if I was running for reelection this move would kill me, it may kill me anyway with Conservatives. But as President, I must do what I feel is right, and i'll take the heat:

President PBrunsel

You just lost my vote...  Oh wait...  Nevermind.

What was the point of the chart?

[12th Doctor]

[snip]

What was the point of the chart?

He seems to like making charts, so let him make charts.

(Shrug)

Okay, I have nothing against it.  Just wondering.

[12th Doctor]

Ha, looks good.

Siege

I really wish you hadn't abstain.  That way, we could have had a real majority rather than just not having 5 people against.

[12th Doctor]

Yea

Danke

[12th Doctor]

Yea

Danke

You do realise that Bono is challenging this in Court right?

(sigh) no I did not.  Thank you.