Tuesday, March 15, 2011

How Important is HB 1267 to Rep. Pedersen?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
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
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.