The Texas Baby Purchasing Act of 2007

from Talk to Action


Texas State Sen. Dan Patrick, author of a current proposal to criminalize safe abortion care, has figured out that adoption tax credits have a serious limitation: they don't do anything at all to increase the number of newborn babies available for adoption in the first place. But Senator Dan's the man with a plan to even out the shortfall.

Under Patrick's SB 1567, AKA the Texas Baby Purchasing Act of 2007, women would qualify for a $500 payment from the state within 60 days of signing away all parental rights to their newborn children.

If Patrick gets his way, childbearing in the service of the state won't be just creepy Handmaid's Tale fiction anymore. How's that for some moral family values?

A Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial asks, "When it comes to eroding women's rights, why is it that the more backward a bill is, the further it seems to get?" Maybe it's because the politicians of the religious right sometimes seem to operate from deep within their own version of Bizarro World.

Like Rep. Ken "Rumpelstiltskin" Paxton's HB 224 creating "Choose Life" plates, Patrick's bill benefits only women who give up children for adoption. A woman who might wish to continue her pregnancy and mother her own child, a woman who has an abortion only because of economic hardship, is left out in the cold. Maybe Patrick figures that "the kind of woman who has an abortion" will do anything for $500 — because no other pregnant women in the state would be subjected to the indignity of being forced by law to listen to his sales pitch.

CHAPTER 50. ADOPTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM

(a) The department shall develop a program to encourage pregnant women to place their children for adoption rather than have an abortion.

(b) The program must include a $500 payment to each woman who is a resident of this state and a citizen of the United States who places a child for adoption rather than have an abortion.

Sec. 50.002. APPLICATION FORM.

(a) The department shall develop an application form to be used by a woman who applies for funds under this chapter.

(b) The department may only distribute the application forms to abortion providers.

At least Patrick is doing his best to make sure that the state doesn't get snookered into buying any "illegal" babies.

In order to ensure that no low-income "legal" woman misses out on this chance of a lifetime, Patrick's bill forces doctors who provide abortion care, under penalty of law, to make the state's pitch in person to every potential producer of an adoptable baby.

Sec. 50.005. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED; APPLICATION FORM.

(a) Notification of the program under this chapter is required as part of the informed consent requirements under Chapter 171.

(b) An abortion provider shall distribute a copy of the funds application form to each woman who comes to the provider seeking an abortion.

All potential baby suppliers should be advised that Sen. Patrick's offer is good for a limited time only. In order to qualify for payment, a woman would have to sign over her newborn within 30 days after giving birth, because there's just not much demand for older children. Heck, the orphanages are full of them already.

Sec. 50.003 APPLICATION. A woman requesting funds under this chapter must apply for the funds on the form developed by the department not later than the 30th day after the date the child is born.

Sec. 50.004 PAYMENT OF FUNDS.

(a) The department shall process each application for funds under this chapter to determine whether the woman is eligible. If the woman is eligible for funds, the department shall make the payment to the woman not later than the 60th day after the date the woman's parental rights are terminated.

What's that you say? Selling and buying babies is against the law? Why yes, according to the Texas Penal Code, I believe it is.

Sec. 25.08. Sale or Purchase of Child.

(a) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) possesses a child younger than 18 years of age or has the custody, conservatorship, or guardianship of a child younger than 18 years of age, whether or not he has actual possession of the child, and he offers to accept, agrees to accept, or accepts a thing of value for the delivery of the child to another or for the possession of the child by another for purposes of adoption; or

(2) offers to give, agrees to give, or gives a thing of value to another for acquiring or maintaining the possession of a child for the purpose of adoption.

But not to worry, because Dan the Man's got that one covered.

Section 25.08, Penal Code, does not apply to the grant or acceptance of money under this section.

When is selling and buying babies not selling and buying babies?

All together now: "It's OK if you're a Republican!" And it's even more than OK when you're also a water boy for the religious right.

[An earlier version of this post appeared at Texas Kaos]


http://culturekitchen.com/moiv/blog/the_texas_baby_purchasing_act_of_2007
Mouse over the text to select it, then press Ctrl-C to copy it.
Your rating: None
moiv's picture



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
blog comments powered by Disqus ">
moiv's picture

Patrick does support

reproductive freedom for men, though. We know this because he had his own vasectomy performed on the air, during a live broadcast of his radio show.

When it comes to "colorful" politicians, Texas takes a back seat to nobody. But coral snakes are colorful, too.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
Lorraine's picture

for fuck's sake

This is beyond surreal. I had to check the date to make sure that it wasn't April 1, and this wasn't a spoof in the Onion. I feel ill. It's not just the whole idea of selling babies, which is reprehensible and icky and all of those things. It's that for all of their "pro-life" policies, human life is valued so cheaply. $500? Are you fucking kidding me? Because of course, you don't want to make it financially lucrative to have a baby--I mean, what's it worth? The 9 months of pregnancy, labor and delivery, the potential health risks. It's worth $500? It's really slavery. Of course it's slavery. Why am I surprised? These people have so little respect for women's lives that they are willing to virtually enslave women to make sure that there are little babies available for adoption. What next? The re-establishment of the lebensborn program?


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
emsky's picture

selling a baby to people who cant have kids

LORRAIN, IM PREGNANT AT THE MOMENT AND IVE ALREADY HAD AN ABORTION THROUGH DIFFICULTIES AND HAVE TWO BEAUTIFUL BABIES. THING IS IM PREGNANT AGAIN AND DONT THINK I CAN COPE AS IM A SINGLE MOTHER DID YOU HAVE ANY SITES WHERE I CAN FIND A COUPLE WHO NEEDS A BABY, BUT IM AFRAID I WANT TO BE A SURRAGATE, IM FROM ENGLAND AND THAT MEANS BASICALLY I WANT TO SELL HIM OR HER TO A DECENT FAMILY. IVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE AND DONT EVEN KNOW YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HELP ME. EMSKY


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
 balconesfault's picture

An Honest Capitalist Approach

Personally, I've been getting sick of self-proclaimed free market capitalists ... who cry "property rights" every time the EPA tries to stop someone from dumping toxic waste on their wetlands or exterminating an endangered species ... being willing to use force of law to commandeer a woman's body for 9 months.

In essence, this is a far more honest approach. Sure, it represents regarding human beings as a commodity - but so does pure lassiez faire capitalism. As offensive as this is, it does have the virtue of ideological consistency.


blog comments powered by Disqus ">
Laine's picture

I don't understand how

I don't understand how people could compare this to buying and selling babies. I personally think that a babies life is worth more than this. I also think that everyone should realize that the adoptive parents wouldn't be the ones paying for that life. For the people out there that value lives and want to save babies, this shouldn't sound so bad. Think of the lives that these babies could have with loving adoptive famies. That's the point of this. Right now couples are waiting on lists for years to adopt and babies are dying everyday. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. If $500 will keep even one baby alive, it's worth it. How could you disagree? Especially when you consider all of the irresponsible women who are waithng in those offices right now to abort their babies. Those babies are our futures, not our mistakes.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Links to specified hosts will have a rel="nofollow" added to them.

  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see <a href="/interwiki/4">interwiki</a>.
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • E-Mail addresses are hidden with reCAPTCHA Mailhide.

More information about formatting options

Captcha
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.

User login

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events available

QUOTES

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Poll