So, a question: is this nutjob bill being promoted by the same conservatives who wanted to cap welfare payments so that those slutty poor women wouldn't just have babies for the money? And do they really think that five hundred bucks covers the cost of prenatal care? And why are they so intent on separating poor women from their babies? If they really care about reducing abortions, why don't they offer continued support if the woman in question doesn't want to sign away her parental rights?

Jesus. This doesn't even make sense from an amoral, money-grubbing capitalistic standpoint.

And yet, it's at least consistent with the general attitude towards the worth of women's labor as mothers in this country, in that it's worthless. The 'invisible' labor of motherhood has long been denigrated and contrasted with the 'real' work of men, so it should be no surprise that legislation as sordid as this has surfaced. Seven cents an hour indeed, Senator Jackass.

Um, question: How is this not human trade? They're encouraging women to sell their babies, isn't that several kinds of illegal? I mean, if it's not, I've got an 18 year old brother that's wasting space. 6', 170lbs, blue eyes, sandy hair, reasonably intelligent but unmotivated. Interested? Give me a call.

Is it awful if this just plain makes me laugh?

I mean. Come on. That'll never pass. A statute permitting the SELLING of BABIES???

Maybe if he was in the Seventh Circuit. But I doubt Texans will go for it.

I love how all this legislation seems to have no interest in the effects of traditional, giving-up-all-contact adoption has on the birth mothers--this is not legislation in the women's best interests.

EG:

Oh, come ON! We all know that women are just baby-making machines; they care nothing for their spawn so long as they get their filthy money.

God, sometimes I hate my sex.

This is without question the best post title ever. And let it be known that this is not the Dan Patrick from ESPN.

So it has come to this, persuading women to sell their children up for adoption. This is indeed a new low.

But then again I'm surprised by this at all.

Sometimes I think these anti-abortion people have absolutely no clue what actually goes into carrying a pregnancy to term. I'm sure they didn't divide their oh-so-generous $500 "incentive" by the hour like Amanda did, or they'd have realized how stupid it was.
It reminds me of people who argue against abortion by saying, "If you can't afford to keep the baby, just give it up for adoption," as if time, medical bills and lost wages weren't an issue.

Honestly, I think they're under the impression that women get pregnant in the morning, pop the baby out on our lunch break, and then trundle on back to work.

mebbe this bill can be used as a springboard/precedent to get the government to pay the true cost of mothering work to moms- valued at 120K per year, instead of the paltry welfare assistance... because if they did that, I think it might cut down on some abortions/adoptions...if that is there aim, right?

But yeah, $500 is about enough to... gee, is it even enough to cover the ultrasound in SCal?

Please don't contact Dan Patrick. You'll just be giving him material for the mailers for his nutball Senatorial district. If it's any consolation, even Republicans in the Texas Senate hate him and won't pass his bills.

"Honestly, I think they're under the impression that women get pregnant in the morning, pop the baby out on our lunch break, and then trundle on back to work."

This is so perfect and so true in oh-so-many ways, Vervain. I LOVE IT.

I'll raise it to $600. Going once, going twice....

kpsisu

......120K?

you know - I'm a little short for rent this month... think they'll give me the money up front if I promise to give one up before the end of the year? Maybe they'll give me more if I promise it will have blonde hair and blue eyes? Maybe I'll get even more if it's a boy with a large penis and has been pre-screened for the gay gene? Sweet Mother of All Things Good - I could make this an occupation (I am, after all, a baby making machine)

What an asshat...

For starters this isn't free market, it's a subsidy, and a poor one at that. As the article points out it wouldn't cover the cost of taking the pregnancy to term, but that's not quite the right analysis. You'd ideally want the subsidy to be equal to (or greater than) the difference between taking the pregnancy to term and the cost of an abortion (between $350 and $500, generally).

But the costs of being pregnant for the full 9 months are huge: pre-natal visits, vitamins, maternity clothes, food, and then hospital costs for the birth, which pretty clearly will add up to more than $1000 total over the course of that 9 months.

As stark a figure as that 7¢ an hour is, the above analysis is better both economically and analytically. I mean, during the first few weeks you'll likely not even know you're pregnant, then it interferes an increasing amount. More importantly, if we were doing that analysis we'd want to see (1) what the costs associated with being pregnant during any given were, and (2) how being pregnant reduced one's ability to do other things, like work, or do things around the house. If being pregnant for any given hour only has a effect of making you 7¢ less productive, that's a valid price for that hour. That will not be true for most of the hours though.

if i make it a full year without getting pregnant, how much can i get? seems like it should be more. maybe 750?

oh oops i forgot. that's not what this is about. it has nothing to do with prevention. it's about Saving the Babies. for chump change. gross.

Well, damn, Stella. Now I want retroactive payment for every year I could have gotten pregnant but didn't, thus obviating the need for any abortion. If we stick with the figure of $500, just for argument's sake, then I'm owed...$9000.

Excellent.

If we're going by years I didn't have a baby when I am able to, then I get a grand. If by the month I ovulated, then multiply it by 12.

