Tag Archives: Parenthood

Guttmacher Institute: states enact record number of abortion restrictions

Enacted Abortion Restrictions By Year
Enacted Abortion Restrictions By Year

Great news from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion think tank. (H/T John from Truth in Religion & Politics)

Excerpt:

In the first six months of 2011, states enacted 162 new provisions related to reproductive health and rights. Fully 49% of these new laws seek to restrict access to abortion services, a sharp increase from 2010, when 26% of new laws restricted abortion. The 80 abortion restrictions enacted this year are more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005—and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010. All of these new provisions were enacted in just 19 states.

The post breaks down the pro-life measures by category:

  • Counseling and waiting periods
  • Gestational bans
  • “Heartbeat” bill
  • Banning abortion coverage in new insurance exchanges
  • Medication abortion
  • Cuts to abortion subsidies

All of these bills were supported by Republicans, and opposed by Democrats.

Elections have consequences. We elected a massive number of Republicans in 2010, and now we are seeing the results of that effort. I could not be more proud of the Republicans who voted in these measures to protect the unborn.

Related posts

MUST-READ: Melanie Phillips blames single mothers for family breakdown

Melanie Phillips
Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips takes UK Conservative Party leader David Cameron to task in the UK Daily Mail. Sent to me by Dina! I love this article!

Excerpt:

Singling out ‘runaway dads’ for censure, [David Cameron] said that such individuals should be treated like drunk drivers — people who are beyond the pale and upon whom should be heaped ‘the full force of shame’.

Now, excoriating ‘runaway’ or ‘deadbeat’ dads is a familiar refrain. We all know the scenario: feckless youths getting one girl pregnant after another and abandoning each one in turn, playing next to no part in the upbringing of the children they have serially fathered.

This is, indeed, reckless and reprehensible behaviour. But it is only part of a much more complex and deeply rooted problem.

Most pertinently, it totally ignores the fact that there is another feckless actor in this dysfunctional family drama — the mother, who may be having children by a series of different men.

In line with politically correct thinking, Mr Cameron presents such girls or women as the hapless victims of predatory males. But that is just plain wrong. For at the most fundamental level, this whole process is driven by women and girls.

In those far-off days before the sexual revolution, relations between the sexes were based on a kind of unspoken bargain.

Women needed the father of their children to stick around while they grew up, in return for which a woman gave a solemn undertaking to be faithful to this one man.

For his part, the father’s interests were served by being offered not just a permanent sexual relationship but a guarantee from the trust placed in his wife that the children were, indeed, his.

With the combination of the sexual revolution, the Pill and the welfare state, however, women’s interests changed. Suddenly they were being told sex outside marriage was fine, unmarried motherhood was fine — and crucially, that the welfare state would provide them with the means to live without male support.

Among upper-middle-class trendies, marriage became an irksome anachronism and ‘living together’ became fashionable.

At the bottom of the social scale, however, these permissive signals from above combined disastrously with widespread unemployment among young men, whose lack of income made them an unattractive marriage prospect.

As a result, girls decided that, while they wanted a baby, the available fathers were usually a waste of space and so they didn’t want them to remain a part of their lives.

These young men then treated the message that they weren’t wanted as a licence for irresponsibility. And so the ‘runaway dad’ was born.

To single out these boys for censure — while calling lone mothers ‘heroic’, as Mr Cameron did — is not only unfair and perverse, but will fail to get to grips with the problem.

If it is to be remedied, women and girls have to come to a different conclusion about where their interests lie.

That means the welfare state has to stop playing the role of surrogate husband through the benefits it gives single mothers.

READ THE WHOLE THING. As with Canada’s Barbara Kay, I am not in full agreement with Melanie on every topic. But she is awesome on this topic!

Related posts

Obama administration threatens Indiana for defunding Planned Parenthood

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

The Obama administration is not happy with Indiana for being the first state to defund Planned Parenthood. According to reports, the administration is considering taking away the state’s Medicaid money in retaliation.

Pro-life Gov. Mitch Daniels recently signed into law a measure that bars state agencies from entering into contracts with abortion providers, aside from hospitals. The law also bans abortion past 20 weeks gestation, with an exception for the life or physical health of the mother.

The law effectively cuts Planned Parenthood off from approximately $3 million in state family planning funds, unless the state organization divides into separate independent affiliates that have nothing to do financially with abortion-providing affiliates.

The New York Times reports that federal officials are considering withholding some or all of the state’s Medicaid money in order to pressure the state to allow the nation’s largest abortion provider to tap into family planning funds.

The Times reports that the administration has 90 days to take action.

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a statement approved by the White House: “Federal law prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from being spent on abortion services. Medicaid does not allow states to stop beneficiaries from getting care they need — like cancer screenings and preventive care — because their provider offers certain other services. We are reviewing this particular situation and situations in other states.”

Marcus J. Barlow, representing the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, pointed out to the Times, however, that the state was not cutting off funds for family planning services. “It’s a change in providers,” he explained, observing that clients of Planned Parenthood could go to other non-abortion providing clinics for those services.

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith posed the question on his blog: “Is PP so important to Obama that he and his HHS Secretary are willing to materially hurt poor people by cutting off Medicaid funding to try and leverage restored funding for PP?”

“So long as those services are available, what business is it to the Feds which facilities provide them? Or, are we to believe that PP has a right to receive public money?” he said.

Well, the other service providers didn’t donate massive amounts of money to the Demcorat Party, like Planned Parenthood did. (See below) Some people who claim to be pro-life voted for Barack Obama, and I think those people really need to reconsider the facts. The Democrats are a pro-abortion party.

Related posts