Of course. It's God's will that people that can't afford children have more.

As a woman, and a life-long Texan, I've been following this closely. I used PP during college when I didn't have a whole lot of disposable income. I never went there for an abortion, but I did get my annual "well woman's exam" and birth control pills. Had that service not been available, the state would likely be spending way more than that paltry $100/year to support my babies. Not because I was a slut who slept around, but because I was in a commited relationship with someone I loved and we wanted to express our love to each other.

Unfortunately, issues like this are what keep me a 1-issue voter. I'd like to deny that I am, but the fact remains, as long as there is a political ability to rule my uterus, I must continue to vote against Republicans. And, to this day, I remain completely dumbfounded that a woman would block access to PP because of a political agenda such as this. Come on sister, we didnt suffer all those years just to turn on one another.

/Texas, we're not ALL crazy. Well, maybe. Must be the big hair.

Oh, FFS. As a Vagina-American, I'm so glad I don't live in Texas.

SecretAgentWoman: I am still dumbfounded.

WTF decade are we in again? Seriously? I hate fundies so much.

Give "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood a read. I think it's the Republican playbook... Restrictions on women, power granted to men, theoretical rules about decorum and behavior in a very rigid society, and yet those who implemented those rules and are theoretically bound to them carouse in debauchery because they're behind the scenes and can get away with it.

It's God's will that the poor get no pre-natal care.

they do a lot more at Planned Parenthood than just abortions, morons

Theaetetus: With all due respect, child support is neither a tax, nor a punishment. Thinking of it that way actually does open the door to arguments about whether it's fair that someone has to pay it when they didn't intend to have a kid.

I pay boucoup child support; I worked two jobs so my (1st) wife could stay home with the kids, so my support reflects the differential in income at time of separation. (Now I work two jobs to keep up with child support :-) I have no problem paying support and have never missed or been late on any payment, even during those dark times when she and her second husband accused me of abuse and I didn't get to see the kids a for a few months until things were straightened out (I ended up with more custody because of their shenanigans). Having my kids in a more stable financial situation is worth the money. I'm covering all my older kid's college and ancillary expenses in addition to the child support. They're my kids and I love them. But I'll also be pretty happy next year when our youngest turns 18 and the Child Support is finally over.

Ned Stark: A fetus us not materially different from a day old.

90% of abortions are performed in the first 3 months of pregnancy. Even at this point the fetus is about 3 inches long and could not hope to exist outside the womb.

It is dramatically different from a "day old" baby and it represents 90%+ of cases. So why don't you start arguing what really happens instead of talking points??

dnicoloff
only a liberal would think that giving the individual responsibility for her birth control is a way for America to control a womans body.

Preventing Planned Parenthood from providing services to poor people is "giving the individual responsibility for her birth control"? No, just no. In what way has any of the shiat the GOP has been pushing this past year or two been designed to give a woman "individual responsibility for her birth control"?

You can't possibly be this stupid. Go away, troll.

Fundie morons should not be in positions of power. Stop voting for them.

Charles Martel
By "serving" you mean "aborting more children."

You should be studied by scientists to determine how people can get so farking stupid while still able to operate a computer.

DubyaHater: Now, I'm not one of those "lawyering types", but if abortion is legal in this country, how can the state prevent an organization that provides abortions from providing other basic medical services? My mind is full of fark

PP in Texas doesn't even provide abortions, but they will refer you to a place that performs abortions. The government can't ban a funded medical services provider from telling you where to get an abortion anymore than it can ban a welfare recipient from telling you where to get an abortion of a meal at Arby's. This is the most stupidly unconstitutional idea that you wonder why anyone commits the state's resources to defending it in the first place.

You'd have to be an outright moron to waste tax money on this.



Oh, right.

Gosling: Has part of a country ever been forcibly ejected from the rest of its country before?



"Hi. Nathan Fillion here to talk about a serious condition that affects millions of Americans every year: Tex Ass."

Rapmaster2000: Free association. The law will be struck down.

Alito/Scalia. The law will be upheld.

Charles Martel: [antzinpantz.com image 462x350]

Perhaps more Democrats should be encouraged to have abortions.

Actually, on that - I think gay marriage rights should be a federal issue. If a couple gets married in California, it must be recognized in all 50 states - otherwise, it would be impossible to get a divorce or transfer rights in a state that doesn't recognize the marriage in the first place.

lukehasnoname: Theaetetus: lukehasnoname: Also, abortion war is a touchy subject with very deeptrench lines, and frankly, those who don't believe in its morality shouldn't have to pay for it. To many, it's murder.

