I'm waiting for the R's to call for a sin tax on abortions.

Given all the sin tax justifications on the left (they reduce smoking/drinking) and the evolving liberal front line position that "abortions should be rare", a tax on abortions is the easiest way to reduce them and maintain access.

Besides, if a guy is willing to pay $400 to avoid paying child support for the rest of his life, why not $500?

There's a tax the Republicans will support.

Get Ginny Burdick to sponsor it.

I ponder why, Jeff, did not post information on the counter bill from the Senate Democrats. This has been named as the "Kerry Repp Bill". Therefore, we can truly debate the issue of assault and murder of pregnant women. We should criticize bills that are similar in purpose that have dire differences in the outcome and debate this. Instead of us bashing every bill that has a Republican sponsoring a bill that goes in front of committee. We need to find the "good bills" from the Republicans and make them better. For these bad bills, we need to crush them as quickly as possible.

Let us look at bills that have tax credits:

There is a respectable bill(HB 2380) from Rep. Donna Nelson(R-HD 24) that would give a tax credit for companies that hire individuals that have been convicted or have been released. It is good policy especially with unemployment levels higher than average in this category of workers, this could be a good bill; but since we are in a stressed fiscal climate this is maybe not the best time for it.

Another bill(HB 2378) from Rep Nelson, on extending working family child care tax credit to grandparents and guardians of qualifying child. Good policy, but maybe not the best time for this.

Another bill(HB 2161) ordered from the Speaker by the request of the Governor, it would abolish Oregon Capital Corporation. This one has very complex language.

Or lets look at Rep. Mark Hass’(D-HD27) bill(SB382) that has been co-sponsored by Sen. Schrader(D-SD20), Sen. Westlund(R-SD27) and Rep. Jensen(R-HD58). It sounds good, but the last thing is a sales tax. Let debate this bill.

Reduces personal income tax rates, including rates imposed on capital gains. Increases state earned income tax credit and makes earned income tax credit refundable. Increases threshold level of estates of decedents that are not subject to Oregon inheritance tax. Establishes principal residence property tax exemption for homesteads of seniors or persons with household income below threshold level. Increases elderly rental assistance program. Enacts uniform sales and use tax administration provisions. Directs Department of Revenue to enter into Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Imposes sales tax on sales of tangible personal property or services. Imposes use tax on use of tangible personal property purchased out-of-state. Sales and use tax provisions become operative on January 1, 2006, and apply to transactions occurring on or after January 1, 2006, but do not become operative if Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement is not executed prior to January 1, 2006.

Like Pam said. At this point, a majority of the states have passed legislation making offenses that result in the death of viable fetuses during the commission of a crime against a pregnant woman a crime. The high profile case in California resulted in tidal wave of support. Minnis is trying to follow suit. However, there is a criticism to be made: Her bill is badly drafted. To avoid having it held unconstitutional if it passes, she needed to say the law would only apply to viable fetuses. She cannot overturn state law and Roe v. Wade with a state statute. Elementary, Karen.

I don't know whether Minnis is being a hayseed or being savvy. Maybe she intends to have a law passed that will be thrown out right away as a sop to the anti-abortion movement. That way she can say she did something for'em. Something meaningless, like the plans to 'help' homosexuals some liberal nitwits are falling for.

Aaron, you are supposed be on the GOP thread proving that no Democratic politician has even been convicted of a crime, or done time, in Oregon. I interpret your absence to mean that even you realize you can't back up that idiotic remark.

Doretta/Notorious,

Of course increased cost will result in reduced access.

I know that sarcasm is harder to identify in written words than speech, but please, give me SOME credit. (And recognize that my tongue is still stuck firmly in my cheek as you read the rest of this post).

If we take a cue from the anti-smoking lobby and treat unwanted pregnancies like unwanted new smokers you propose the following:

Tax all abortions and use the "tax" revenue to pay for propaganda telling potential aborters that having abortions are the result of "bad life choices", offer advice on how to avoid them by using birth control or abstaining. Re-inforce the message with advertisments featuring kids telling other kids that "Abortion isn't cool".

