|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 20, 2020 9:13:47 GMT
LOVE THE FETUS, HATE THE BABY SYNDROME. Statistics show "life is precious" to conservatives before a fetus is born and only before it is born. Conservative ideology is punitive to single mothers and their children, the poor with children and those of color with children.
Quite a bit of hypocrisy from conservatives on this subject. I wonder how many of these people adopted or fostered black or minority babies? Or voted to cut funding to single mothers? or are against funding daycare services so single moms could work? or don't want certain groups to receive welfare help? and the list goes on......
That being said there are NO good sides on this issue. Prevention is key. And with prevention comes all sorts of other issues that need to be resolved with common sense and pragmatism. Males need to be included in this conversation. Pregnancy doesn't just happen by itself and religions need to get a grip on reality.A Catholic Nun Perfectly Explains the Major Hypocrisy of the "Pro-Life" Argumentwww.yahoo.com/lifestyle/catholic-nun-perfectly-explains-major-123500181.html
Popsugar US Eleanor Sheehan
December 10, 2017
A Catholic nun's explanation of the term "pro-life" from 2004 is resurfacing after recent antiabortion events. On PBS's Now With Bill Moyers, Sister Joan Chittister explained why being against abortion doesn't mean you're pro-life.
www.popsugar.com/news/What-March-Life-43066481?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=feed&utm_content=link_0
www.popsugar.com/news/What-March-Life-43066481?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=feed&utm_content=link_0
Here's the full quote:
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
Chittister's position is not only informed by her faith, but also her academic experience: she's written over 50 books and has multiple degrees (including a doctorate).
www.joanchittister.org/
The crux of Chittister's point is that there's a difference between advocating for birth and advocating for that child's entire life. If antiabortion proponents are truly "pro-life," then those same legislators would not argue for defunding programs like those that provide school lunches or health care. Many who oppose abortion also oppose access to contraceptives. Antiabortion congressmen have consistently also advocated for defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides women with birth control options.
thehill.com/regulation/legislation/286266-fight-erupts-in-congress-over-school-lunch-money
www.popsugar.com/news/Obamacare-Repealed-42990693?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=feed&utm_content=link_4
www.popsugar.com/news/Donald-Trump-Defund-Planned-Parenthood-43014071?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=feed&utm_content=link_5
Liberals have pointed to Chittister's quote as an argument for the social benefits that Republicans hope to limit without providing feasible options for women if they cannot obtain abortions.
www.popsugar.com/news/Abortion-Restrictions-States-41262255?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=feed&utm_content=link_6
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Mar 21, 2020 6:57:26 GMT
You Pro Life? Prove it. Help Needy Kids
Pastor John
29 subscribers
Sister Joan Chittister, an author and lecturer, recently took on so-called pro-lifers, saying:
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life...in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born, but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth."
Pastor John agrees. He's also counseled women who have had abortions.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Nov 3, 2020 8:32:31 GMT
All of the rates below are the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15-44, and come from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Ronald Reagan 1981 – 1989
Abortion rates hovered at 24-23 per every 1,000 women between the ages of 15-44, ending at 24 in 1989.
George H. W. Bush 1989 – 1993
Abortion rates fell from 24 to 23 per every 1,000 women.
Bill Clinton 1993 – 2001
Abortion rates fell from 23 to 16.2 per every 1,000 women.
George W. Bush 2001 – 2009
Abortion rates hovered at about 16 per every 1,000 women for most of Bush’s time in the White House, then dropped from 15.8 in 2008 to 15 in 2009.
Barack Obama 2009 – 2017
Abortion rates plunged from 15 per every 1,000 women in 2009 to 11.6 in 2016, the latest year for which official CDC data is available. The abortion rate is now the lowest on record since 1971, two years before Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to choose. It is also half the rate in 1991.
As Amy Sullivan, a senior editor at Yahoo news, pointed out, these trends seemed to be a missed opportunity for the Democratic party to reach voters who want to see fewer abortions in the US.
The reason for the trend is simple: access to contraception is more effective in reducing the number of abortions than regulation that controls access—and under Democratic leadership, access to affordable contraception has increased.
The Democratic Party’s platform has emphasized the need to protect women’s reproductive rights, including access to no-cost contraception and funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood that offer family planning services. Under the Obama administration, the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became effective in 2012, and most health care plans began to cover birth control without co-pays in January 2013. From 2012 to 2013, the abortion rate dropped 5% from 13.2 to 12.5 abortions per 1,000 women.
