Texas Lawmaker Offers Choice: $500 Instead of Abortion

[Roxie]

Story Highlights

• Proposed law would pay $500 to women who choose adoption
• Critics say plan would violate laws against buying babies
• Lawmaker also is a conservative radio talk show host


NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas (Reuters) -- A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies.
Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said Friday the money might persuade the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption.
He said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.
"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those women, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said.
Patrick has filed legislation to make the payment state law, but the legislature has not voted on it.
His proposal calls for giving any woman going to an abortion clinic the $500 option, to be paid no more than 30 days after the baby is born and given up for adoption.
Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism."
Heather Paffe, political director of Planned Parenthood of Texas, said Patrick's proposal "is very cynical and insulting to women and their families."
"It's insulting to think women would make that kind of decision so easily," she said.
Copyright 2007 Reuters (http://www.cnn.com/interactive_legal.html#Reuters). All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/23/texas.abortion.reut/index.html

[Jetsetlemming]

I really don't see how this is "buying babies". >_>; It's similar to a lot of plans governments use to help increase their nation's populations (though this is for a different reason): Pay parents subsidies for children. In a way, the US already does.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism."
Hahaha. Oh God what an ass.

Speaking of asshole men, I came across this little gem (http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/23/Marriage-Careers-Divorce_cx_mn_land.html) in Forbes today. Go figure.

[RandomPasserby]

I really don't see how this is "buying babies". >_>; It's similar to a lot of plans governments use to help increase their nation's populations (though this is for a different reason): Pay parents subsidies for children. In a way, the US already does.
Except in this case government is buying babies from women (woman gives away baby to government, gets money from government, sounds like the baby got bought).

[Roxie]

Traditionally, men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home, and women have tended to do "nonmarket" (that's forbes for unpaid, which in a capitalist society=unimportant) or household work, including raising children.
What is "traditionally" and whose tradition are talking about? Cause this isn't and has never been true for most families in the U.S. throughout history.

According to a 2004 paper titled "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?," marriage is positively associated with "better outcomes for children under most circumstances" and higher earnings for adult men, and "being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated with mortality." In other words, a good marriage is associated with a higher income, a longer, healthier life

Again, FOR MEN.

Evil, bad, wicked, naughty Phate! Getting me off topic!

[Hatsumomo]

Because $500 covers the costs of pre- and postnatal care?

Because this proposition guarantees the adoption of all unwanted babies?

Because this proposition helps deal with the issue of the state of the foster care system where children are bounced from home to home, never knowing about having a family? Where children are mistreated? Where children are constantly the new kid because it's their sixth school in five years? Where the children bounced around in the system, having had no life training, are then tossed out at the age of 18 and forced to fend for themselves?

Because the supporters of this proposition and all the anti-choice "ADOPTION IS AN OPTION" assholes are busting down the doors, demanding to adopt all these unwanted children?

[The_Penguin]

Mmm... Texas has good steak.

[Roxie]

$500 to Not Have an Abortion?
Would that Sway You?
By Melissa Lee

There were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.


Republican State Sen. Dan Patrick, who also is a conservative radio talk show host, said on Friday the money might convince the women to go ahead and have babies, then give them up for adoption. Apparently the state senator hasn't had a wife or daughter pregnant recently. $500 doesn't even make a dent in the total cost for having a baby. And for women contemplating abortion due to financial concerns, it is unlikely $500 would change someone's mind.


Patrick said during a legislative conference in New Braunfels, 45 miles south of Austin, there were 75,000 abortions in Texas last year.

"If this incentive would give pause and change the mind of 5 percent of those woman, that's 3,000 lives. That's almost as many people as we've lost in Iraq," Patrick said. What exactly that has to do with abortion, is a mystery.

Patrick has filed legislation to make the payment state law, but the legislature has not yet voted on it and early indications are not favorable for the proposed law.

His proposal calls for giving any woman going to an abortion clinic the $500 option, to be paid no more than 30 days after the baby is born and given up for adoption.

Planned Parenthood of Texas, said Patrick's proposal "is very cynical and insulting to women A Texas legislator has proposed that pregnant women considering abortion to be offered $500 not to end their pregnancies. For those counting, that is $55.56 a month, $13.89 a week, based on a four week month and $1.98 a day to not have an abortion.