Then make sure every clinic charges the tax and threaten to collect that tax from citizens who go out of state for cheaper abortions.

OK. End of parody.

Maybe it is time for a real public debate on abortion.

Doesn't anyone believe that common folks can understand why you can distinguish between an entity with the capacity for conscious thought versus an entity with the brain activity of a garden snail?

I realize that having politicians publicly discuss fetal development is about as dangerous a topic as reforming Social Security, but the D's are losing ground in this debate by inches. The "abortions should be rare" line is a disengenuous way of postponing that debate (similar tactic in play for SS, BTW) by saying things might be different at a later date.

Unless you start norplanting everyone on public assistance, unwanted pregnancies will not suddenly become rare. Maybe it's time to come to grips and really defend the practice of abortion (or mandate birth control in exchange for accepting public assistance). The religious conservatives will continue to erode public support of abortion rights with their "culture of valuing every life" campaign so long as this topic remains "too sensitive to discuss."

Colin:

Who said anything about using "force"?

Or "sterilizations" for that matter?

I mentioned requiring a form of temporary birth control in exchange for the rest of society picking up your tab.

The right to reproduce freely shouldn't be completely insulated from the consequences of exercising that right.

There is no right to "welfare" in the constitution. We make recepients jump through all sorts of qualifying hoops (drug testing is next, mark my words), why not ask them to stop creating new burdens on society until they've stopped being one themselves?

This does not have to be justified by eugenic theory (i.e., that it will result in better offspring). It can be justified as fair treatment to the taxpayers who are not only required pay for the helpless, but also their offspring.

If it results in a generation of people who are better equipped to meet the demands of life, so much the better, but that shouldn't be the goal.

Colin,

I happen to agree with Pancho on the idea that those on public subsidy should sometimes have to deal with some restrictions on their freedoms. As a society we have historically tried to deal with the social problems of homelessness and welfare but have failed somewhat miserably precisely because we have never tried to modify behavior by restricting it. It may not be pretty - but it might be something to look at.

So Colin, it's "force" when taxpayers put conditions on the use their money by others?

If that's so troubling, you must really be losing sleep over all the unwilling taxpayers who were actually "forced" ("pay up or you may go to jail") to make the welfare program solvent.

I often hear these forced charitable contributions (aka , redistributing wealth through taxes) as being justified under "social contract" theory. If that is so, shouldn't the contract require consideration on both sides?

It's not really a contract if one party is forced to provide a service and the other party maintains no obligation for receiving it.

I am not sure, constitutionally speaking, the government could require the use of Norplant etc. But, even if it could it’s a dangerous path to have the government making decisions on procreation.

And, I don’t think you need to require women to put be on birth control – how about just giving free family planning services to women on public assistance? (Or in my book all women). Check out the decline in birth rates, 1/3 in a six-year period, Washington state experienced with women on public assistance when the women received free family planning.

WA Birth Rates when Family Planning Provided

But Auggie...

The government is not making decisions on procreation under this proposal. The decision is made by the individual who solicits the government for money. If the money comes with a few strings they don't like, they have the option of not seeking it.

There is a lot of responsibility shifting at work with you and Colin. It's like you aren't giving the people on public assistance credit for having any personal volition.

And if you don't give them credit for having any personal volition, then I imagine you'd find some merit in a eugenics-based argument.

Bingo, Auggie. The ole 'let's put barriers up between the rights the rest of us have and despised minority groups' outlook was supposed to have gone out of style in the 1960s. Equal protection and all that. Perhaps Pancho, Pat Ryan and Jim pray for poll taxes and segregation every night before they go to bed, too.

The ignorance does not stop there. In many states, public assistance will not pay for abortions. Furthermore, the average poor woman has the same number of children as the average middle-class woman -- two. The stereotype of welfare mother will ten kids is just that. Last, but not at all least, most people spend less than five consecutive years receiving public assistance. In most cases, the children already exist when the parents apply. Unless Pancho and Co. are going to suggest killing the kids, their proposal of 'special' treatment of parents on welfare would not achieve their stated goal.

