The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill

[Gabu]

I support this, but I'd much prefer it if it also included some sort of promotion of birth control for women (not abortion - I'm talking about before the pregnancy even happens).  It seems to me that the largest protection one can give is to not have these people become mothers in the first place.  That option will cost the government a lot less in the long run, too.

[Gabu]

If someone else would like to propose that as an amendment, I would abstain.

Well, I personally think it's a good idea, but I'm currently mulling over what exactly it should be.  If I recall correctly, birth control is already free.  I suppose we could replace abstinence-only education where it exists in public schools with education that combines abstinence with birth control in its explanation, but I don't really know how well that would be received.  I personally support it, but I'm not here to thrust my views on everyone else.

Barring that idea, I'm not sure what form the promotion would be in, though.

[Gabu]

Also I believe this far oversteps the bounds in which the federal government should operate, not to mention you are spending other people's money on your moral cause - not everyone believes abortion is murder. You may not like it, but it's the truth. Fight for your cause with your money and that of willing donors, not the taxpayer's money.

Some people may not think abortion is murder (heck, I'm one of them, up until roughly the second trimester or so), but I don't really think that this bill is nothing more than an advancement of someone's moral ideas.  Of those people who don't think that abortion is murder, I would at least hope that most of them nevertheless don't like the thought of abortions.

As Clinton said, abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.  It's an extremely unpleasant process, even if you don't think it's murder.  This bill is simply providing other options, since many women may not have any.  I would wager (though I don't know) that the vast majority of the people who get abortions do it because they either don't want the child or because they can't support the child, and I would also wager that at least half of those people did not want to have an abortion, but simply felt that no other choice was available.  This bill addresses that and makes other options available.

[Gabu]

Helping end overpopulation is a good use of our wealth.

Erm, I don't mean to be rude, but that's a very crass comment to make.  It's not exactly sensitive to the opinions of the many who think that abortion is murder.

[Gabu]

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).

[Gabu]

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.

[Gabu]

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.

[Gabu]

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?

[Gabu]

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.

[Gabu]

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.

[Gabu]

I second the motion.  Maybe we should just eliminate debate time and make it such that a week after a bill is introduced it goes up for a vote.  "Debate time" is pretty redundant as it is right now, since it's not as if no debating is done before that time.

[Gabu]

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

Unfortunately, this one may be a while.  See Harry's topic to see how many bills are in the queue ahead of it.  I'll do my best to speed things along, but it still will unfortunately probably take some time before this one gets looked at.

[Gabu]

10 pages and still not open for debate? This is absurd and just shows how lacking the Senate performance is!!!

Actually, what it really shows is how much of a bottleneck is created when pieces get mandatory one week for debate even when it's not used one bit.  We really need to update that.

[Gabu]

10 pages and still not open for debate? This is absurd and just shows how lacking the Senate performance is!!!

Actually, what it really shows how much of a bottleneck is created when pieces get mandatory one week for debate even when it's not used one bit.  We really need to update that.

Back when I was a Senator, we interpreted that procedure law has official debate beginning at the bill's introduction. We only used the 4 bills max for opening votes.

I personally think that the best way to do it is to go with something like the 24-hour rule in this resolution, in that a vote gets called if debate ceases for 24 hours.  It seems much more sensible to me than to require everyone to wait a week regardless of how much people have to say about a piece of legislation (although there is a method in place to motion to end debate).

Speaking of which, I think I'm going to use that method.  This waiting around for debate time to end is getting stupid.

[Gabu]

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 at the top.  I'll just say that debate has already happened and skip to voting the moment a spot opens up.

[Gabu]

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.

Yes, I know; as I said above, I just realized how horribly out of order Harry's list is.  Many apologies for that.

Well... eh, what the hell, it's not as if it's going to hurt anything.

Given that debate has obviously already been done, let's just skip that.

I hereby declare voting on this bill to be open.  All senators in favor, vote "yea"; all senators against, vote "nay".

[Gabu]

Yea.

[Gabu]

With five in favor to zero against, and with one abstention, this bill has passed.

I hereby present it to the president for his signature.

[Gabu]

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

Good show, Mr. President.

We need more people who refuse to toe the partisan line.

[Gabu]

Yea

There you are, Supersoulty, now you do have a majority.