Critics say the proposal would violate Texas and federal laws against buying babies, which Patrick rejected as "the typical ridiculous criticism." Apparently state and federal laws can be suspended in a state where the death penalty is carried out at an expedient rate.

How exactly all of this would be tracked and paid for has not been discussed, which is anything but "typical ridiculous criticism." Is the Republican state senator willing to fund traditional welfare programs for the duration of a woman's pregnancy? Will this program house, feed, clothe and give unlimited medical care for these women?

Heather Paffe, political director of Planned Parenthood of Texas, said Patrick's proposal "is very cynical and insulting to women and their families. It's insulting to think women would make that kind of decision so easily," she said.

Whether or not a woman ultimately decides to continue or abort her pregnancy is not a simple decision, and it is a misguided belief that a woman could or would make such a decision based on monetary gains.

State Senator Patrick's heart may be in the right place according to his own personal beliefs, but he is off the mark with this one.

[Kaji]

Eh, he's not banning abortion, he's offering another choice, making it even more attractive than it was previously. He's not impinging on your right to an abortion if you choose to pursue it anyway.

[Roxie]

Eh, he's not banning abortion, he's offering another choice, making it even more attractive than it was previously.
For those counting, that is $55.56 a month, $13.89 a week, based on a four week month and $1.98 a day to not have an abortion.

Cost of raising a baby: $430,470 - $511,954

Cost of raising a baby in Texas if this passes: $500 less than that (not sure if it's tax-free, though)

Image of a "saved" baby who learns 18 years later that she lived because mama got paid off on the cheap: Scary

[CrazyAce86]

Are they not seeing the possible implications?

Women having babies and giving them up for adoption just to get the $500. It's going to happen, and they'll all have their reasons, good or bad. Just like the women who have babies simply for the welfare check. They're not a majority, but they will always be there-- and their male counterparts, too, sometimes-- to exploit the system.

They have a kid, give it up for adoption, and get $500. They don't have to raise the kid and they get money in return.

[Jetsetlemming]

They've already gone over in this thread that the money isn't enough to cover the cost of actually having a baby- though being pregnant, giving birth, recovering, giving away the baby is far different from raising a baby and the six figure numbers Roxie posted.

[Roxie]

They've already gone over in this thread that the money isn't enough to cover the cost of actually having a baby- though being pregnant, giving birth, recovering, giving away the baby is far different from raising a baby and the six figure numbers Roxie posted.
Yeah, but someone still has to pay for the pre and post natal care and after that the kid STILL has to be paid for y'know.Are they not seeing the possible implications?

Women having babies and giving them up for adoption just to get the $500. It's going to happen, and they'll all have their reasons, good or bad. Just like the women who have babies simply for the welfare check. They're not a majority, but they will always be there-- and their male counterparts, too, sometimes-- to exploit the system.

They have a kid, give it up for adoption, and get $500. They don't have to raise the kid and they get money in return. That is not going to happen, unless some one is extraordinarily dumb and lazy and is being used by someone slightly more intelligent but even more lazy. btw, those welfare queens are so far and few inbetween that their existence is doubtful. The money you'd get for having another child on welfare is no where worth it. In fact, the welfare queen that Reagan mentioned in a speech didn't even exist.

$500 is not worth exploiting the system..not over 9 months, not including the possible physical complications, pre and post natal care.

[Jetsetlemming]

The only way I can see anyone finding profit in cheating this is if a) They don't need to actually put the kid up for adoption, and b) They can get away with "faking" considering abortion when they were gonna keep their kid anyway.

[CrazyAce86]

Yeah, but someone still has to pay for the pre and post natal care and after that the kid STILL has to be paid for y'know. That is not going to happen, unless some one is extraordinarily dumb and lazy and is being used by someone slightly more intelligent but even more lazy. btw, those welfare queens are so far and few inbetween that their existence is doubtful. The money you'd get for having another child on welfare is no where worth it. In fact, the welfare queen that Reagan mentioned in a speech didn't even exist.

$500 is not worth exploiting the system..not over 9 months, not including the possible physical complications, pre and post natal care.



True, but you're an intelligent person and can see that. As we've seen time and again, there's people dumb enough to try it at least once. I'm not saying it's going to be an epidemic, but it's going to happen. If they're going to do this or something similar, there needs to be safeguards in place to make sure the exploiters don't get through. Because let's face it, as soon as one does and it becomes well-known, everyone will be up in arms again over the system. Bad publicity and all that.