I knew it! The third member of the unenlightened triumvirate is Jim. I last encountered him on a thread arguing that superfluous legislation should be passed becauses some homosexuals want it. Now, here he is kicking poor women who temporarily receive public assistance. Apparently gay men are entitled to equal protection, but women aren't. Just the kind of hypocrisy I expected.

Pancho – How is providing education & tools for making effective choices family planning shifting responsibility? Actually, what I am advocating for is taking personal responsibility for your own choices, allowing people to act on their own volition – by providing education and the tools for family planning – people (or women specifically as in this case) will for the most part make effective choices. And, quite frankly the research shows that to be the case.

Pancho - Please explain to me how requiring birth control in exchange for public assistance honors personal volition more than providing the tools to make effective choices?

Practically speaking Norplant isn’t perfect it has a failure rate of 1 to 5% in actual use – thus would result in a pregnancy rate of 10 to 50 per thousand. If you look at the stats I have provided from WA, a pregnancy rate of just over 40 per thousand is achieved when family planning education & tools are provided for free.

Mac -

The email address of Jim on this thread is differentt than the Jim on the other thread ...

But, if you want to get back on the topic of the anti-discrimination legislation ... I am game, but I would prefer to keep the discussion to that thread.

Auggie,

You wrote "it's a dangerous path having the government make decisions on procreation."

I simply pointed out that the only decision regarding procreation under my hypothetical proposal is made by the individual who volitionally chooses to accept public assistance.

To credit the procreation decision with the government is similar to Colin's assertion that withholding financial assistance is a form of government "force".

Both of you are treating welfare recipients as creatures who are unable to make intelligent decisions for themselves.

<h6></h6>

Mac,

So adding requirements to receiving public assistance is the same thing as a poll tax in your book?

Following this logic, if we chose (democratically) to end government welfare altogether you would equate it with stripping people of the right to vote?

Wow! Talk about an entitlement theory mentality!

I understood most progressives to justify the forced redistribution of wealth through a social contract model where a democratic majority chooses to create "social justice".

It's a flimsy rationale, but at least it makes some sense if you adopt certain premises.

But apparently, you view no-strings-attached welfare as some sort of fundamental right of citizenship.

Amazing.

Pancho -

Not to seem dense, but how does providing family planning education & free access to family planning tools (birth control) equate to believing that welfare recipients are not able to make decisions for themselves?

Auggie.

It doesn't.

I never said it did.

If you want to start playing the context swapping game, I'm not interested.

People can read the posts and judge for themselves what you wrote and how I responded.

Pancho, I believe in a safety net that prevents people from becoming destitute in the richest country in the world. I also believe that most of the time poverty is not the fault of those who suffer from it. Mechanisms built into society keep the poor poor. (And, help the rich get richer and richer.) Your somewhat veiled allusions to the minority poor as having earned their poverty by being inferior is an example of the faulty reasoning I refer to. The poor are disproportionately minority because U.S. invested a great deal of time and money into creating that inequality, not because of inherent inferiority.

Auggie, thanks for the tip. I should have checked a common name like 'Jim' before posting that remark. Mea culpa.

BTW, I still want to learn more about Minnis' personality. Did she introduce the bill as a sop, or is she actually not knowledgeable enough about the law to know the bill is a dud?

Pancho - I am not trying to "content swap" whatever that may be. I am genuinely trying to understand what in my posting has given you the impression that I am advocating anything which is "treating welfare recipients as creatures who are unable to make intelligent decisions for themselves." ?

Mac,

I never suggested that anyone "earned their poverty" - much less that the "minority poor" have.

Like always, you were the first one bring out the race card.

But while you butcher my thoughts to fit your arguments, maybe I should point out the sheer ridiculuosness of the concept "earning [one's] poverty."

One doesn't earn poverty. "Poverty" simply is.

It is a condition resulting from the lack of earning wealth in relative comparison to others.

