Abortion

This is an emotional issue often used to characterize democrats as "anti-life" and "Pro-abortion"

Democrats would like to see a decline in abortions --even no abortions. Hilary Clinton said called it "the most terrible tragedy" when a woman terminates an unwanted pregnancy. No one on either side thinks abortions are a good thing.

The difference is how to deal with it. Under the Clinton administration with an entirely democratic congress, abortions declined dramatically the entire time --a decline that was reversed during the last 4 years under the Bush "pro-life" regime. (see article below).

The conclusion is that if you want fewer abortions, do something to help take care of the root causes. If you want people to choose life, help make life a better choice for more people.



Pro-life? Look at the fruits

by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen

I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or ethics.

+ Read David Batstone's open letter to Catholic bishops who are instructing Catholics to make a "pro-life vote" + Read Rose Marie Berger's column "Eucharist in an Election Year" about the "Catholic vote"

Ideals vs Reality

I often hear republicans accuse liberals of "idealism, " but it's clear which side is more into ideals and which is more into dealing with reality.

Take the "under God" line in the Pledge of Alegence. Nothing gets conservatives madder than the idea of taking those 2 words (which were added in the 1950s --not in the original pledge at all). Now what does that have to do with reality? I mean put those 2 words in one hand and a dollar in the other hand and you can buy a pop from the pop machine. They represent an idea. Where's the reality?

Defending the definition of marriage. They want a constitutional amendment to protect a word definition. Where's the reality?

Vials of baby powder and drawings of mobile weapons labs (what Bush sent Colon Powell to the UN with) as a reason to go to war. Where's the reality?

There is the "idea" of having a democratic election in Afghanistan, then there's the reality that it's still in run by drug lords and they actually "elected" a pro-american from London. Go figure.

I'll think of more later. Must work now.

Things that piss me off about Republicans part infinity + 1

They will spend a billion dollars and stage protests and levy fines to make sure no child sees a naked boob on TV, but if that same child gets sick and can't afford health insurance --he's on his own!

I mean which is worse for your family? If 2 gay guys get married down the street or if your kids can't afford the medication they need? Apparently to Republicans the former is far more damaging to families.

Pharmicutical companies and the burden of R&D

Here's an article that says in a nutshell that market driven Pharmicutical companies don't really do most of the R&D for new drugs. Most of their money is spent on marketing to mass media, lobbying to have their "new" produces introduced faster and trying to pass laws preventing them from being held accountable if they screw up and kill people with bad medicine.

In the past two years, we have started to see, for the first time, the beginnings of public resistance to rapacious pricing and other dubious practices of the pharmaceutical industry. It is mainly because of this resistance that drug companies are now blanketing us with public relations messages. And the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration. Most innovative R&D in the US is done by government funded research at universities.

Also, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of "new" drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called "me-too" drugs. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,

If I'm a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?

This is the problem with market-driven medicine. What's good for the market is not always what's good for consumers. And without the government, consumers have no recorse against giant multinational conglomorates. Of course with Rumsfeld former CEO of Searle Co. in the whitehouse, we really have no recourse (he used his influence in the Reagan administration to get this on the market and lately pass the most pork filled medicare bill in history which even left Rush Limbaugh astonished).

Dirty business and why people think Clinton is the devil

GOP illegal support of Nader Campeign

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/

GOP illegal medicare bill promotion commercials

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20medicare.html?ex=1105074000&en=a05281cf1690cb95&ei=5070

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0504/052004cdam1.htm

I believe Bush is an honest guy. He never denies using cocaine or doing community service for drunk driving.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/19/president.2000/bush.drug/

Oh and if you're going to believe every conspiracy tale about Clinton why not this?

http://www.bushbodycount.com/list.php?catid=10&blogid=2

Here's where at least some of those anti Clinton stories come from...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/

Hey want some money? Make up some badstuff about Democrats and he'll give you a grant!

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/documents/

The ACLU is the tool of the devil

Ah the well funded myth of the ACLU's anti Christian agenda! Usually vocalized by people who have no idea who they are or what they are about.

Just to put it to rest...

Here are some recent ACLU cases...

5/11/2004 Wins case against Michigan High School. School must allow Christian Valedictorian to include Bible passages in yearbook.

12/22/2004 Wins case in New Jersey State Supreme Court -- Prosecutors Cannot Reject Jurors Who Are "Demonstrative About Their Religion"

8/11/2004 announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.

7/20/2004 asked the state Supreme Court to hear the case of a Catholic man who was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program, which prevented him from practicing his own religious faith.

09/24/2001 Helped overturn Colorado state law prohibiting anti abortion activists from handing out religious leaflets near clinics..

12/29/2000 Helped overturn Nevada law requiring fingerprints and licenses for Clergy members (note --Jesus and MLK wouldn't qualify for license because they have been arrested).

Overturned ordinance to prevent street preachers from approaching casinos or handing out religious literature.

11/15/2003 Filed suit against Nevada high school to protect students right to wear "Real Women Love Jesus" T-shirt.

Who is this organization that defends Christian rights?

The ACLU !

...But they do have secret anti-Christian agenda... it's so secret only right wing radio talk show hosts and televangelists know about it.