And I'm not saying it's a good system or that I support it. I understand what they're doing, though-- introducing other options, and that I like. Why does it have to be either-or? Why can't there be other choices? And I know that giving a child up for adoption isn't a great plan since people aren't all a bunch of Angie Jolies running out and adopting children left and right, but at the moment it's the best compromise.

I don't like the money offer, though. Offer paid prenatal and immediate postnatal care until the child is given up for adoption. That's not bad. And what happened to WIC? Granted, it's only up to five years of age, I think, but it helps. It's what kept me fed when I was little.

Personally, I think some of the people complaining about it (some, mind you) are seeing it as an attack on the freedom of choice. Not really, since it would be a choice itself. It's just an alternative to abortion. What's wrong with that? I'm pro-choice, and hey, the more options the better.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I think he should make a gesture and adopt every child put up for adoption instead of abortion under his proposal.

[Disney's doug89]

In Australia all women that give birth are given $4000 almost upfront (changing it to installments). In 2008 its going to rise to $5000. GO AUSTRALIA

AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE!!

[Jetsetlemming]

Is that for abortion, or is that a welfare-ish "We give you moneys for raising voter- I mean, Australians!"?

[Pierrot le Fou]

They do the same thing in Japan. It's an incentive to have children, for whatever reason.

[Y.T.]

What is "traditionally" and whose tradition are talking about? Cause this isn't and has never been true for most families in the U.S. throughout history.


I'm not sure what *your* ancestors did in Africa .. , but for the last two thousand years in Europe, women (traditionally) were the ones who took care of the children, cooked, and tended the hearth. It only changed (for some women) in the last hundred years.

It's a matter of historical record.

I think it also holds true for the US. Even though your country is at the forefront of the rat race that has seen to it that now couples need two or three jobs just to survive, I don't think that most women held paying jobs in the 19 th century.

[mawande]

The big problem that crosses MY mind is what happens when the government cannot find decent parents for the babies.

[Kass]

No one said the children had to be put up for adoption in government-run agencies--just put up for adoption. Privately run (mostly associated with churches) adoption agencies are very successful at placing children and babies are very easy to place. It's the older children that are generally SOL.

Roxie, even today, women do do most of the non-market work. Working women still assume primary responsiblity for running the home and caring for children. And yes, historically, women have always held this distinction, moreso than now. I'm not sure what tradition you're talking about where women were the bread winners and men stayed home and cleaned house.

As far as the Forbes quote goes, I think the operative clause in that one is that marriage is better for children, something repeatedly established by infinite numbers of studies.

Women as a class of people earn less than men, but that is in large part due to women taking a) part time jobs far more often than men, b) women having large gaps in their employement history and c)women who do not work for a wage outside the home are sometimes included in the "women make less than men" studies. When quoting numbers, make sure that it compares working women to working men. If you go field by field and compare salaries for men and women who have the same level of experience and skill (i.e. comparing programmers to other programmers), the wage gap is much smaller than "national averages" indicate. There is still a gap that needs to close, but it isn't as disparate as the overly general numbers show.

This is a stupid program to propose, but I don't a kid think learning that mom went ahead and had him/her and gave it up for adoption is going to cause more harm than knowing mom nearly killed him/her in the womb. It's stupid because it is economically not feasible and because it is probably the one program that would be more rife with fraud than welfare.

[Roxie]

.

Roxie, even today, women do do most of the non-market work. Working women still assume primary responsiblity for running the home and caring for children. And yes, historically, women have always held this distinction, moreso than now. I'm not sure what tradition you're talking about where women were the bread winners and men stayed home and cleaned house..
????
I wasn't saying that at all....I know that, I agree with that. I'm talking about the idea that it was ALL they did and did not have jobs.

Zakalwe, while they may not have had "paying" jobs, the majority where not housewives.

[Kass]

Traditionally, men have tended to do "market" or paid work outside the home, and women have tended to do "nonmarket" (that's forbes for unpaid, which in a capitalist society=unimportant) or household work, including raising children.

What is "traditionally" and whose tradition are talking about? Cause this isn't and has never been true for most families in the U.S. throughout history.

