Policy Options Conservatives are ready to support in a post Roe world (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Thanks. I do wonder about the demand too. I had no idea how many couples struggle to have children. It's obviously not something you talk openly about. But now having some people close to me who've dealt with it, it's way more common than I thought. Of course, adoption should not be "too" easy, but if it were easier and more streamlined than it is, I wonder if we wouldn't see a lot more demand. 

It's unbelievable.  You should take a spin through the "trouble getting pregnant" thread in the FFA.  My wife and I are part of the group who struggled.  We had our first naturally.  The second two were from IVF treatments.  When a couple goes through that, it opens their eyes to a world they didn't even know existed.  Then it makes you realize how complex reproduction in the human body really is and how many things have to go exactly right at the exactly right time etc.  

I think if things were streamlined, it would increase demand some, but I don't see how that happens unless our legislation changes significantly.  And even then, it would likely be a very slow and gradual increase as people watch the process break the legacy stereotypes.  Still need to work through the "cost" and lawsuit issues.  

 

[PhillipPhoto]

Why is your assumption that only a small number of women will be affected by this?  

The 13 states with trigger laws added together have less abortions per year than California alone.  

 But that's not all of them, and I am not sure what %s we are even talking about.  

Those 13 states completely outlawing abortions would be roughly 100K out of 600K abortions performed each year.  That represents less than 3% increase in birth rates nationwide.

 

[whoknew]

there is plenty of money State and Federal ... its just spent on other things

2   take all the gender equality/conditioning money and reallocate towards helping single mom's ? how about the billions sent to central American countries to fight illegals? boy that's worked well hasn't it? or the money being sent to Ukraine? give me 1 day and a pen and I'll find you 50 billion dollars to give single moms and revamp adoption

3   we have been teaching/telling kids for 50 years they have this mystical "right" to have an unborn killed in the womb and its been 50 years of lies. There was a ruling allowing it. Tell kids right now that ruling was wrong, biology is right, its a living unborn and we protect it in every other way and now, we're going to protect it this way too. DO NOT GET PREGNANT - preach it ... and in 10-20 years this next generation will echo that

2. Helping single moms how? What do you do with the re-routed money?

3. How would you tell kids to not get pregnant? Would you teach safe sex in schools?

 

[KarmaPolice]

The 13 states with trigger laws added together have less abortions per year than California alone.  

Those 13 states completely outlawing abortions would be roughly 100K out of 600K abortions performed each year.  That represents less than 3% increase in birth rates nationwide.

Gotcha.  Thanks- good perspective with the %s. 

 

[BladeRunner]

2. Helping single moms how? What do you do with the re-routed money?

3. How would you tell kids to not get pregnant? Would you teach safe sex in schools?

How do we handle the single mothers with children that illegally enter our country on our southern border?  I mean, Democrats in Congress and liberal States have no issue funneling money and taking care of them providing healthcare, education and welfare, but when it comes to actual unborn, US Citizens suddenly the burden is too much to bear and they must be aborted. 

How about we deport the illegals and use the money that WOULD have gone towards them and use it to take care of the US Citizen babies put up for adoption?  We take care of WAY more illegals than we do the unborn so this seems easy peasy.

Or, conversely, we make those parents take care of their own kids - mom AND dad both.

 

[The Commish]

Why is the assumption that the small number of woman affected by this at the state level will automatically require public assistance to survive and raise a child?

I think it's a mistake to assume it's a small number...especially in a state like Mississippi.  It's going to be a rather large number and you can research/explore current medicaid/welfare kinds of programs to see the exact demographics.  

As a matter of fact, if we can solve for the circumstances in Mississippi, the solution will likely work in ANY of the states because all other states have far less people on welfare/assistance and far less women in this situation than any other state per capita.  