So we should be able to opt out of any taxes going to the Department of Defense, no?

It's not as crazy an idea as you imply. There hasn't been an armed conflict we needed to be a part of in 70+ years, and only the German part really mattered. We trolled Japan into attacking us.

Religion's also a very touchy subject, and I don't believe in its morality. Since they don't pay taxes, yet still receive services, essentially I'm paying for them. So, I should be able to reduce my tax burden correspondingly since I don't believe in their morality, right?

Also, I believe there are too many people on this planet and it's immoral to have more, so I want to opt out of paying for health and human services, the NIH, WIC, and the department of education. I should also be able to reduce my taxes due to the immoral free ride childbearers get by having extra dependents, right?

Oh, and I disagree with half of the Supreme Court, so can I stop paying any of my taxes that go to that half of the department of justice?

Incidentally, my neighbor hates Southerners and believes they're immoral. He wants to stop paying taxes to any subsidies that go to those states. That okay, too?

lukehasnoname: Chop up a baby inside the womb the morning before it's due? That's cool. Chop it up after it's out? Kill the sick fark.n.

pretty retarded strawman bro.

Texas is kind of a farked-up state, legislatively, must be the competing pressures of greed, contrariness and Jesus freakery.

It passes stupid shiat like this, but then has also passed laws restricting the power of HOAs (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/12/26/3619134/new-homeowner-associa tion-laws.html) and has early voting, which in general, is considered a good thing (ie, makes voting easier, as opposed to recent efforts in other states to make it more difficult).

Ned Stark: Theaetetus: Ned Stark: Theaetetus: Ned Stark: Both parents have an obligation to the child already. Both of them should have the chance to waive independent of the other. If they both waive it falls to the state.

Why? Because we like seeing starving children living in filth? That seems to be what you're driving at, since your proposal would only apply to situations in which the custodial parent wouldn't accept the waiver.

Again, not relevant. Just because hosing one segment of the population to keep another Segment from starving is politically easier than preventing starvation with the public coffers doesn't make it ok.

Actually, not so... Most people in our society would prefer to "hose" adults to keep children from starving. It's one of the justifications for child labor laws, in fact.

You've got your telescope backwards. Kids cannot competently judge or defend their own interests. Child labor laws prevent the diminishment of one group by another.

Yes, specifically, the group that cannot adequately protect themselves. Similarly, we accept "hosing" adults and requiring them to support their children, because children cannot adequately protect themselves. What's backwards about that?

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sucks donkey dicks.

It got packed with Bush I and Bush II idiots.

Sad.

Used to be a progressive court in the forefront of making sure that the Civil Rights Act was followed and upheld.

Ned Stark: Theaetetus: Ned Stark: Both parents have an obligation to the child already. Both of them should have the chance to waive independent of the other. If they both waive it falls to the state.

Why? Because we like seeing starving children living in filth? That seems to be what you're driving at, since your proposal would only apply to situations in which the custodial parent wouldn't accept the waiver.

Again, not relevant. Just because hosing one segment of the population to keep another Segment from starving is politically easier than preventing starvation with the public coffers doesn't make it ok.

Actually, not so... Most people in our society would prefer to "hose" adults to keep children from starving. It's one of the justifications for child labor laws, in fact.

namegoeshere: Dino C. Zaffina: namegoeshere: Dino C. Zaffina: Guidette Frankentits: Um, don't you have to lose the case to have an appeal and be seen before an Appellate court???

Someone smarter than I want to explain this?

Sure, it's "smarter than me". You're welcome.

And... wrong. "Smarter than I (am)"

"Smarter than I" is correct. The verb, am, is implied. Link

Well shiat. I'm an idiot.

You're good at darts, though, and suing people. So there's that.

No, you're thinking of Dino M Zaffina. I'm a totally different guy. Check the initial. If you get it wrong again, I'll sue you!

Ned Stark: Theaetetus: demaL-demaL-yeH: Think of child support as a stupidity tax:
Everyones whipping boy: do the crime, pay the time

With all due respect, child support is neither a tax, nor a punishment. Thinking of it that way actually does open the door to arguments about whether it's fair that someone has to pay it when they didn't intend to have a kid.

