Tour:Smart - Martin Atkins at Avant Garden Tonight.
H-Town Rock
Missed Connections: November 2 - 5
Daily-ist Thursday: River Oaks Theater 70th Anniversary Celebration
Get sticky at Lawndale's Sugar Skull workshop
No, we're not kidding. In what was meant to be an effort to reduce the incidence of abortion in Texas, the lovable State Sen. Dan Patrick has come up with a bill to pay $500 to mothers who give their babies up for adoption within sixty days of birth. But wait a minute, isn't that baby-selling (and really cheap baby-selling)? Don't worry - the bill states that "Section 25.08, Penal Code, does not apply to the grant or acceptance of money under this section." So it's not baby-selling because the bill says it isn't. It only gets better: according to the bill, applications for this "adoption incentive" program would be distributed only to abortion providers (who we're sure will be more than willing to hand these forms out to women who are about to have abortions).
So far the bill has been called lots of things, ranging from "the stuff family nightmares are made of" to simply "insulting." Senator Patrick just doesn't see what all the fuss is about:
We want the lady to have an incentive that makes her stop and think about having an abortion and that gives her reason to put her baby up for adoption.
What a guy. Oh, and by the way, the bill, which its critics have affectionately dubbed The Baby Purchasing Act, would only apply to U.S. citizens. A committee hearing has not yet been scheduled for the bill and, to no one's surprise, it currently has no co-sponsor.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This guy is a first class jerk.
Grist for the liberal mill as expressed by your first commentor. The guy is extremely open about his stance on abortion and wants to stop them by whatever means he can think of. Others will stop at nothing to further the access to them. So 45 million American babies dead after Roe vs Wade and still a liberal will only speak of abortion as "a choice". Heck, isn't opting to take $500 and provide an adoptable baby instead of spending $500 and killing it a choice? Why is the only answer for feminists and their castrated supporters the singular "choice" of abortion? I mean really girls, who is being hurt by this legislation?
If the only people bedding "feminists" are men who are "castrated," there wouldn't be any pregnancies, wanted or otherwise.
On the other hand, if the people bedding "feminists" are men such as "DanMan," I'd suggest those guys get their tubes tied or get on the male pill, and then the whole "abortion" thing won't be such a "problem."
The problem with this legislation is that it's ineffective and really just a little ridiculous. I'm sure that a bill that would effectively minimize abortion would have bipartisan support.
I don't know anyone, pro-life or pro-choice, who doesn't think we should be taking means to reduce the number of abortions. Ideally, abortion would be safe, legal, and rare - that's not liberal, that's what makes sense.
i have so many thoughts on this non-sense:
first off, who, might i ask, will be funding this little idea? is it you and i? or is there some magic fund we'll be pulling all the money from? maybe a reduction in troops/war costs can go towards this? or maybe we should spend that money on sex education in schools? or maybe spend it on education, period. if there is some magic fund, then maybe we can use it to fix social security. so many problems, so little funding, or should i say, mis-directed funding?
is $500 really an incentive to give your baby up instead of aborting it?
who will pay for the doctors visits and medical costs while the woman is carrying the child to term? what if there are complications, who pays for all of those additional medical costs?
of course, the last step will then be taxing the $500 the mothers received for giving up their child, so in reality, they'll have only made $400.
Well I guess so far by looking at the comments about 60% feel they would be be compromised by this legislation. 1/3 of that is angry, 1/3 appears frustrated beyond reason by the concept and the other 1/3 seem to fall into a crazed form of dementia that has them thinking society can't afford it and thus propose even more spending to cope.
Thanks Alex, what would you propose to reduce the number? I'm sure Mr. Patrick would be interested. I can't see how you can claim it's ineffective when it hasn't been tried and if it did reduce the number of abortions by any number that makes the ridiculous claim a bit ridiculous doesn't it?
DanMan, I agree that there's nothing harmful about this legislation - unless, of course, you morally oppose baby-selling.
I think a couple of other commenters have brought up a good point: the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
That's funny, last time I checked women were getting paid a lot more for just their eggs.
In Texas, the going rate for a batch of eggs is about $3,000, (Just check the back pages of the Houston Press,) but I hear in California they can go as high as $10,000.
So why bother carrying the kid to term when you can get more money just selling the eggs anyway? Besides, you can avoid all of those nasty strech marks and you'll be saving "unborn children" aka eggs that would otherwise be discarded of in the natural monthly process of menstration, anyway.