 

[Stealthycat]

2. Helping single moms how? What do you do with the re-routed money?

3. How would you tell kids to not get pregnant? Would you teach safe sex in schools?

2. like this ... but more and better  https://www.google.com/search?q=social+programs+for+single+mothers&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS935US935&oq=social+programs+for+single+&aqs=chrome.0.0i457i512j69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390l2.4918j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

3. like this ... but point out abortion is killing an unborn - kids get really sad if a baby goat or baby duck is killed, they would cry knowing bald eagle eggs were broken ... they should have the same reaction when talking about unborn babies  

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx#:~:text=All states are somehow involved,sex education and HIV education.

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.

 

[whoknew]

2. like this ... but more and better  https://www.google.com/search?q=social+programs+for+single+mothers&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS935US935&oq=social+programs+for+single+&aqs=chrome.0.0i457i512j69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390l2.4918j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

3. like this ... but point out abortion is killing an unborn - kids get really sad if a baby goat or baby duck is killed, they would cry knowing bald eagle eggs were broken ... they should have the same reaction when talking about unborn babies  

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx#:~:text=All states are somehow involved,sex education and HIV education.

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.

Thanks. Except for the part about killing an unborn, I doubt many on the left would disagree with any of that.

 

[The Commish]

How do we handle the single mothers with children that illegally enter our country on our southern border?  I mean, Democrats in Congress and liberal States have no issue funneling money and taking care of them providing healthcare, education and welfare, but when it comes to actual unborn, US Citizens suddenly the burden is too much to bear and they must be aborted. 

How about we deport the illegals and use the money that WOULD have gone towards them and use it to take care of the babies put up for adoption?  We take care of WAY more illegals than we do the unborn so this seems easy peasy.

Or, conversely, we make those parents take care of their own kids - mom AND dad both.

I'm assuming this is rhetorical or you haven't thought this question through.  One of the two.  If it's the second, then it should be pointed out that it will take years to get everyone deported and those billions "saved" by deporting them will actually be used in deporting them.  You're spending the money on the "illegals" either way, so that's a wash.  All the while you are deporting them the quantity of unwanted babies is growing at a rate faster than the demand for the unwanted babies and the backlog is piling up.  As the backlog piles up, they have to be provided for so now all that money you were going to use after you took care of all the "illegals" now has to go to maintenance of the backlog.  It's a never ending cycle this way.  But yeah, "easy peasy".

 

[KarmaPolice]

2. like this ... but more and better  https://www.google.com/search?q=social+programs+for+single+mothers&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS935US935&oq=social+programs+for+single+&aqs=chrome.0.0i457i512j69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390l2.4918j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

3. like this ... but point out abortion is killing an unborn - kids get really sad if a baby goat or baby duck is killed, they would cry knowing bald eagle eggs were broken ... they should have the same reaction when talking about unborn babies  

https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx#:~:text=All states are somehow involved,sex education and HIV education.

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were one of the posters in the others threads pointing to single mothers and the rise of those numbers being the root cause of a lot of problems in the country.   If that's the case, I am surprised to see you in these threads pushing anything that would encourage there to be more single mothers (either by giving them more $ or by making them have kids).  

 

[Teumessian Fox]

It's incredibly expensive and time consuming to adopt in the US

We adopted 3 children in the US and it didn't cost us more than $500 for each. First one was 5 days old when we got him, second was 6 weeks when we got her. The other was a 13. None of them took more than 6 months from start to finish. 

Every state has a special needs adoption program. Mine gives you a ~$300 monthly stipend until they are out of school or 18, and covers their health insurance 100%. For us, special needs meant being a minority in one case, having a homeless and mentally ill birth mother in another, and being 13 in the last.

I get that everyone's situation is different, and people tend to want children that are young, healthy, low risk, and oftentimes look like them. But the idea that one can't adopt in this country without spending a lot of time and money is true only inasmuch as people restrict themselves to the ideal. There are so many kids right here in the US waiting for someone to take them in.

