Radio IST List: Graham Williams
Austinist's Will Mills Gets Dunked For Charity [Video]
Bibles and Rhymes: An Interview with Why?'s Yoni Wolf
For those of you with the good sense to stay away from political news of late, you may want to actually pay attention to this one.
As you are no doubt aware, somewhat-interested citizen, the Texas Legislature convenes every two years. During this six-month gallivant through the time-honored traditions of glad-handing, grand-standing, good-timing, soap-boxing and general ballyhoo, various bills are brought up for debate and possible passage. Thousands of bills are filed every session, but only some of them actually make it to the House and Senate floors to be taken seriously. The rest are discarded.
Many of these unsuccessful bills are good bills that just need a little more work. Or perhaps the timing just wasn’t right. “Maybe next time,” the Legislature says to the fledgling bill with an encouraging pat on the buttocks. “Come back in two years, when you’re more mature and ready to become a law. Until then, keep practicing!”
However, not all these unsuccessful bills have merit. Some are just weird. Every session, you get a few bills that represent the product of a maladjusted and profoundly bizarre mind. For example, last Session, Rep. Al Edwards (Houston) filed House Bill 1476, a bill that sought to ban sexually-suggestive cheerleading at Texas middle and high school athletic games and events. The bill did not help his career: Al Edwards was last seen panhandling on the streets in his hometown of Houston, screaming about "the system" and warning passersby about the End Times. Some say he became cynical. Witnesses say he definitely did not look sexy.
In a perfect world, of course, the authors of these ridiculous bills would be publicly shamed on the Capitol steps while the angered masses hurled rotten cabbages and potatoes at them for wasting the Legislature's precious time and money, but this is not the 16th century and we have no king on the throne who would permit such things. So, this being a democracy, we resort to public mockery in the blogosphere.
Ladies and gentlemen, loyal readers, Austinist presents you with this year’s most embarrassing and backwards piece of Texas legislation: Senate Bill 1567 by Senator Dan Patrick of Houston.
(Applause)
S.B. 1567, by Sen. Dan Patrick (Houston)
S.B. 1567 is a bill that seeks to encourage birth mothers to put their babies up for adoption rather than choosing abortion. This policy has been attempted before. Yet the difference here is that the author obviously slept through most of his economics class in college, showing a seriously underdeveloped comprehension of incentives. This bill, if made law (which is about as probable as the Sun suddenly turning into a big hunk of Muenster cheese and falling to Earth), would create the State-sponsored “Adoption Incentive Program,” under which a pregnant mother (who is an American citizen and a resident of Texas) would be offered $500 to put her child up for adoption rather than aborting that child. Yep, you read that right: Five-hundred dollars.
Now, first things first here: A baby is worth way more than $500. Why, just the other day we read that used organs go for much more, and we're talking a whole human here, with a full set of organs in most cases. A used liver alone goes for something like three grand in Pakistan. So, right off the bat, it seems like $500 is a bit low. Seriously, come on, if you really want to create an effective adoption incentive, at least make your price competitive. Hell, maybe the State of Texas could start an online auction site where potential buyers could watch births live and bid in real-time. Sure, Mother-To-Be would be enduring the agonizing pain of child-birth, but, by the time it's all over, she's got some serious offers to consider. That way, everyone wins. Walk in the hospital pregnant -- a few days later, walk out real paid. In fact, the mother may even want to get pregnant again so she can get an even better price next time, now that she's learned the subtle art of shrewd bargaining. It's capitalism, pure and simple. After all, the market for newborns could be the next "sleeping giant" industry! How will we know for sure if we don't try?
Second, are we sure we want to apply one price to all babies, across the board? We're just thinking out loud here, but, realistically, are all babies worth the same amount? Won't some babies grow up to be unemployed drunks who spend too much time at the dog-track, while others grow up to be outstanding citizens -- you know, real go-getters? And what about size? If the baby is bigger than others, shouldn't it cost more? Are we sure we want a flat rate, or should we consider pricing by the pound?
These are no doubt difficult questions that needed to be raised, and, thanks to Sen. Dan Patrick, public debate will soon commence. The bill is up for discussion and debate in the Senate Committee on Health & Human Services on April 2nd, and you’ll be able to watch the hearing with RealPlayer here.
