Tuesday, March 15, 2011

How Important is HB 1267 to Rep. Pedersen?

It is being presented as "clarifying" and "expanding" the rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partners----and other couples related to parentage.

That is the prettiest face Rep. Jamie Pedersen and his homosexual activist colleagues could put on a bill that will fundamentally alter family and motherhood, while setting the stage for abuse and exploitation of women.

Pedersen, Moeller, Liias and Upthegrove, all gay activist legislators, have brought along a willing support group to sponsor and support Pedersen's
HB 1267---paid surrogacy.

It's ironic that homosexual activists who have championed the idea that sexual behavior and ethnicity are equivalent and their homosexual rights advocacy is equal to the civil rights movement of the 60's and beyond, are now attempting to enslave women for their own purposes of surrogacy. Which is exactly what may happen if Pedersen's bill becomes law.

Senator Dan Swecker wrote in his letter included in our alert last Saturday:
"By making it legal to pay for a woman to get pregnant and carry a child for someone else, we are opening up yet another avenue for those who would use their fellow humans as slaves."

That Bill,
HB 1267, is in public hearing today in Olympia.

How important is this surrogacy bill to Rep. Pedersen?

When Pedersen and his partner "had" their first child in 2007 in San Diego, Seattle's homosexual newspaper, "The Stranger,"
announced the event with this headline: "For Unto Them A Child Is Born". Even then Pedersen was putting paid surrogacy at the top of his "to-do" list.

Since that time he and Eric have "had" triplets, and Pedersen has continued to make paid surrogacy a top priority.

Now the House of Representatives has passed his so-called "clarification" bill and the Senate is hearing it today.

The national homosexual media is promoting the bill while slamming and slandering anyone who opposes it.

Senators Dan Swecker and Val Stevens, Representatives Shea, McCune and others are being vilified for their opposition. I have also been mentioned.

This bill is not about "other" couples, nor is it about "clarification."

It's all about the homosexual agenda to redefine marriage, family and now, motherhood.

Are Pedersen and his gay activist colleagues so consumed with their own passion that they really don't care about the consequences of such a bill?

One of their Democrat colleagues cares. And he is not happy.

Rep. Mark Miloscia, D-Federal Way, cares a lot. In fact he is very upset about the matter and has called the bill "repugnant" and "unconscionable."

Indeed it is.

He compared it to, "sex trafficking, prostitution and ordering pizza."
And said, "Commercializing surrogacy is paying someone to be a breeding animal" and that "exploitation is inevitable with rich couples and lawyers taking advantage of vulnerable women."

He makes a dramatic difference between "compassionate" surrogacy and paid or "commercial surrogacy."

He told his Democrat colleagues in the House as they were preparing to pass Pedersen's bill, "There is no minimum wage for doing this work. We're privatizing a work force with no oversight, letting contracts be negotiated in secret with zero oversight. Democrats would never stand for that in any other instance."

I wonder why they are willing to abandon a consistent position on labor in favor of paid surrogacy?

"What if a rich couple sees the baby isn't going to have blond hair and blue eyes?" He asked, "Are they going to pay the surrogate to have an abortion?"

He also pointed out under Pedersen's bill, farm workers who have an average comp insurance of $37,000 annually are better cared for than mothers under HB 1267 with $27,000 comp for them.

Do the sponsors care?

You decide. They are marching forward with pride.

Pedersen and his colleagues even killed an amendment that would have prevented them from using non-citizen women---women from the poorest countries, as surrogates.

We have many concerns about this latest venture into the brave new world of the homosexual agenda. Not the least is that of the moral implication of it all.

Even if those promoting this agenda don't care, there should be concern for the consequences---even unintended ones.

There are at least a couple of moral quandaries. We've got to look at the moral dimensions and ambiguities of commercial surrogacy.

It will be exploited.

Even without the insistence of Pedersen and his surrogates in the legislature, to include non-citizen women from the poorest countries, this practice exploits women.

The state is being put in a position to enforce the contracts, something they have not done in the past in compassion surrogacies. If a woman is not emotionally prepared for the natural bonding with her baby during gestation, she may reach birth and find she cannot part with her child.

The state steps in, takes the child and gives it to the folks who wrote the check.

It Commodifies Pregnancy, Babies and Motherhood.

Through commercial surrogacy, babies are given a price, and sold or exchanged as goods, chattel or services. If we allow babies to be bought, on what basis do we deny the purchase of say, a 2 year old baby? Should we allow babies to be sold at auction?

When pregnancies are motivated by profit, the role of women and motherhood is diminished and de-valued.

This bill seems terribly duplicitous coming from people who have made their battle cry "equality" and "fairness" while they now seek to exploit women with financial needs.

What if a surrogacy child is seen to have severe disabilities? Whose lifetime responsibility is that? Or, do we simply abort them and call it choice or reproductive health care?

Have we completely lost our way? I pray not. God help us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

_____________
Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

12 comments:

  1. Very well said Gary. Thank you. It will be interesting to see how the other side attacks your comments and defends what appears to be indefensible. Maybe their response will be silence. God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm wondering if the sponsors and other supporters of this bill who are not gay know the implications and consequences of it or if they have just been given summary talking points and are going with that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Our family will be in prayer today that our elected officials will open their eyes and see what is at stake in this bill.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well lets cull the obvious from this:

    Representative Pedersen have obviously had NO difficulty in finding surrogacies even without this legislation - the idea this enables anything doesn't stand much the stated case does it?