On the other hand, George W. Bush pushed for funding abstinence-only sex education, and throughout the Obama administration, the Republican Party has consistently attempted to limit the contraception access provided by the ACA. Fear that the Trump administration would repeal the ACA—and with it, access to free birth control—caused women to rush to buy long-acting birth control in the immediate aftermath of the recent election. Trump’s pick for the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, has actively opposed providing women with free birth control.
The numbers prove the Democratic Party’s policies are more likely to limit abortions than those offered by Republicans. Unintended pregnancies account for over 90% of all abortions, according to a 2012 Brookings Institution report. Reducing that number through access to birth control leads to a sharp drop in abortion: according to research from the Guttmacher Institute, the steep drop in abortion rates between 2008 and 2011 was driven by a fall in unintended pregnancies, most likely driven by better contraceptive use.
This was echoed by the conclusion of a recent CDC report: ”Increasing access to and use of contraception, including the most effective methods, can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States.”
qz.com/857273/the-sharpest-drops-in-abortion-rates-in-america-have-been-under-democratic-presidents/
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Nov 3, 2020 8:34:10 GMT
Trump's anti-abortion rule actually increases abortions by 40%americanindependent.com/global-gag-rule-trump-increase-abortions-40-percent/
By Dan Desai Martin -July 1, 2019 2:42 PM2079
Trump's anti-woman global gag rule reduces women's access to health care and increases the number of abortions around the world.
Trump's attack on women's health care and abortion access around the world has been discovered to actually increase the number of people seeking abortions by 40%, according to a study released June 27 in the Lancet.
The rigorous study lays out the evidence that the global gag rule is responsible for denying women adequate health care, leading to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and a subsequent increase in the number of abortions.
The global gag rule denies U.S. international assistance to any organization that speaks to women about abortion as a health care option. U.S. law already prevents taxpayer funds from being used to perform abortions, but the global gag rule goes further, preventing organizations that receive U.S. assistance from using their own funds to perform abortions, or even refer women to clinics that provide abortions.
When Trump implemented the global gag rule, the White House claimed it was because he "made it very clear that he's a pro-life president." Yet this policy is responsible for an uptick in abortions, as the Lancet points out.
In the countries studied, scientists found a 14% decrease in the use of contraception and a 12% increase in pregnancies.
"If you lower the contraceptive supply, then there are more unintended pregnancies and then more abortions," Nina Brooks, one of the authors of the study, told NPR.
The decrease in contraception occurred because many of the organizations that were denied funding provide a wide range of health care services, including birth control. Without the funding, those services were scaled back, women were denied access to contraception, unwanted pregnancies increased and thus there were more abortions.
The study looked at data from 1995 through 2014 in 26 sub-Saharan African countries. During that time, President Clinton rescinded the global gag rule, followed by George W. Bush, who reinstated it, and then President Obama, who rescinded it again. While the ban was in place, the number of abortions increased by 40%.
The global gag rule not only fails to decrease abortion, "it drives women underground to less safe options," Nina Besser Doorley, senior program officer with the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), told Shareblue Media. It is a "really terrible policy that does the exact opposite of its stated impact."
"It is literally causing the death of women around the world," she added.
Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told NPR that the Lancet study is "the largest empirical study" of the global gag rule to date.
Even at the time Trump reinstituted the rule, advocates warned of the consequences.
"Trump's Global Gag Rule will only lead to increases in unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, maternal and newborn deaths," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said at the time.
A recent IWHC report on the impact of the global gag rule lays out consequences beyond abortion, showing the policy also negatively impacts "HIV/AIDS testing and treatment, screening for cervical cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and support for survivors of gender-based violence."
The Trump administration has relentlessly attacked women's access to health care both abroad and at home. Trump wants to implement a "domestic gag rule" to limit what doctors in the United States can say to patients regarding abortion. In addition, Trump wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, including the provision that guarantees no-cost contraceptives to everyone.
Abortion is health care, but Trump's zealousness to deny women health care is having the opposite of his intended effect: It is only increasing the number of abortions taking place.
"Regardless of what people personally believe about abortion, our evidence is consistent with what aid organizations [on the ground] have been saying, which is that this [Global Gag Rule] leads to a pretty big increase in abortions," Grant Miller, one of the study authors, told NPR.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Nov 3, 2020 8:39:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Nov 3, 2020 8:51:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Nov 3, 2020 9:05:27 GMT
Covid drug given to Trump developed using cells derived from an abortionwww.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/trump-covid-drug-developed-using-cells-derived-from-abortion
Trump touts Regeneron antibody cocktail as a potential ‘cure’ while he has consistently sought to restrict abortion access
Donald Trump returns to the White House on Monday after being hospitalized at Walter Reed medical center for coronavirus disease. Photograph: Erin Scott/Reuters
One of the drugs taken by Donald Trump that he has touted as a potential “cure” for coronavirus was developed using human cells originally obtained from an elective abortion, a practice repeatedly denounced by the president and many of his supporters.