If this bill does actually pass I'm betting there will be a whole lot more appointments made at abortion clinics for the sole purpose of collecting $500 for getting pregnant :)

Here's what I wrote to him:

"I hope this is a joke. If not, this just proves how blatanaly ignorant of women and their bodies you "pro-life" people really are.

$500 isn't even going to cover the extra groceries consumed during a pregnancy, to say nothing of the medical costs of prenantal care and childbirth. And that's only if things go smoothly...

I guess it just goes to show that you really do beleive women are just property meant to produce offspring, and that children are just a commodity.

Sorry, but my uterus is not for rent. "

I'll probably just get another lackey-generated letter like the ones I get from my representative. (He's anti-EC and goes on to explain that it's because it kills a "five-day-old unborn child." as if he knows more about the female body and emergency contraception than I do or something.)

I want to know how many of these agressively pro-life individuals adopt some of the many disadvantaged children already up for adoption in this country. Because "just put your baby up for adoption", aside from not considering the effects of pregnancy on a woman's body and life overall, doesn't take into account that there's already a lot of children in foster care. Unless your baby is healthy and white, it stands a very small chance of being adopted and will just be subject to a life in the foster care system.

This offer is beyond insulting. I hope the legislature of Texas is not that patronizing to women.

"(He's anti-EC and goes on to explain that it's because it kills a "five-day-old unborn child." as if he knows more about the female body and emergency contraception than I do or something."

WHAT?? I want to know how such stupid and uninformed people can make it to that position!

Vervain,

A surprising (or not) number of pro-lifers think, defying all facts and common sense, that women just don't die in childbirth anymore, or suffer major health problems from it.

So long as Roe v. Wade prohibits ANY legislation that restricts or burdens abortion "rights" during the first trimester and only allows minimal intrusion during the second trimester, we're going to see legislation like this.

It's not like they can come right out and say that abortion is so horrible that it should be illegal; state legislatures are handcuffed.

It just doesn't surprise me - it's the logical outcome of Roe.

"It just doesn't surprise me - it's the logical outcome of Roe."
Yeah. It’s called anti-choice wingnut logic.

Anti-choice? How do you figure that? Your side would not really enjoy being called "pro-baby killing," so why hope that you can get away with anti-choice and they won't retaliate?

When you cannot make any sort of reasonable, comprehensive legislation regarding abortion, you are going to have to come up with some pretty strange laws to try to accomplish your objectives. Don't want women having abortions? Well, anti-lifers seem to get upset when you try to figure out WHY women abort (it violates their privacy), so you're stuck. Women abort for financial reasons? Try offering money.

Would it be nice to make it illegal to coerce women into having abortions? Sure, but when abortion is a "constitutional" right, you're in the position of arguing that it's illegal to force people to exercise their rights.

"Women abort for financial reasons? Try offering money."

Oh, because $500 is enough to cover the missed work due to pregnancy related illness? It is enough to cover time missed from work due to giving birth and the subsequent recovery? Oh and how far do you think that $500 will go in providing the extra food it takes to support a pregnancy? Not to mention if that woman decides to continue the pregnancy and then decides not to give it up for adoption, that $500 will go real far in supporting her and that child.

$500? That is insulting that MIGHT cover one month's rent!

Not to mention if that woman decides to continue the pregnancy and then decides not to give it up for adoption, that $500 will go real far in supporting her and that child.

Nah, because then she won't even get the paltry five hundred bucks, because God knows we wouldn't want to help poor women to actually raise their own children.

And that's part of what's wrong with this stupid bill. It's not about easing the financial burden on women who might abort for economic reasons; it's about buying babies for wealthy families to adopt, and treating poor women as brood mares.

"Nah, because then she won't even get the paltry five hundred bucks, because God knows we wouldn't want to help poor women to actually raise their own children."

Thanks EG, I didn't even think of them not getting the $500.

"It's not about easing the financial burden on women who might abort for economic reasons"

Of course not, that would mean providing welfare to poor single mothers and our society frowns upon that. Isn't it crazy that the "traditional family values" that the right espouse include having the mother stay at home raising the children, yet, women on welfare are being forced to work and leave their children in substandard daycare? Not that I think that all women should be at home, it is just kind of hypocritical.

I'm all for taking common-sense steps that could reduce the extremely high number of abortions performed each year.... but where is the common sense here?

Obviously, no one - except for maybe the occasional needy drug addict - is going to take the state up on this offer.

>>

That strikes me as an odd comment on a site meant to promote harmony among the genders. Perhaps more accurately you mean that you hate when people treat women as commodoties?

The math on this is really odd.

You can donate your baby and get $500 for 9 months worth of work. Or, you can donate your eggs and get $15,000 for 2 weeks worth of work. So apparently eggs are worth more than babies?

-Dave

The math on this is really odd.

You can donate your baby and get $500 for 9 months worth of work. Or, you can donate your eggs and get $15,000 for 2 weeks worth of work. So apparently eggs are worth more than babies?