    "What if a rich couple sees the baby isn't going to have blond hair and blue eyes?" He asked, "Are they going to pay the surrogate to have an abortion?" & What if a surrogacy child is seen to have severe disabilities? Whose lifetime responsibility is that? Or, do we simply abort them and call it choice or reproductive health care?
    See, as it now stands the couple, rich or not, could do that - there is no legal limitation on what they can ask with a compassion surrogacy. Or they could just walk away leaving the surrogate with the disabled baby they never intended to raise in the first place.

    The legislation would make the intended parents the legal guardians whether they violated the contract or not - the child is their's regardless if it has the wrong hair color or a disability, regardless if they tried to void the contract.

    Again, that's what so odd - its like people haven't even read the legislation. It would make it so that all the decisions about the termination of pregnancy are the gestational mother's alone by law. It would make it so the contract couldn't be terminated to avoid paternity regardless of the gestational mother's decision or the baby's qualities or health.

    This legislation protects surrogates, it would probably decrease the number of surrogacies since it makes significant requirements of ALL surrogacy contract, even the currently allowed unpaid 'compassion' ones.

    As Gary's examples shows surrogacy's will be available and continue regardless if this legislation is passed - but it will mean that nobody entering into them will have any sort of legal expectations about what the rights of everyone involved is. Its currently the 'wild west' when it comes to surrogacy in Washington state and not doing anything about that is just wrong headed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Years ago, we elected congress, and let them do their jobs- making laws beneficial to the country, their states, or their constituency. On hot issues, or government re-organizations, I may have written half a dozen letters in 30 years.
    Today, I emailed three representatives, which happens quite often, and I send political comments almost daily. Its a media information overload- a ridiculous state of affairs. And who can make rational laws in this environment?
    rural Ncentral WA

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Bill also removes gender references by the state in regards to parents. So Mother and father is now considered discriminatory .

    Greeting Card companies will most likely lobby for a Gender Neutral Day Bill to passed in order to cut their losses on Mothers and fathers Day . I guess that is not funny , but the worse thing I see here is this was basically a straight party vote .

    Political parties dictating morality , and as usual coming from the left .

    Mick From Kingston

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oshtur

    Codifying surrogacy doesn't solve anything, outlawing it period, with severe financial penalties and long prison sentences would go a long way to stopping this new version of human trafficking and slavery.

    Guess what? Some of the leading feminists of our time strongly oppose this. So no sexism arguements either.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  8. Codifying surrogacy doesn't solve anything, outlawing it period, with severe financial penalties and long prison sentences would go a long way to stopping this new version of human trafficking and slavery.

    Craig you know there is a different view. This is hiring a womb to gestate someone else's child, that's it. No slavery, no 'human trafficking'. Its like hiring someone to paint your portrait due to them having an innate talent you don't. Its like hiring a sighted person to look after a blind one, them using their organs for pay for another's benefit.

    If you are of the idea that surrogacy and other reproductive technologies should be outlawed entirely then you are so far out of the mainstream there's not much point in discussing further.

    Again, as it stands there are no limits on what can be in a surrogacy contract in Washington state (and yes they are allowed, only compensated ones are void as per RCW 26.26.240) Leaving it in this uncontrolled state will not stop it and is just burying our legislative head in the sand. Pretending something doesn't exists has never helped any problem and it won't help this one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If their using the surrogate's egg or the donors sperm then how is it the 'parents' child? Human trafficking just as I said. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. Rent-a-Womb, what a concept!

    We have laws in this country forbidding the selling of humans or human body parts for money, doesn't matter whether it's your own or someone elses. There's a reason for that. We're not talking about someone painting your house.

    There are millions of kids looking for a home, adopt one!

    Outlaw surrogacy and punish the offenders, that will end the problems with contracts or no contracts.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  10. If their using the surrogate's egg or the donors sperm then how is it the 'parents' child
    Hmmm by the meaning of donation, a fee-free voluntary transfer of ownership. And of course many gestational surrogacies gametes aren't donated at all, its merely the mother's inability to gestate that is being compensated for.

    We have laws in this country forbidding the selling of humans or human body parts for money, doesn't matter whether it's your own or someone elses.
    Yes we do - what body part or human is being sold here? The womb is just the gestational environment, all gametes are donated.

    There are millions of kids looking for a home, adopt one!
    Again Craig, they notion that reproductive technology should be banned is so far out of the mainstream what's even the point of bringing it up?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ostur

    What body parts are being sold here? You can't be serious! Oh.........I get it. The womb is not a body part. Where did you study anatomy? That's like saying the heart is just the blood pumping environment.

    Fee-free, ya right. I'm gonna believe that one.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  12. Craig, you know the difference between hiring someone and buying them. I've hired people for their brains, their strong backs, their ability to lift many many times. Hiring someone for a 9 month for their ability to gestate their employer's fetus is no different.

    No one is buying a womb here - it remains with its owner, right?

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.