Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / March 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

[FOR SALE] Your Children:  Houston state Sen. Dan Patrick wants the  state to pay $500 to women who give their babies up for adoption instead  of aborting them...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
fx - 27 Mar 2007 05:49 GMT
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4654720.html

Patrick's adoption incentive is baby selling, some say

By JANET ELLIOTT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
TOOLS
Email

AUSTIN — Houston state Sen. Dan Patrick wants the state to pay $500 to
women who give their babies up for adoption instead of aborting them, an
idea some say borders on baby selling.

"We want that lady to have an incentive that makes her stop and think
about having an abortion and that gives her a reason to put her baby up
for adoption," said Patrick, a radio broadcaster who champions
conservative causes such as abortion and tightening the border.

The Republican lawmaker's Senate Bill 1567 was referred to the Senate
Health and Human Services Committee on Wednesday. No committee hearing
has been scheduled for the bill, which has yet to draw any co-sponsors.

"My goal is to save as many babies as we possibly can," said Patrick,
who also has a bill to trigger an abortion ban in Texas should the U.S.
Supreme Court ever reverse its landmark 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade,
legalizing abortion.

Critics say his bill doesn't recognize the complex issues involved in a
woman's decision to place her baby for adoption and comes dangerously
close to baby selling.

One anti-abortion group — while supporting the goal of encouraging
adoption over abortion — expressed caution.

"We just need to make sure there isn't even the perception of baby
buying going on," said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance
for Life.

An organization that supports a woman's right to choose said Patrick's
bill is terrible.

"It's the stuff nightmares are made of," said Fran Hagerty of the
Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas. "This is
insulting to women and also insulting to all the great charitable
organizations out there that do wonderful work finding adoptive parents
and taking care of the birth mother."

It is a crime in Texas to offer to give a thing of value to another for
acquiring a child for purposes of adoption. Exceptions are made for
necessary pregnancy-related expense that benefit the mother.

Patrick said the payments would not be akin to baby selling.

"We're just giving someone an incentive to put your baby up for
adoption," he said. "Then the baby goes through the normal adoptive
process. No one is coming in here and buying a baby."

Another group that advocates reproductive freedom said the emphasis
should be on preventing unplanned pregnancies by providing women with
birth-control options.

"If Sen. Dan Patrick wants to improve women's health care options, then
he should support the Prevention First Act, which includes common sense
ways to reduce the need for abortion," said Carol Drennan, interim
executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, in a prepared statement.

The head of a national adoption-policy group said a recent study on
birth mothers who gave up their children found that many experienced
lifelong guilt over their decision.

Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption
Institute, said good adoption practice means presenting all options on a
level playing field.

"You let women respectfully make the best decision they can at an
excruciatingly difficult time. Introducing money into the mix can be
coercive," Pertman said.

If the bill reduced the 77,374 abortions performed in Texas in 2005 by 5
percent, more than 3,000 babies' lives would be saved, Patrick said.
Greegor - 29 Mar 2007 13:19 GMT
Whatta deal for the state!
Pay $500 to the Mom for the baby, collect the
state care subsidies (from Feds) and then
collect the $7K adoption bonus (from Feds) !

> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4654720.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> If the bill reduced the 77,374 abortions performed in Texas in 2005 by 5
> percent, more than 3,000 babies' lives would be saved, Patrick said.
Dan Sullivan - 29 Mar 2007 13:39 GMT
> Whatta deal for the state!
> Pay $500 to the Mom for the baby, collect the
> state care subsidies (from Feds) and then
> collect the $7K adoption bonus (from Feds) !

You're sure this politician's motivation was financial rather than the
fact that children's lives would be saved?
0:-] - 29 Mar 2007 16:12 GMT
>> Whatta deal for the state!
>> Pay $500 to the Mom for the baby, collect the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>You're sure this politician's motivation was financial rather than the
>fact that children's lives would be saved?