I am sorry oeno, you are ant-choice because you are “for� limiting reproductive choice to different degrees, whether you (your side) are against legal abortions or contraception as well as abortion. That’s what makes you anti-choice. “pro-life� is very inappropriate as you (you in particular and your side in general) have demonstrated time and again. You yourself are pro-death penalty. Because you know, black man on death row (yes, a disproportionate number of people on death row are African-American males, and a black killing a white is much more likely to get the death penalty than a white killing a black. I don’t remember the numbers and percentages off the top of my head but I trust you can look them up) must deserve dying, especially considering our justice system is perfect, an innocent person would never be found guilty. And otherwise your side is for the most part pro-war, and pro people dying of AIDS because of the global gag rule and pro- women dying in back-alley abortions and problem pregnancies (particularly in developing countries). So no you are not pro-life. Pro-death is a lot more becoming. And you could only call us baby killers if we ran around killing babies (the term refers to *born* human offspring.)

“Would it be nice to make it illegal to coerce women into having abortions? Sure, but when abortion is a "constitutional" right, you're in the position of arguing that it's illegal to force people to exercise their rights.�

Oh, and that one. What are you talking about? It is already illegal to force a woman into having an abortion. There are plenty of activities that are legal but you cannot force a person into doing them.
Also, at PP in the clinic there is a pre-abortion counseling session with the purpose of making sure that the woman is ok with her decision one of the questions on the is exactly that “Is anyone coercing you?�.
Do you truly believe the things that you say?

CoasttoCoast-
120K (or is it 140?) is the figure jobs.com came up with when they tried to place a dollar amount on the amount of work a mom does in a year. I can't remember if that is for stay at home only or if it also includes work outside of the home too moms.

Kpsisu, I saw that, but it was wrong. It assigned a mother the jobs of "psychologist" and "CEO" as well as chauffeur, maid, day care provider, teacher, etc.

Talking out a person's problems with them doesn't make you a psychologist -- you need a degree for that. And the CEO of a micro-company that makes no money does not make any money herself. You can make big bucks as the CEO of a giant corporation that loses money, but not of a micro-company... which is what a family would be, if it were a company, which it's not.

I have run the figures myself based on how much my husband would spend to replace the work I do for the family if I died or something -- and since my husband cannot drive, I included taxi service for him as well. It came out to around 40 K. It would be higher now because I have more children, which drives up day care costs. But it won't be higher than 60 K, and the idea that it is as high as $120K is wishful thinking on the part of the people who wrote that survey.

(They also didn't include prostitute in the figures. Not that I think they should -- I am totally opposed to the idea that a married woman exchanges sex to her husband for money, she should be exchanging sex for sex -- but if you're going to include the counseling you do for your family out of love as "psychologist", you may as well include the sex you do for fun as prostitution. Trained therapists aren't even supposed to work on their own family members; the idea of a psychologist is to talk to a trained professional who is neutral and has no ax to grind or personal biases regarding your life. To call what a mother does for her children or a wife does for her husband "being a psychologist" is offensive both to the wife/mother and the psychologist. Also, the whole thing overlooked the fact that men perform family CEO functions as often as women -- it's the secretarial, manage the calendar, functions that are done mostly by mothers -- and that men counsel their family members and act as sounding boards too, although maybe not as often as women.)

Now, I am not sure the figure *should* be that low. The thing is, all tasks that resemble work women do at home without extensive training are tasks that have been seriously devalued when they are done in the work force, because they are competing with a pool of people who do them for free. So maybe it shouldn't be that low. But it is. Replacing the tasks performed by a housewife costs between $20-60K depending on how many kids she has, how old they are, and how much time she spends on house upkeep.

On the other hand, this bill also recognizes that there is a heavily financial factor in the choice of whether or not to have a baby. It seems like most pro-choicers want women to make this decision based on many variables, including income. Will this bill manipulate the dumbest women? Yes. But it might also change the minds of women who were really on the fence. Perhaps a part of them wanted to give birth rather than have an abortion, and the $500 is the little bit to nudge them over the fence. I don't believe that abortion is murder, but if I did, this bill would be quite the smart thing to do.

You know, I can see why a pro-lifer would make a bill like that. But it doesn't seem to be very thought through, does it? Bitch PhD says it perfectly. Plus, there's little chance that a self-respecting woman /wouldn't/ be offended by the bill. I've never been to texas, but I doubt the ladies there would appreciate being used as incubators.

You know, I can see why a pro-lifer would make a bill like that. But it doesn't seem to be very thought through, does it? Bitch PhD says it perfectly. Plus, there's little chance that a self-respecting woman /wouldn't/ be offended by the bill. I've never been to texas, but I doubt the ladies there would appreciate being used as incubators.

You know, I can see why a pro-lifer would make a bill like that. But it doesn't seem to be very thought through, does it? Bitch PhD says it perfectly. Plus, there's little chance that a self-respecting woman /wouldn't/ be offended by the bill. I've never been to texas, but I doubt the ladies there would appreciate being used as incubators.