So, killing it an abortion clinic is wonderful, but giving the mother $500 not to is wacky. Oooh-kay.
Um Alex, you don't really want to argue moral equivalence do you? Maybe you should go ask your mom about that. But let's look at the article.
"So far the bill has been called lots of things, ranging from "the stuff family nightmares are made of" to simply "insulting.""
Can you provide scenarios where this would cause families nightmares? I guess maybe a family of committed pro-abortionists would shudder if their daughter decided to follow through with a full term pregnancy. Big Deal.
Who is insulted by this legislation? Probably the same crew that runs around looking to be offended by anything they don't agree with. Big Deal.
"its critics have affectionately dubbed The Baby Purchasing Act" Those are the same people who still refer to abortion as simply a choice mind you. Guess we can all finally agree that legalizing abortion was a Baby Killing Act with that statement.
Danman, regardless of this particular bill, Dan Patrick is a jerk. Just look at his first day on the job when he alienated his fellow representatives just to make his mark the first day on the job.
DanMan, we can sit here and debate the moral and ethical issues of buying/selling babies vs. killing them, from both sides of the aisle all day long.
this is just another case where both sides have valid points and you don't agree with our side, just as we don't agree with yours.
i did find the point about only $500 for "selling" the baby, but being able to sell your eggs to be frozen for anywhere from $3-$10K very interesting.
the bigger issue, on either side of the debate, should be not getting people pregnant who aren't ready, financially or mentally stable enough, or just don't want to have kids. whether it's through publically funded sex education campaigns in schools or through an abstinence training program is a whole separate issue. however the problem is solved, the end result needs to be the same - less unwanted pregnancies.
the problem as i see it, is that there are plenty of unwanted children already in this world - in this country. lets give them homes first before we try to solve other problems by adding to them with more unwanted children.
if the two sides of the debate could put down their weapons for a minute and open their minds to solving the other issues associated with this, maybe a reasonable solution could begin to take shape.
...hmmm...what a disappointment...it appears that danman can hold his own with the likes of darcie l...actually i’m less intrigued by her inane banter and his devilish repartee and more by the tone, lack of content and perspective of the article itself...i keep being drawn back to the statement...
"So far the bill has been called lots of things, ranging from "the stuff family nightmares are made of" to simply "insulting."
...with all due respect ms ragsdale...what is that...a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of “range”, a poor attempt at tongue in cheek humor, an artifact of inaccurate research and poor reporting, or simply the purposeful skewing of the public debate on patrick’s proposal in order to further a painfully obvious opinion...lol...guess maybe in the future I need to stick to getting my real news directly from the chronicle, who at least sourced these utterings, instead of the relying on this kind of he said, she said kitty litter journalism...yawn...better to read eric's insightful reports on the local music scene and maryjanes wonderful pieces on her next favorite cheese log recipe...come on alexandria, i've read your other posts, you can do better than that...
arthou...while you've been busy ragging on alexandria, i think you failed to notice she put it in quotes to note that she was quoting someone else - possibly this article:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/190050/texas_state_senator_proposes_paying.html
and here is the paragraph, from that article, which stated it:
Fran Hagerty, of the Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas said the bill is "the stuff family nightmares are made of." She called the proposed bill "insulting" to both women and "great charitable organizations" that find adoptive parents and take care of birth mothers.
you see, alexandria did not write the statement, she was merely taking it from another source, which was why it was, again, quoted. i have no reason to defend her writing, but maybe you should spend some time thinking about what the article actually says - that we have a problem in this country of people who are not ready to have babies. how we solve that problem brings propositions such as this one. whether it is right or wrong, ethical or moral, can be debated till we are blue in the face, but in the end, we have bigger problems than people worrying about someone's writing style.
its a shame that this issue, a real important issue, has turned into a debate about words on a screen.
...prezactly my point...at least the other article offered the reader the sources, both of which are on the same side of the 'range" spectrum on this issue alexandria offers as a justification of her perspective, which led me to wonder if that omission was due to ineptitude (which i doubt since i've read several of her posts and found them well written) or by design (in an attempt to lead the reader to her predetermined conclusion)...the piece would have been more effective and the argument much more persuasive if she had simply stuck to the fact that patrick has even been marginalized by his own supporters as evidenced by the true "range" of responses that were "quoted' in the linked article you provided...as far as how much time i spend thinking about these type of issue...hmmm...not enough time or space to bore you forward thinkers with just another "jerks" opinion...