Child support is the right of the child, because we, as a society, believe that children shouldn't be left to starve. You can abandon an adult in a parking lot, but you can't abandon a child.
Hence why you can't sign a waiver or opt-out of child support responsibilities. No one can. The only way to "get out" of them is to find a replacement guardian - adoptive parents, state guardian agencies (e.g. hospital or fire house drop locations), etc. Think of the obligation like a baton in a race... Legally, the child must have a guardian, at all times, so you have to hand off that baton to someone who accepts it. You can't just chuck it into the stands and say "I'm willing to give up my parental rights, so therefore I shouldn't have to pay a dime for support of this kid." It's not yours to throw away.

Yep. In this case he would be divesting his rights and obligations to the mother. This isn't difficult to grasp.
She should likewise be able to divest her rights to the father in lieu of killing it if she so desires.

That's the opposite of what you said earlier:
Ned Stark: No one should have to accept it. Dude fills out a form within 3 months of finding out he's a dad, or whatever time limit is set and he's on the hook for $150 and nothing else and also never has a say in the kids life again.

You were talking about unilaterally waiving an obligation, not assigning the obligation to someone who accepts it. You've now moved the goalposts. Are you admitting that your unilateral waiver proposal was unrealistic and unconstitutional?

Ned Stark: That sucks but isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. You can't diminish the rights of one grip to improve the lot of another just because it's the politically convenient solution to a problem.

We already infringe on people's rights for plenty of reasons ... the welfare of a child is one of the better reasons.

The worth of a society can be judged by how it treats its weakest members and children are certainly qualify.

Everyone Sucks But Me: Gosling: Has part of a country ever been forcibly ejected from the rest of its country before?

[www.comicscavern.com image 331x311]

"Hi. Nathan Fillion here to talk about a serious condition that affects millions of Americans every year: Tex Ass."

HNNGH.
... thank you. That picture saved my mood.

/that shirt and expression, just wow
//love me some Nathan Fillion

spentmiles: Ned Stark: spentmiles: dpzum1: As far as attacking women, you want equal rights but the father of that child has NO SAY in it's future, or lack of.

I'm curious: has anyone ever heard of a case where the father didn't want the mother to have an abortion, but she went behind his back and did it anyway? In that circumstance, it seems fair to charge her with murder. I can't believe that's never come up in the courts.

It happens, that isn't murder. Dude doesn't have the kid inside him, it ain't the dudes call.

If that's truly the fact, then we should do away with child support payments. And men should have absolutely no say in the abortion debate. Only women should be allowed to vote on a national referendum and then embrace the consequences of their choice.

You get to control where you stick your dick. That's your moment of choice. After that, all bets are off.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Think of child support as a stupidity tax:
Everyones whipping boy: do the crime, pay the time

With all due respect, child support is neither a tax, nor a punishment. Thinking of it that way actually does open the door to arguments about whether it's fair that someone has to pay it when they didn't intend to have a kid.

Child support is the right of the child, because we, as a society, believe that children shouldn't be left to starve. You can abandon an adult in a parking lot, but you can't abandon a child.
Hence why you can't sign a waiver or opt-out of child support responsibilities. No one can. The only way to "get out" of them is to find a replacement guardian - adoptive parents, state guardian agencies (e.g. hospital or fire house drop locations), etc. Think of the obligation like a baton in a race... Legally, the child must have a guardian, at all times, so you have to hand off that baton to someone who accepts it. You can't just chuck it into the stands and say "I'm willing to give up my parental rights, so therefore I shouldn't have to pay a dime for support of this kid." It's not yours to throw away.

Ned Stark: Theaetetus: Ned Stark: I don't think child support should be abolished but fathers should probably get a one off chane to waive both their parental rights and obligations though.

And who could accept that waiver? The mother? What gives her the ability to waive the child's right to support? Nothing. In fact, if she did, she'd be in breach of her fiduciary responsibility to the kid.
Technically, a guardian ad litem appointed by the court could accept the waiver... but one never would since, similarly, they'd be in breach of their duty to the kid.

Basically, only the kid could waive their rights, and only once they've reached the age of majority. So you can get a waiver to get out of paying for college, I guess, but that's about it.

No one should have to accept it. Dude fills out a form within 3 months of finding out he's a dad, or whatever time limit is set and he's on the hook for $150 and nothing else and also never has a say in the kids life again.

Maybe the dude shouldn't have put his seed in there to begin with and quit crying because he farked up? Personal responsibility for your farkups. If he didn't want kids, maybe he should have got snipped or sterilized himself, then he'd never have to cry like a biatch for farking up. Otherwise, do the crime, pay the time and STFU.

Mavent: Jake Havechek: It's God's will that the poor get no pre-natal care.

they do a lot more at Planned Parenthood than just abortions, morons

But... but... Republicans have assured me that abortions are WELL over 99% of what Planned Parenthood does!