One can become impoverished without doing anything at all (in fact, doing very little is one of the most common ways of becoming or remaining impoverished).

Uh huh, Pancho. You make references to eugenics and imply the poor lack ability, but, since you haven't screamed RACE, you will pretend not to mean what you obviously mean when called on it. The same with your last comment, not doing anything and being lazy are pretty much synonymous, but feel free to deny that is what you meant.

And, it is not just me you're playing semantic games with. Your discussion with Auggie relies on the same type of evasions. I gather the games amuse you. But, they don't seem to be amusing others.

Auggie,

What did you mean when you wrote:

"it's a dangerous path having the government making decisions on procreation" if the government conditions receiving welfare on using birth control?

Normally, "procreation decisions" are made by individuals (absent rape, individuals make the decisions that could lead to procreation).

Your post attributes "procreation decisions" as being made by "government" under my hypothetical proposal. Like Colin earlier, your post suggests that welfare recipients won't be able to make procreative decisions without no-strings-attached government welfare.

Afterward, you shifted the CONTEXT of my criticism to suggest that I thought providing birth control information to the poor was acknowledging that they lacked volition.

Read the whole thread again if it helps.

Please Mac,

Enough with the continual racebaiting.

It doesn't inspire respect or fear anymore, just pity.

I think Auggie produced a middle ground that makes sense.

Why not make as a condition of receipt of any AFDC support the completion of a basic family planning course... it's another hoop but it's nowhere limiting or controlling people's reproductive rights. It would apply to anyone, including the childless and the post-reproductive population.

If the results from WA are accurate -- then this idea could meet the concerns of those who think extra dependents on the public should be discouraged with the added benefits of reducing abortions.

Ds could offer something like this as a minority report to Minnis' bill.... now THAT'S a floor debate I'd enjoy watching....

Why single out the poor for any new regulations at all? It seems to me that many middle-class people, regardless of what political label they apply to themselves, are much too obsessed with meddling in poor people's business. For example, autistic children are born disproportionately to the middle and upper classes and cost government a lot of money. But, you will never see a proposal to 'fix' their parents. That would not be picking on the poor, which people feel entitled to do.

By no means am I suggesting that people living in poverty aren't able to, or don't have the responsibility to make decisions for themselves. Poverty is complicated, especially when we're talking about generational poverty.

There's a great book called "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby K Payne that addresses the "rules" of poverty, the middle class, and the wealthy. For example, generally, it's an entrenched value of the middle class to save money for emergencies. This makes sense to me, and probably a lot of readers on this board since (according to the reader survey) most of the readers of Blue Oregon are pretty well off.

"(Detail: 4% are under $10k, 9% are $10-20k, 6% are $20-30k, 15% are $30-45k, 12% are $45-60k, 24% are $60-90k, 11% are $90-120k, 9% are $120-150k, 4% are $150-200k, 5% are over 200k)" I make about 14k a year, if anyone was interested.

However, according to the book, those from poverty view money as something to be used and shared if someone else needs it. This helps people in the community survive, but doesn't help individuals get "ahead." Payne uses the example of a woman who lives in poverty who comes into several hundred dollars. I would save it, as I'm likely to do with my tax refund. However, in her situation, someone needed some money to get their electricity turned back on, someone else needed some for another reason, and boom, the money was gone. So much for saving. This is done, partially, because the expectation is that money that there or "extra" is spread around. It's the theory of generalized reciprocity where she knows that if she needs some money, someone will come through for her.

This difference in perspective can also lead to people having children that they may not be able to support on their own, because this will help draw support from the people around them. If people had the expectation that they would be "okay" and didn't need to do something to draw support in, they might not have those children. So, that partially explains the Washington birth rate numbers. (Possibly) People who are not financially independent are also more vulnerable to coercion by a partner who may want them to have their child. Having that baby may mean that they keep their breadwinner partner. Until we break down the barriers of racism and sexism that exist in this country, until women receive equal pay, and we do some serious re-evaluating on how we address poverty, I'm guessing this is likely to continue.