 

[BladeRunner]

I'm assuming this is rhetorical or you haven't thought this question through.  One of the two.  If it's the second, then it should be pointed out that it will take years to get everyone deported and those billions "saved" by deporting them will actually be used in deporting them.  You're spending the money on the "illegals" either way, so that's a wash.  All the while you are deporting them the quantity of unwanted babies is growing at a rate faster than the demand for the unwanted babies and the backlog is piling up.  As the backlog piles up, they have to be provided for so now all that money you were going to use after you took care of all the "illegals" now has to go to maintenance of the backlog.  It's a never ending cycle this way.  But yeah, "easy peasy".

not rhetorical. Let's say we just start from this point forward.  Seems like we get them at the border and we send them back that day or the next..  Money saved to be used towards USA BabiesTM instead.  Seems like a win-win.

They go back home and figure out how to get in here legally and wait in line like everyone else.  In the meantime, money that WOULD have went towards an illegal now goes for the baby the Democrats wanted to abort.

Of course, my position is that we should make the birth mother and father take care of them first.

 

[dkp993]

Or try a condom

Do they still teach kids in middle school how to use condoms? Supposedly, perfect use will result in 2 pregnancies per 100 women whose partners use a condom.

Fun fact, I am one of those 2 in a 100.  Fun fact #2, my mom tried for the rest of her life to get pregnant and couldn’t, including IVF multiple times.  

 

[Nugget]

Universal parental leave.

Raised minimum wage. 

Medicare for mothers and children.

Enahnaced mental health care.  

Enhanced WIC and SNAP.

Univeral pre-K. 

End prosectution and pursuit of miscarriages. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-prosecuted-miscarriage-highlights-racial-disparity-similar-cases-rcna4583

Childcare subsidies.  

Create and enforce safe zones around legal abortion providers. If its good enough for the Supreme Court its good enough for everybody. 

Regulation of the adoption industry. Biological mothers bill of rights.

Just off the top of my head. Didn't take me a couple of hours even.     

Free Prenatal care for all expectant mothers  

Free vaccinations and child checkups for all up to age 18. 
 

Enhanced child tax credits (see Mitt Romney plan)

 

[BladeRunner]

Free Prenatal care for all expectant mothers  

Free vaccinations and child checkups for all up to age 18. 
 

Enhanced child tax credits (see Mitt Romney plan)

You and @Jackstraw could've saved yourself a lot of time and just posted, "Just pass everything in the Democrat Party platform". 

It's what he's been wanting to post in this bad faith thread the entire time.

 

[Nugget]

You and @Jackstraw could've saved yourself a lot of time and just posted, "Just pass everything in the Democrat Party platform". 

It's what he's been wanting to post in this bad faith thread the entire time.

So out of my three proposals, which don’t you support?

 

[PhillipPhoto]

How do we handle the single mothers with children that illegally enter our country on our southern border?

Good point. We have 150K unaccompanied minors entering every year, with ZERO parents. That's a bigger number than abortions from trigger states by 50%.  Then factor in another 150K or so with one or more parents without a job.  

 

[Herb]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you were one of the posters in the others threads pointing to single mothers and the rise of those numbers being the root cause of a lot of problems in the country.   If that's the case, I am surprised to see you in these threads pushing anything that would encourage there to be more single mothers (either by giving them more $ or by making them have kids).  

You're surprised that he is being inconsistent in his views? Next you'll tell us you're surprised that he's ignoring posts and facts directed his way.

 

[BladeRunner]

So out of my three proposals, which don’t you support?

Pretty sure all 3 of those you mentioned we already do for single mothers in one form or the other, but why do we have to pay for it all in the first place?

Can the person responsible pay for SOMETHING at least?  You guys want to take care of them from cradle to the grave. 

Shouldn't they bear SOME responsibility?

 

[BladeRunner]

You're surprised that he is being inconsistent in his views? Next you'll tell us you're surprised that he's ignoring posts and facts directed his way.

in his defense, you guys actually have to cite facts in order for him to ignore them in the first place. 

