You can't blame him for trying to preserve a culture of life.  It may not be the ideal plan, but it's better than offering $500 to every woman who has an abortion.  Does anybody else have a better idea on how to keep more babies alive and/or thriving?  

Maybe instead of jumping all over this guy, we should consider his proposal the beginning of a potentially constructive brain-storming session.   Personally, I think we should give more money to any prospective parent when a woman is about to bring a new life into the world, regardless of whether or not an abortion was once considered. 

They're doing that up in Canada.  I believe it will promote a culture of life and I believe it will allow more babies to be brought into more environments that are not quite as  financially disadvantaged. 

I agrre with you Bruce. There ought to be some brain-storming done on this issue since it's clear Dan Patrick hasn't applied any. And with six billion people on the planet now and only nine billion predicted by 2050, we should be doing everything possible to encourage and promote more of these rare, blessed miracles. By 2050, issues of pollution, hunger and the declining resources of the planet will all be solved, so let's try and beat that nine billion number. We must show China, India, Indonesia and Mexico that the United States will no longer take a backseat in the baby race. 

So let's go America, reproduce like there's no tomorrow!  

I've said it before and I'll say it again, robbwillis: I'm sure glad you weren't aborted!

 What would we do without your miraculous wit? 

" How ignorantly stupid can you get?"

You ain't seen nothin' yet, Mattloch!  :  ) 

While I'm clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, I do recall that I was calling for plans other than the 500 dollar bonus plan.  I just thought it might be good to make some lemonade out of the lemon we seem to have been handed. 

xiomberg states  "The 'only for U.S. citizens' provision smacks of the nativist 'white women aren't having enough babies' mindset."

GET REAL, there are a lot of women in Texas who are citizens of the United States of America that are not white, I dare say that white women are the minority. The women getting the abortions are mostly non-white, but citizens. That statement is what is wrong with America today. The provision is PROBABLY (because I don't know this for a fact) to stop women from crossing into America to recieve the $500 and staying here illegally, because it is a mistaken belief that if you have a baby in America they cannot kick you out. A more pressing question would be, when do they get the money, before the birth, after the birth or AFTER the adoption of the child?

No matter how it is done it is not a good piece of legislation, you are going to create a "black market" type system of baby selling.

And we also need to ask ourselves, how much crank does  $500 buy?

"...it is a mistaken belief that if you have a baby in America they cannot kick you out."

Really? When did that ammendment to the Constitution happen? I missed it. They're seperating the new United States citizen from its mother now? 

Bruce,

Pretty wishful thinking that "quantity and quality of life" can be accomplished simultaneously through designing and implementing some policies to solve the out-of-control over-population of the planet. You might as well assume a perpetual motion device invention is just around the corner to solve our alternative energy needs. I know you don't have an easy answer because there isn't one. Yet something "real" will have to be done or admit we're doomed. It's already looking like it's way too late for most of the world. 

"...it is a mistaken belief that if you have a baby in America they cannot kick you out.

Really? When did that ammendment to the Constitution happen? I missed it. They're seperating the new United States citizen from its mother now? 

Notice the word CANNOT, you may not be deported, but NO where in the constitution does it give you the right to stay here, as evidenced by the deportation of ILLEGAL workers in the raids that are going on all over the country.  Make no mistake about it, if you are not here legally, no matter if you have children or not, you CAN be deported.

senator from texas should have been aborted,,,,if the woman wants a abortion then give to her but abortion  should not be

used as birth control........

Pretty wishful thinking that "quantity and quality of life" can be accomplished simultaneously through designing and implementing some policies to solve the out-of-control over-population of the planet. - Robb

Agreed. 

Also, having done a bit more thinking on this matter, and having reviewed the bill in greater detail, I'm struck by how close to government sanctioned surrogacy it actually is.  I'm not sure if that's something the government should stick it's hands into.

1.  What if the surrogate mother, who has been paid $500, backs out at birth?  Does she get to keep the $500 for not aborting?  In most states, the adoptive parents pay the medical bills for the surrogate, but if the surrogate renegs, she has to pay back the health care costs.  So...for $500 in the short term, some of these girls will end up with 18 years of financial burden, PLUS paying back the adoptive couple who are now out a child.

2.  What if the mother miscarries?  Does she have to give the $500 back?  And, to elaborate, what's to stop a girl from getting the form and the five hundred dollars from one provider and then going to another provider (out of state, say) and having an abortion? She can always come back to Texas and declare that she's had a sponaneous abortion (miscarriage).

This just has disaster written all over it.   

I can understand disagreeing with the senator, possumama, but can you believe how far msjenny is willing to take this?

That's a pretty mean-spirited thing to say about the senator, msjenny.  I suppose you believe everyone that proposes a policy you dub dubious should be put to death.