So it's not that decisions aren't being consciously made, decisions are being made that best fit the situation from a particular perspective. Denying assistance to those who refuse to go on birth control is the wrong way to approach it and may have the result in the creation of more children who don't have adequate financial support. (I alluded to this in my last post, the numbers from WA help support that idea, I think.)

While it does seem like some are race baiting, I'd like to throw it out that these analyses of poverty transcend race.

Mac,

Nobody has yet asserted that we have to "fix the poor". That is the same eugenics strawman argument that was dismissed much earlier.

The question is whether the productive taxpaying members of society have the right to ask that certain conditions be placed on the receipt of government welfare.

If voters have the right (under social contract theory) to create or abolish the welfare system, then they should be able to set qualifications for recipients.

If you agree that voters have the right to set up such qualifications, then the next question is whether they should.

I think they should. It could reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions (both laudable progressive goals). It should also reduce the burden on taxpayers who have enough trouble providing for their OWN children.

Maybe we need to wait for a few more years of medical advances in birth control (for both sexes) before such a program would be considered safe and effective, but it's worth discussing.

If you are insulted by the discussion then don't take part. A great many taxpayers are insulted by the idea that they should be required to pay for other people's children at all.

Colin,

That was a very thoughtful post.

Of course, if it turned out that such a program actually increased the number of unwanted pregnancies or impoverished children on public assistance, it would be very difficult to justify.

I don't think that would occur though, rather, I think it would be quite the reverse. Maybe a couple of pilot programs would give us a clearer picture.

As far as living with the expectation of generalized reciprocity over personal savings, it seems that the birth control requirement would go further to help disabuse people of that unhealthy notion than the present system (which tends to foster it).

Colin, you're right about one thing. PanchoPDX is race-baiting.

However, I find your argument unconvincing. Most poverty is deep-seated. The family has been poor for generations. Their low wages, inability to pay for higher education and lack of property result in continuing poverty. Whether Cousin Jane lends part of her tax refund to Cousin Sally will make no difference in her continuing poverty. The reason she is poor is not that she loans or gives away the money she has. It is because she does not have much money or other assets in the first place.

I also don't understand how anyone in a country where the average middle-class person is embroiled in debt could be so clueless about the spending habits of that class. If the middle-class were the virtuous savers you describe, the national habit of indebtedness would not exist.

It also seems to me that reading one book about poverty hardly qualifies one as knowledgeable. All the more so when that one book apparently engages in a blame the victim perspective.

Colin,

We are all obviously racebaiting (perhaps negligently, in your case) if we don't accept Mac's doctrine:

1) The underclasses in America are being exploited by the "well off" with false promises that hard work will someday pay off,

2) Even those "well off" people who remain ignorant of this intentionally framed class structure are still culpable because they benefit from having permanently duped underclasses,

3) Any steps that penalize the "well off" for the benefit of the underclasses are justifiable,

4) Any message that could be intrepreted by the underclasses as a criticism of their life choices is heresy.

And maybe if Pope Paul V had made sure Galileo was executed for blasphemy (rather than just placing him under house arrest), we would all still realize that earth is the center of a fixed universe.

So says he who is without bias.

Torrid, constitutional laws about injury to fetuses during crimes recognize viablility (usually about six months) as determining whether a fetus can be considered a victim independently. Under Roe, a fetus has rights the state protects at the point of viablity. The problem with Minnis' bill is that it does not recognize that distinction. If a woman was found to be three weeks pregnant during an autopsy, under Minnis' bill the assailant would be subject to a second charge of homicide.

Or worse. Suppose the following:

An argument between two young women over a common boyfriend. Girlfriend A accuses Girlfriend B of "stealing her man" and approaches her cussing a blue streak. Girlfriend B responds by pushing Girlfriend A, who stumbles backward and falls to the ground.