 

[Nugget]

Pretty sure all 3 of those you mentioned we already do for single mothers, but why do we have to pay for it in the first place. 

Can the person responsible pay for SOMETHING at least?  You guys want to take care of them from cradle to the grave, FFS. 

I specifically gave three options that are done before 18.   You are asking to take away a choice from women by overturning Roe, and I am proposing policy changes that would soften the blow, lower taxes, and support families. I thought these were conservative ideals. 

 

[BladeRunner]

I specifically gave three options that are done before 18.   You are asking to take away a choice from women by overturning Roe, and I am proposing policy changes that would soften the blow, lower taxes, and support families. I thought these were conservative ideals. 

We literally PAY single mothers now to stay single. There are probably hundreds of programs between the Federal, State and City for them.

Is your position that we don't provide single mothers with assistance?

 

[BladeRunner]

I specifically gave three options that are done before 18.   You are asking to take away a choice from women by overturning Roe, and I am proposing policy changes that would soften the blow, lower taxes, and support families. I thought these were conservative ideals. 

Also, we aren't taking away a choice  - we're actually providing one for the unborn child. 

 

[Nugget]

We literally PAY single mothers now to stay single. There are probably hundreds of programs between the Federal, State and City for them.

Is your position that we don't provide single mothers with assistance?

Why are you limiting to only single mothers who you are assuming are poor?

Do you think they have time to navigate through all the potential programs. While pregnant, while working, while trying to raise other children potentially?  Also while being attacked for making poor decisions and being poor?

 

[Stoneworker]

Also, we aren't taking away a choice  - we're actually providing one for the unborn child. 

Great response. Saw right through the transparent attempt at guilt-tripping.

 

[BladeRunner]

Why are you limiting to only single mothers who you are assuming are poor?

Do you think they have time to navigate through all the potential programs. While pregnant, while working, while trying to raise other children potentially?  Also while being attacked for making poor decisions and being poor?

So now they can't do ANY work at all?  Wut?  We have to now do all the footwork too?

And yes, they have time because you MAKE time.  And if they can't, then they can ask mom and dad to help.  Or grandma and grandpa. Or their church.

Maybe they should have thought of that, y'know, before having sex?  Y'know, shame is a real motivator.  You're not afraid to shame dead beat dads, why you taking it easy on mom?

 

[Nugget]

Also, we aren't taking away a choice  - we're actually providing one for the unborn child. 

You can just say that you are not ready to support universal prenatal care, childrens health care, and enhanced child tax credits.  It is OK. 

 

[BladeRunner]

You can just say that you are not ready to support universal prenatal care, childrens health care, and enhanced child tax credits.  It is OK. 

We already do. 

And many more things on top of all that. 

I love this attitude of holding society responsible instead of the, y'know, ACTUAL MOTHER AND FATHER.

 

[Nugget]

So now they can't do ANY work at all?  Wut?  We have to now do all the footwork too?

And yes, they have time because you MAKE time.  And if they can't, then they can ask mom and dad to help.  Or grandma and grandpa. Or their church.

Maybe they should have thought of that, y'know, before having sex?  Y'know, shame is a real motivator.  You're not afraid to shame dead beat dads, why you taking it easy on mom?

If you don’t want to expand support networks, that is your choice.  You get to vote and apparently a large portion of the country agrees with you. 

 

[Nugget]

We already do. 

And many more things on top of all that. 

I love this attitude of holding society responsible instead of the, y'know, ACTUAL MOTHER AND FATHER.

Again, just say you don’t support any additional support from society.  It should be on mom and dad, extended family, and the church. 

 

[Desert_Power]

Universal parental leave.

We really should have this one. Have a 13 week old and fortunate to get 16 weeks through my employer.

 

[BladeRunner]

Again, just say you don’t support any additional support from society.  It should be on mom and dad, extended family, and the church. 

UIhm...okay.  They don't need additionial support - they already have it.  