This. Forbes is exactly right. Traditionally, women hold non-market jobs and men hold market jobs. I'm not sure what tradition you're talking about, but this has been the case in most countries for ages.

Maybe I missed the centuries where women worked outside the home and men stayed home to scrub floors, do laundry and wipe runny noses.

[Roxie]

I never said they did that. Could you quote me where I said that?
I don't recall ever saying anything remotely like that

It seemed to me forbes was saying that was ALL the work women did and nothing else, nothing outside of that. That's what I was talking about when I questioned the "tradition". Not that the fact women did that work, but that that it was ALL the work they ever did, ever.

And I know for a fact, I made that clear already.

[Jetsetlemming]

How do you get "All the work women do this and nothing else" from "women have tended to do "nonmarket" (that's forbes for unpaid"? Tended means that most often women do this, not that ALL women do this.

[Roxie]

wow, that's not even what I interpreted as it saying Jetset.

repitan, I thought they were saying women did that work and that work alone. that women did that work without addition of outside work. that women did home work, but did not hold paying jobs.

I jumped the gun and I blame it all on Phate. Back on topic.

[Roxie]

sorry, i'm kind of hopped up on nasal spray and caffiene.

I actually went to waffle house and ordered pancakes. At first, I couldn't understand why the waiter looked at me like that.

[Disney's doug89]

The $5000 "baby bonus" is an incentive to get Aussies to have more babies. I think it was our Treasurer that said something along the lines of "Couples should have 3 children. One for mum, one for dad and one for your country."

[Jetsetlemming]

Australia does have a lot of big empty space. :O
Though I'd rather live in New Jersey than that. At least in NJ I can just cross the Delaware.

[japanat]

They do the same thing in Japan. It's an incentive to have children, for whatever reason.
They do it in the US. Anyone with 3 or more children in the US is potentially eligible for an 'additional child tax credit', which is $1000/child per year right now. And since my taxes are under Form 2555, and my wife's income is foreign tax credited, we get paid about $3500/year, cash, for our 4 kids...:clap:

I think his idea is better than some of the other options, but it's not well thought out. As others have pointed out, where and how are they going to place all these children? The foster home and orphanage systems are already overburdened. What about prenatal care for the potential mother? And while I really don't see anyone getting pregnant for 500 bucks, I do see some people perhaps being a little less careful.

On the flip side, I think some women would choose this rather than an abortion, just because having it as legislation makes it feel a little less like abandoning your baby (and let's face it, the church and American culture often conspire to make women feel guilty about having gotten abortions). But I worry about women being pressured into doing this, by the protestors outside, for example, then feeling bad about it as well.

[Angelyne]

The reason why this is different from pro-natalist policies and tax credits is because the dipshit who introduced this bill decided to make it specifically into abortion issue. Had he just quietly introduced the $500 incentive without mentioning abortion, it probably would not have gotten as much attention as it did.

And I think even the politician who introduced this bill is aware that $500 is unlikely to sway anyone who is seriously considering abortion. Even if this bill doesn't pass, his conservative voter base will likely remember this politician's efforts at election time. Introducing a bill is a lot cheaper than campaigning.

[Roxie]

It's buying babies.

[Jetsetlemming]

You keep saying that and you've yet to explain how it is so. :| As Kass already said, the baby doesn't have to go to a government adoption agency.

[Roxie]

No, the baby doesn't have to go to a govn't adoption agency, but it's still money for a baby.

[Kaji]

Then where does the federal government's tax credit come in? You sounded earlier in the thread like it would have been perfectly acceptable if the sum would have been comparable to the cost of raising the child to adulthood...

[Roxie]

If I sounded that way, that wasn't what I was meaning to imply such. I was just pointing out how paultry that $500 is. One would think If you'd want to make an alternative "choice" to make it at worth something.

The tax credit isn't automatic. You have to qualify.
There's also no negative connotation to not having 3 kids unlike abortion.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

The foster home and orphanage systems are already overburdened.


Yes, they are. With kids over the age of 9. Less than 3% are under 1, over half are 9 or older.
People who adopt generally want babies. If by virtue of this law, there are more adoptable babies, they will have no problem placing them with suitable parents.

(source: www.nrcadoption.org/resources/prac/OlderChildAdoption.pdf)