Care to comment, Austin?
Photos courtesy of Sen. Patrick's website and Wikipedia.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
hey, heads up on a typo: "offered $500 to put her child up for abortion rather than aborting that child."
Right?
Can we just go with the typo and pay people to have abortions? I'd rather.
This plan may work against them. $500 may not be a lot for a baby, but at the going sperm donation rates it may be in a dude's best interest to just "forget" the condom and split it fifty/ fifty...
MMM mmm mm. Baby factory. Yummy. Let's make more. Delicious.
Someone needs to tell Dan Patrick that his "one price for all babies, all babies are equal" policy reeks of COMMUNISM. That might be the quickest way to kill this bill.
How much for a healthy white baby? Will it help with the 5 year waiting list? I don't want to have to settle for 2 koreans and a nigra born with his heart on the outside that I can get right now.
It's a crazy world. Someone should sell tickets. I'd buy one.
Big Baby Jesus
has anyone read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal?"
The biggest problem is that it will just raise pregnancy rates. People are going to see "look, I can make $500 by getting knocked up", and more babies will be dumped in orphanages. If you make the price higher, it will just give more people an incentive to do that. And someone that has a baby that they DON'T WANT will more often than not just have the abortion.
like you said, dumb.
*****By the way, I'd like to add an update to this story:
This morning, Sen. Patrick refused to stand on the Senate floor because an Imam from Dallas was giving the daily blessing. He then gave an astoundingly idiotic and pompous speech.
Here's the story from Paul Burka's blog:
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Patrick's Personal Privilege
posted by Patricia Kilday Hart
As I reported in an earlier post, Sen. Dan Patrick this morning boycotted a prayer delivered by a Dallas Imam after spending the morning warning other senators that the Imam espoused dangerous views. At the end of today's session, invoking his right as a senator to deliver a personal privilege speech, Patrick illuminated his views on the Imam's prayer. Bottom line: he's in favor of freedom of religion.
"We had an extraordinary moment today. It made me proud. It made me realize that we are not fighting (in Iraq) for Christians and Jews, but for every American," Patrick said.
However, he lamented that while Muslims are allowed to pray in public in the United States, our system "doesn't allow a Christian to take a Bible to school."
(Did I miss something? Has some superintendent been searching backpacks and confiscating the King James version? Sheesh, I gotta agree with Patrick here...You'd think we'd be happy the kids were reading something better-written than text messages from their peers.)
"I'm proud of my faith as a Christian. I'm proud of being an American," Patrick concluded. "Thank God for America."
After Patrick's speech, Sen. Steve Ogden, who was in the chair, recognized Sen. John Whitmire for a "highly privileged motion" -- the signal for Whitmire to request adjournment.
"How about sine die?" Whitmire wisecracked.
"That's too much privilege," Ogden responded.
Did the kum-by-ya sentiment of Patrick's remarks mollify his fellow senators, who had been peeved by his private protestations against the Imam? I got my answer as members filed off the floor, and one veteran muttered angrily, "!@&* showboater!!"
Patrick then clarified for reporters why he was not present for the prayer. "It is important that we are tolerant as a people, but that doesn't mean we have to endorse all faiths and that was my decision," Patrick said. "I didn't want my attendence on the floor seen as an endorsement.
He did acknowledge that he showed members a 2005 Dallas Morning News column criticizing the Imam for permitting the distribution of extremist literature at his mosque, though the News noted at the time that the Imam disavowed the views expressed. "I just wanted to be sure everyone was aware," Patrick said.
Other senators confirmed that Patrick had planned to vocally protest the Imam's presence, but was counseled against it by colleagues.
After hearing Patrick's post-session explanation, reporters cornered Sen. Florence Shapiro, who had invited the Imam, a constituent, to the Senate. Did Patrick's remarks about tolerance on the floor correspond to the sentiments expressed before Wednesday's session to other senators? "No," she said.
As she turned to walk away, Shapiro, who is Jewish, smiled and said, "Happy Easter, everybody!"
Give a guy his own talk show, and pretty soon he thinks he's "on the air" all the time. Sheesh.