Also, it would be nice if you could just say you don't want to hold the actual mother and father responsible.  This isn't an all or nothing game here, y'know.  Soceity isn't responsible for taking care of the entire needs of the child until they are 18.   You should put more focus on mom and dad instead of everyone else.

 

[Nugget]

UIhm...okay.  They don't need additionial support - they already have it.  

Also, it would be nice if you could just say you don't want to hold the actual mother and father responsible.  This isn't an all or nothing game here, y'know.  Soceity isn't responsible for taking care of the entire needs of the child until they are 18.   You should put more focus on mom and dad instead of everyone else.

80%+ of pregnancies are not aborted. Many parents are being “responsible”. The number one reason cited for abortion was financial.  Many have other kids already and can’t handle the extra burden.  I proposed prenatal care, doctor visits and physicals for kids, and a Republican proposed tax credit for families.  These seem like proposals a majority could get behind.  I have been wrong many times before. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

It's incredibly expensive and time consuming to adopt in the US.  I'm willing to bet if you asked your friends for the top 5 reasons they went outside the US "fear of being sued to take the child back later" is likely on their list along with cost.  If it's not, it should be.  It's a very real possibility in this country.  Clearing a lot of that up might increase the demand side a little bit, but reality is we have 500K+ kids EVERY year that would need placement year after year.  We won't have a constant "2 million" looking to adopt.  This is usually a "one and done" sort of event.  In the first 4-5 years we will have met the current demand and still have to account for 500K+ a year moving forward.  

How often do lawsuits occur post-adoption? I wasn’t even aware that was a thing.

As far as the OP, we’re gonna have a lot more unwanted babies, and I’m not sure taxpayers are gonna wanna foot the bill for their care. It will be interesting to see how this impacts crime/incarceration and homelessness over the next several years-decades.

And I don’t think contraception education and teaching personal responsibility will change unwanted pregnancies in a meaningful way.

 

[Shula-holic]

Is that terribly different than the current social safety net, though?  Seems like it would be pretty easy to blow that money rather than spend it on meaningful food, shelter, and other necessities.  I assume you're thinking of things like SNAP, but the reality is it's pretty easy for someone to buy nothing but junk food or to buy healthy food then trade that food for alcohol or something else.

Sure, there are ways around it.  I would assume that's illegal but we know better than to assume it doesn't occur.  However, who is going to self report that versus people who would come forward to claim their kids are hungry if they ran through their BIG in some legal fashion? 

Don't get me wrong, I get that they are likely hungry today if they are taken care of by someone willing to do that and use SNAP or whatever for other purposes.  It's just a lot more people who use the money for other things are again not going to be able to make ends meet and come forward.  The alternative view would be that we would do nothing and let them go hungry.  I'm a pretty limited government person, I'm a business guy and all about fiscal and personal responsibility.  Maybe I can swallow that, I have serious reservations that many people on the left would.  And let's be clear, it's already low income people disproportionally who would still be on the bottom rung by definition, and thereby those children would be disproportionately represented in those now "legally" being left to go hungry.  Are we ok with this? 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Really all we would have to do is put more emphasis on getting kids to attend and graduate high school. 

This would likely be revenue neutral since  only 44% of the high school dropouts in this country have jobs. 

Universal sex ed doesnt do anything for kids that arent there. 

 

[The Commish]

How often do lawsuits occur post-adoption? I wasn’t even aware that was a thing.

As far as the OP, we’re gonna have a lot more unwanted babies, and I’m not sure taxpayers are gonna wanna foot the bill for their care. It will be interesting to see how this impacts crime/incarceration and homelessness over the next several years-decades.

And I don’t think contraception education and teaching personal responsibility will change unwanted pregnancies in a meaningful way.

I'm not sure, but a very good friend of mine had it happen to him and his wife twice.  Both times, after having the child for about 18 months the mother had a change of heart and sued to get the child back.  It was brutal for them.  The only silver lining in any of it was that the child was with their biological mother, but the emotion for everyone else was off the charts.