To "Think." As to Greg, I can find none that operationally apply. Can
you?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
think1      /???k/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[thingk] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb,
thought, think·ing, adjective, noun
–verb (used without object)
1.    to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning,
remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2.    to employ one's mind rationally and objectively in evaluating
or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
3.    to have a certain thing as the subject of one's thoughts: I
was thinking about you. We could think of nothing else.
4.    to call something to one's conscious mind: I couldn't think of
his phone number.
5.    to consider something as a possible action, choice, etc.: She
thought about cutting her hair.
6.    to invent or conceive of something: We thought of a new plan.
7.    to have consideration or regard for someone: Think of others
first.
8.    to esteem a person or thing as indicated: to think badly of
someone.
9.    to have a belief or opinion as indicated: I think so.
10.    (of a device or machine, esp. a computer) to use artificial
intelligence to perform an activity analogous to human thought.
–verb (used with object)
11.    to have or form in the mind as an idea, conception, etc.
12.    to consider for evaluation or for possible action upon: Think
the deal over.
13.    to regard as specified: He thought me unkind.
14.    to believe to be true of someone or something: to think evil
of the neighbors.
15.    to analyze or evolve rationally: to think the problem out.
16.    to have as a plan or intention: I thought that I would go.
17.    to anticipate or expect: I did not think to find you here.
–adjective
18.    of or pertaining to thinking or thought.
19.    Informal. stimulating or challenging to the intellect or mind:
the think book of the year. Compare think piece.
–noun
20.    Informal. the act or a period of thinking: I want to sit down
and give it a good think.
—Verb phrases
21.    think of,
a.    to conceive of; imagine.
b.    to have an opinion or judgment of.
c.    to consider; anticipate: When one thinks of what the future
may bring, one is both worried and hopeful.
22.    think out or through,
a.    to think about until a conclusion is reached; understand or
solve by thinking.
b.    to devise by thinking; contrive: He thought out a plan for
saving time.
23.    think up, to devise or contrive by thinking: Can you think up
an arrangement of furniture for this room?
—Idioms
24.    think better of, to change one's mind about; reconsider: She
considered emigrating to Australia, but thought better of it.
25.    think fit, to consider advisable or appropriate: By all means,
take a vacation if you think fit.
26.    think nothing of. nothing (def. 19).
27.    think twice, to weigh carefully before acting; consider: I
would think twice before taking on such a responsibility.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME thinken, var. of thenken, OE thencan; c. D, G
denken, ON thekkja, Goth thagkjan; akin to thank]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
2006.
0:-] - 29 Mar 2007 15:53 GMT
>Whatta deal for the state!

Mmmm....sorry, there's a net loss of considerable revenue.

No payment scheme to date has covered all expenditures. We tax payers,
(the State) have to foot a good bit of the bill for the druggies,
criminals, and incompetent (I accept supporting the latter, but not
the former) who injure their children by neglect and abuse.

>Pay $500 to the Mom for the baby, collect the
>state care subsidies (from Feds) and then
>collect the $7K adoption bonus (from Feds) !

Let's keep things in perspective.

Children, on average, stay in the system for about 18 months to final
placement -- be it a return to their bio parent(s) or an adoptive or
other legal custodial arrangement.

So that's minus $500 plus $7,000, plus title 4E (which not all
children are eligible for) say $500mox18=$9000.

Coming to:

$15,500 (gross) divided by 18 months, and you get a whopping
$861.11mo.

That would barely cover basic care for a child...without any other
expenses.

Nope, I don't see the net profit. Do you?

Somewhere between $400 and $500 mo would go to foster subsidy.

Doesn't leave a lot of room, now does it?

Besides, this would amount to a form of purchase of a child.

That's a no no.

Now if services were delivered to the mom to be, that would be a
different story. Private adoptions are handled that way often these
days. Support and care for the mom to be during pregnancy.

And Greg, I've a little surprise for you. Often the "woman" having the
child is a girl already being supported by the state.

So tell us, what's your solution to "the problem," you seem to be
presenting.

In fact, just what problem ARE you presenting? Can you help us
understand more clearly please?

>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4654720.html
>>
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
>> If the bill reduced the 77,374 abortions performed in Texas in 2005 by 5
>> percent, more than 3,000 babies' lives would be saved, Patrick said.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.