Darcie L.,
you do know what Dan Patrick proposed on that first day don't you? You also realize the guy won his primary against two long serving "conservative" Republicans who would have been more than happy to play behind the rosebush that Patrick was trying to eliminate. That was one of his issues that he has railed against for years. When he campaigned he won that primary by what? I believe something like 67% in a crowded field. So it makes him a jerk because he actually follows through on a campaign pledge. I'm guessing there won't be many issues he advances that will meet your high standards of political discourse.
If the name of the game is talking about whether Dan Patrick is despicable, then I'll win an enormous gold belt.
Dan Patrick's hobbies include, but are not limited to:
1.stealing other reporters' questions (see Texas Monthly article--Typekey won't let me link)
2. Employing child flashers (Jon Matthews, how could you?)
3. Accusing Vicente Fox of being in a drug cartel
4. Shamelessly sucking up to the Minutemen and shouting down his opponents in debates.
5. Being unbearably, undeservedly smug
Seriously, if you thought Jesus Camp was scary, Dan Patrick's base will keep you up at night. Vietnam vets turned Minutemen, Ed Young's gang, and old biddies in Baytown.
I worked for Joe Nixon's ill-fated campaign and attended several debates, several of which included all of the candidates except Patrick looking stunned at his inanity.
The merits of the baby purchasing act have been debated extensively here, so I'll just say this: if Alex lacked for range, it's not her fault, but Dan Patrick's. By making his bill as ludicrous as possible, he alienated even the whackiest Texas politicians and ruined potential for post "mix."
honestly, you couldn't figure out which side of the issue she was on from other statements in the article?
immediately after she was the quoted references, she then showed Senator Patricks response. personally, i think that shows some range.
the issue here, as i see it, is that she wrote something that you disagree with, so your nitpicking at her writing, instead of concerning yourself with the real issue here.
now, i never called you, or anyone else on your side of this debate a "jerk". i feel that i've been fairly diplomatic in my statements. also, if you are spending a fair amount of time thinking about this issue, i think readers and commenters would prefer to discuss those thoughts, as opposed to how the article was tipped towards one side of the issue. why even bother to comment on the writing style? just because it doesn't agree with your beliefs? why not make a comment on the actual issue?
i'm done defending the writing, since that is neither her nor there regarding the issue.
i realize both sides feel strongly about this issue, but instead of working on a positive solution that both sides could live with, we're all put on the defensive about our beliefs. then we get into a war of words, and so on... and then nothing gets done and still, neither side is happy.
Will it's too bad about Joe being taken out but let's face, there are a lot of republicans that have gotten very stale when it comes to some basic issues, like at least acknowledging why they were put in office in the first place. Joe just blazed a trail that many more will travel in our party; ignore us and we kick you out. I think Joe was probably better than most but he did not look too good suing his own insurance company and then working with them to limit our coverages.
...the real issues...first, i'm pro-choice, always have been, always will be and i am personally unafraid nor offended by anyone, including dan patrick, who puts forth a unique proposal that might both increase a woman's choices and reduce the number of abortions - all such ideas are worth reasonable consideration, instead of almost instant condemnation by the usual suspects...second , w/o placing too much blame on alexandria, since, like i said, she typically writes a good post - but yes, her bias was evident in the tone, word choice, omissions, humor, etc. of her article and so characteristic of the fact that the media today, in many instances, seems to see its job as constant defenders and apologists of anything liberal and self appointed critics of anything conservative, a fact that has itself gone a long way towards reducing the level of thoughtful discourse in this country that the very same media claims to revere dearly...all under the cloak of "professional objectivity"...then again, it might also be that i jes like to see a free thinker like the danman who, with a few simple "words" and salient points, moves the liberals among us to scurrying around like fire ants hopped up on a bad batch of homemade crank - resorting to any specious argument, name calling or exclamation of self-righteous indignation when one of their scared cows is challenged....
I think that anything would be better than killing a baby that was not ask to be here in the first place. Alot of women use abortion as a form of birth control, oh I'm pregnant I'll abort. If 500 gets the mothers to give the baby a chance in this crazy ass world then why not. There are alot of woman that can't have children and they would pay 500 if not more to try and get one.