 

[Rich Conway]

Sure, there are ways around it.  I would assume that's illegal but we know better than to assume it doesn't occur.  However, who is going to self report that versus people who would come forward to claim their kids are hungry if they ran through their BIG in some legal fashion? 

Don't get me wrong, I get that they are likely hungry today if they are taken care of by someone willing to do that and use SNAP or whatever for other purposes.  It's just a lot more people who use the money for other things are again not going to be able to make ends meet and come forward.  The alternative view would be that we would do nothing and let them go hungry.  I'm a pretty limited government person, I'm a business guy and all about fiscal and personal responsibility.  Maybe I can swallow that, I have serious reservations that many people on the left would.  And let's be clear, it's already low income people disproportionally who would still be on the bottom rung by definition, and thereby those children would be disproportionately represented in those now "legally" being left to go hungry.  Are we ok with this? 

Most BIG proposals (there is no single BIG proposal, of course) include something for children, either in a permanent savings account or as additional money for the parents.  Why not include a WIC/SNAP like stipend per child if this is a concern?  Problem solved, let's move forward with BIG.

 

[The Commish]

not rhetorical. Let's say we just start from this point forward.  Seems like we get them at the border and we send them back that day or the next..  Money saved to be used towards USA BabiesTM instead.  Seems like a win-win.

They go back home and figure out how to get in here legally and wait in line like everyone else.  In the meantime, money that WOULD have went towards an illegal now goes for the baby the Democrats wanted to abort.

Of course, my position is that we should make the birth mother and father take care of them first.

Not sure I follow.  So you're saying forget the "illegals" now and focus on processing people at the border?  I'm for that, but to process people efficiently (send them back in a day or two....and yes, I'm ignoring for a moment that "send them back" applies to all of them automatically as written above) requires a ton more money and resources than we already have.  Lawyers, judges, officers, facilities to house them as they are processed, technology at the crossing points etc.  Feels like the money for "USA Babies" would be required for that also, no?  We get the flow going at the border and work towards efficiencies and money saved there COULD help....it too is multiple years away while the backlog piles up.  

Can you see how some of us might be pessimistic of the success of your position of forcing the mother and father (who were willing to kill their child from the beginning) to take care of the child.  Do you really thing that's going to work well for the child?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Also, we aren't taking away a choice  - we're actually providing one for the unborn child. 

More accurately you are proposing to do both.   Choices are still being taken away from the woman.  

 

[The Commish]

We adopted 3 children in the US and it didn't cost us more than $500 for each. First one was 5 days old when we got him, second was 6 weeks when we got her. The other was a 13. None of them took more than 6 months from start to finish. 

Every state has a special needs adoption program. Mine gives you a ~$300 monthly stipend until they are out of school or 18, and covers their health insurance 100%. For us, special needs meant being a minority in one case, having a homeless and mentally ill birth mother in another, and being 13 in the last.

I get that everyone's situation is different, and people tend to want children that are young, healthy, low risk, and oftentimes look like them. But the idea that one can't adopt in this country without spending a lot of time and money is true only inasmuch as people restrict themselves to the ideal. There are so many kids right here in the US waiting for someone to take them in.

Yeah, special needs is a whole other situation.  As strange as it seems, they are easier to adopt.  And this brings up a good point.  In the numbers discussed so far, the focus has been on infants/babies just born (obviously because of the abortion aspect).  None of this has even addressed those that have been in foster care, "help houses" (what I call them) and the like.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

Why are you limiting to only single mothers who you are assuming are poor?

Do you think they have time to navigate through all the potential programs. While pregnant, while working, while trying to raise other children potentially?  Also while being attacked for making poor decisions and being poor?