If by 99% they mean 3%, then yes, Absolutely.

spentmiles: I agree: we do need to pull money and resources out of Planned Parenthood. We need to take that money and focus on sterilization measures. When a girl turns ten, she should be medically and temporarily sterilized. To encourage parents to comply, we'll offer $500 cash up front, and ten year minimum sentences of both parents if they are still non-compliant after one year. Then, when the young lady grows up and decides that yes, she does want a child, she can got to a state run facility, give back the $500, and have the sterilization reversed. This would be after a one year waiting period so she can be sure of her choice.

If we just help people actually plan for parenthood, we'll be a lot better off as a society. And there would be almost no need for abortions, so everyone wins.

In all seriousness, there are Contraceptive Implants, Intrauterine Devices, and even shots of Depo-Provera that would all be effective in suppressing female reproduction, but given the climate we live in where non-parent rightwingers are fighting against the Human Papilloma Virus Vacccine, I don't see how what you propose would have any possibility of being implemented at all.

I object to what you propose on the grounds that it would be applied unevenly, with racial or economic bias, and would thus become a eugenics program. Since eugenics has been a platform widely held by facists, I can see no way for such a program to ever be workable, and even if it were introduced in a workable fashion, I certainly can't see it remaining sacrosanct enough to be left unblemished by the political ideas of the day.

Where are all the Texans that always show up in these threads to defend their pitiful state?

Cutting abortion funding will not fix this issue. The majority of women who get abortions get them because the pregnancy is unplanned. Even the people who have the children, regardless of their ability to afford them, are typically having unplanned children. So, by cutting abortion funding you are doing nothing to address the issue. You are simply treating the symptoms, and blindly at that.

I agree: we do need to pull money and resources out of Planned Parenthood. We need to take that money and focus on sterilization measures. When a girl turns ten, she should be medically and temporarily sterilized. To encourage parents to comply, we'll offer $500 cash up front, and ten year minimum sentences of both parents if they are still non-compliant after one year. Then, when the young lady grows up and decides that yes, she does want a child, she can got to a state run facility, give back the $500, and have the sterilization reversed. This would be after a one year waiting period so she can be sure of her choice.

If we just help people actually plan for parenthood, we'll be a lot better off as a society. And there would be almost no need for abortions, so everyone wins.

You'd think that they would want black and Hispanic women to get abortions. I mean, it's the same kind of logic that drives certain people to say "WE SHOULD TRY TO OUTBREED THEM!" every time the statistics come out about the growing minority population.

//Only black and Hispanic women are poor, right?

Vermicious Knids: Oh, FFS. As a Vagina-American, I'm so glad I don't live in Texas.

I like where this thread is taking.

I'm also going to refer to myself as thus from now on.

Ugh. This kind of shiat drives me nuts. The people screaming about their tax dollars going to poor people having kids they can't afford to take care of are the same people fighting to make it impossible for those same poor people to have access to any kind of family planning services or comprehensive sex education. It would seem like they shouldn't be able to hold both positions at the same time without their heads exploding until you realize that they just get off on being enormous assholes, then it all makes sense.

MadMonk: So, when do they start attacking women's right to vote? I mean that is pretty much the end game of what they are planning isn't it? Or is it something more spectacular like whole sale slaughter of women in the streets?

Great, it's "The Screwfly Solution" all over again. Horrifying.

SecretAgentWoman: "WTF decade are we in again?"

The one where Republicans have realized that indirect attacks on abortion and contraception energize the base just as much as direct attacks, but don't get recognized by their opponents as such and don't generate the same blowback that direct attacks did. (Similarly with indirect attacks on equal-opportunity, voter rights, etc.)

The press is letting them get away with it, so why wouldn't the GOP run with it?

Rapmaster2000: JDAT: SecretAgentWoman: I am still dumbfounded.

WTF decade are we in again? Seriously? I hate fundies so much.

Yeah, trying to get in the way of our baby killing. Who do they think they are to tell us it's wrong to practice a little infanticide here and there. After all, it's our children not theirs.

If Prince Harry aborted his first son would it be regicide or infanticide?

Infanticide. His son would not be Coronated until after birth.

Gosling: Has part of a country ever been forcibly ejected from the rest of its country before?

I don't want to eject Texas from the country - lots of my tax dollars have ended up there in the form of Ft. Hood and oil refineries. I just want the fundies currently IN Texas to go to some lord-of-the-flies utopia, like Somalia.

Free association. The law will be struck down.