Girlfriend A appears uninjured as the police arrive and take down witness statements. Normally Girlfriend B might be charged with a lower level assault for this, however (unknown to everyone) Girlfriend A was 3 weeks pregnant and subsequently loses the fetus. Doctors determine that it happened as a result of her spill.

Given these facts, Girlfriend B could be charged with manslaughter (which has a significant minimum stay under M11) and, likely Girlfriend A would want to press charges.

Or,

Imagine that Driver A is going 25 mph through an intersection and stubbornly refuses to yield the right of way to Driver B. A small collision occurs. Driver B was returning from a fertility clinic that had just confirmed successful invitro fertilization.

Driver B's airbag deploys, embryo is lost, yada-yada-yada.

End result Driver A could be on the hook for criminal homicide.

The biggest problems with Minnis' measure is that it does not distinguish between a newly conceived zygote and a tenth month fetus, nor does it does it take into account the problem that unknown fetuses can be lost in daily interactions without any criminal intent to harm others.

You might as well put a sign on every female over may could result in serious jail time.

Maybe this is a good opportunity to discuss fetal development and make the sponsors look silly. The vast majority of Oregonians can distinguish between the level of criminality associated with assaulting an obviously pregnant woman and a woman who shows no indication.

The latter assault may be criminal, but the former is aggravatingly so.

The D's should think about calling Minnis' bluff. The R's don't really want to pass this, it's just red meat bluster for their religious constituents.

Few R's will go on the record supporting any compromise language that implies human life begins at viability (the religious conservatives would probably consider it a moral sellout and target them in the primaries). It would only deepen the existing schism within the Rep Party.

Political "chicken" is a scary game, but if the D's play their cards right, I'll bet the R's blink first.

I am not positive that "viability" would necessarily be a constitutional stumbling block, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (which upheld yet modified Roe) kept its discussion of viability as a limit on the state’s ability to justify a ban on abortions. Mac do you have a cite which deals with specifically with crime and viability?

Pancho’s examples highlighting the “knowing” about the pregnancy is what concerns me more constitutionally. As Sen. Brown’s bill does make proof of “knowing” it seems to me to have a better chance of surviving judicial scrutiny.

Pancho,

I like your situation with the driver--because of it could be compounded with pain and suffering for the couple that has been trying to conceive a child and now not having lost that one with the lost of monies that it cost them. This could be a snowball made into an avalanche on the person charged with criminal homicide; the DA could spin sympathy from every direction.

Your other situation with the two girlfriends is good but not as tearjerker as the other. However, it would be a critical test.

Auggie, the short answer is that Kentucky's fetal homicide law is an example of a jurisdiction that makes viablility the determining factor. In Commonwealth v. Morris (2004), the state Supreme Court held that a viable fetus can be the subject of seperate charges if injured or killed. Download a PDF of the opinion here.

A longer answer is that I'm going to blog this, so we can consider the types of fetal homicide laws being passed. Minnis' is modeled on the more extreme laws. Most of the laws are too new to have been challenged yet. But, I think the extreme ones will fall easily because they do not exclude nonviable fetuses or exempt abortion.

First of all, some of you may not know this, but when Sen. Hatfield was in office he opposed abortion but also opposed "life begins at conception" laws. That was always in the form letter he sent to anyone who wrote him on the issue.

Secondly, about this quote: "The poor are disproportionately minority because U.S. invested a great deal of time and money into creating that inequality, not because of inherent inferiority." That may come as a surprise to people in Appalachia, and to people in small towns where the only employer downsized or sent jobs overseas. It may well be that the small town was overwhelmingly white--as many Oregon logging towns were when mills were closing.

And as far as this remark, "One can become impoverished without doing anything at all (in fact, doing very little is one of the most common ways of becoming or remaining impoverished). " it ignores all those in this state and country who got a "don't go to work tomorrow --you'll be getting something in the mail " phone call notifying them the job no longer exists. Or worse yet, the people who go into work today only to be told they are all being laid off, their office is being downsized, etc.

<h2>If those people don't find work before all their money runs out, they are "the poor" just as surely as someone born and raised in poverty.</h2>