This was my question reading that too.   I am coming more from a broad picture and stats and how we rank vs. other countries for health of the mothers, infant mortality rates, poverty, etc..     I prefer policies that would help all women, not just single poor women specifically, and improving all those conditions would also decrease the rate of abortions.   One stat that I was a bit surprised at was the high % of women who have an abortion who already have children (i've seen 60-70%).   These are already women who know what it's takes, and know that they currently can't do it for a variety of reasons (cue the "they shouldn't have sex then" posts).  

 

[BladeRunner]

More accurately you are proposing to do both.   Choices are still being taken away from the woman.  

She still has the choice to either take care of the baby herself or adopt.

 

[KarmaPolice]

She still has the choice to either take care of the baby herself or adopt.

Correct, and she also had those choices before.  So you are still taking away a choice, right?  

 

[Joe Bryant]

And I don’t think contraception education and teaching personal responsibility will change unwanted pregnancies in a meaningful way.

Can you elaborate on why? I thought most people those would help.

 

[Nugget]

Really all we would have to do is put more emphasis on getting kids to attend and graduate high school. 

This would likely be revenue neutral since  only 44% of the high school dropouts in this country have jobs. 

Universal sex ed doesnt do anything for kids that arent there. 

I don’t think there is universal support for sex education. 

Nebraska

Nebraska gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster said that sex education should be taken out of schools and "put back in the homes" during a Trump campaign rally in Greenwood, Nebraska, on Sunday. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

We adopted 3 children in the US and it didn't cost us more than $500 for each. First one was 5 days old when we got him, second was 6 weeks when we got her. The other was a 13. None of them took more than 6 months from start to finish. 

Every state has a special needs adoption program. Mine gives you a ~$300 monthly stipend until they are out of school or 18, and covers their health insurance 100%. For us, special needs meant being a minority in one case, having a homeless and mentally ill birth mother in another, and being 13 in the last.

I get that everyone's situation is different, and people tend to want children that are young, healthy, low risk, and oftentimes look like them. But the idea that one can't adopt in this country without spending a lot of time and money is true only inasmuch as people restrict themselves to the ideal. There are so many kids right here in the US waiting for someone to take them in.

Thank you. Seems like expanding the the definition for kids that qualify could be an answer. Seems like the system is in place, at least in your state. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don’t think there is universal support for sex education. 

Nebraska

Nebraska gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster said that sex education should be taken out of schools and "put back in the homes" during a Trump campaign rally in Greenwood, Nebraska, on Sunday. 

Few things have universal support. I think what we're talking about is things that would make helping the children and families who most need it. Few people will agree on everything. Like with anything, there will have to compromises made.

 

[KarmaPolice]

We adopted 3 children in the US and it didn't cost us more than $500 for each. First one was 5 days old when we got him, second was 6 weeks when we got her. The other was a 13. None of them took more than 6 months from start to finish. 

Every state has a special needs adoption program. Mine gives you a ~$300 monthly stipend until they are out of school or 18, and covers their health insurance 100%. For us, special needs meant being a minority in one case, having a homeless and mentally ill birth mother in another, and being 13 in the last.

I get that everyone's situation is different, and people tend to want children that are young, healthy, low risk, and oftentimes look like them. But the idea that one can't adopt in this country without spending a lot of time and money is true only inasmuch as people restrict themselves to the ideal. There are so many kids right here in the US waiting for someone to take them in.

It's awesome that you have done this.   The bolded has to be a big factor, correct?   I would guess the # of parents willing to adopt them is much smaller, and the # of kids in that situation is as well.     

I don't think these cases were what Commish was talking about.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don’t think there is universal support for sex education. 

Nebraska

Nebraska gubernatorial candidate Charles Herbster said that sex education should be taken out of schools and "put back in the homes" during a Trump campaign rally in Greenwood, Nebraska, on Sunday. 

Well, I'm definitely on your side on this topic.  Schools should teach sex ed in a straightforward and age-appropriate manner.  That should be approximately as controversial as teaching kids the quadratic equation.  It's good to know how human reproduction works.