The drug is a monoclonal antibody cocktail developed by Regeneron. The president received an 8-gram infusion under a “compassionate use” exemption when he was hospitalized over the weekend after testing positive for Covid-19. There is no cure for Covid-19, and the drug is not approved.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 14, 2021 21:12:28 GMT
Convoluted thinking from the right:
while the racist eugenics founding of Planned Parenthood may now remain a silent legacy, it is an unending one, with the abortion provider killing on average about 120,000 black babies per year. "If you were a white supremacist who wanted to sharply reduce the black population to make way for more whites, what would you be doing differently than Planned Parenthood?"
Yes, Democrats are devoted to killing off their most reliable voter base. That totally makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 18, 2022 11:11:45 GMT
Fox News host gives Republican Governor bad news live on air
223,765 views May 17, 2022 BREAKING: A Republican governor just got confronted with pro-choice polling TO HIS FACE on Fox.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Jun 24, 2023 9:00:12 GMT
 Adopt Children from Foster Care at AIM Adoptions
www.aimadoptions.org/unplanned-pregnancy-statistics/
If you are experiencing an unplanned or unintended pregnancy, you are not alone. Each year in the United States, more than 3 million pregnancies are unintended, and worldwide, nearly 30% of all pregnancies are unplanned. In today’s post, we will discuss some of these numbers, their implications, and what AIM Adoptions is doing to help.
The Facts About Unplanned Pregnancies
Unplanned pregnancies represent nearly 30% of all pregnancies worldwide and are considered to be an epidemic here in the United States where nearly 3 million pregnancies each year are unplanned. Most unplanned pregnancies are not the result of failed birth control, but due to the absence of the use of contraceptives. Most of these unplanned pregnancies are in situations where parents did not want to get pregnant, but did not actively avoid it. Unplanned pregnancies occur in teen mothers, unwed couples, and married couples alike, although the numbers are much higher in teens and couples who live in poor socioeconomic areas.
Unplanned pregnancies include both those that are unwanted and those that are mistimed. Meaning that of the 3 million unplanned pregnancies, approximately 40% were to women who wanted children, but were not trying to get pregnant at the time — mistimed. And, the other 60% are to those who never wanted children or pregnancy. Of all of the unwanted pregnancies, 42% result in abortion and 58% result in live birth. Of those 58% of pregnancies that are carried through, nearly one-third of the mothers considered adoption, but only half of that one-third took any action toward it.
Implications of Unwanted Pregnancies
Unplanned pregnancies create a considerable amount of stress for the parents who did not intend a pregnancy. Furthermore, nearly 60% of unplanned pregnancies are also unwanted pregnancies and it is this population that poses a significant threat to the health and welfare of both the pregnant woman and the unborn child. 92% of the more than 1.5 million abortions that are performed in the United States each year are the result of unwanted pregnancy and less than 4% of unwanted pregnancies result in adoption. The horrifying truth about these numbers is that there are more than 2 million qualified couples waiting to adopt a child in the United States, many of whom will either adopt from the overflowing foster care system (which is undoubtedly filled by unwanted pregnancies), or will adopt from out of the United States. For every abortion performed in the United States AND every child in the foster care system, there is a family looking to adopt a child.
If you are one of the 3 million pregnant women who is facing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, consider placing your child for adoption to one of the 2 million families who are searching for a child to love as their own. You can avoid abortion and rest easy knowing that your child is well cared for and won’t end up in the US foster system. At AIM Adoptions, our mission is to pair women facing unwanted pregnancies with a family who is eagerly awaiting adoption. We help with everything related to the pregnancy and can help turn your unwanted predicament into an event that saves lives and completes families. For more information about the adoption process and resources, contact us today. |
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Sept 10, 2023 21:35:42 GMT
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Shocked Republicans Want to Stop Saying ‘Pro-Life’: It’s ‘Incredibly Effective’ (Video)
www.yahoo.com/entertainment/msnbc-chris-hayes-shocked-republicans-172949251.html
Mike Roe
Sat, September 9, 2023 at 10:29 AM MST·4 min read
855
MSNBC
NBC News reported earlier this week that there’s an effort in the Republican Party to change how their anti-abortion stance is branded. That’s thanks to public opinion turning against the term “pro-life” following the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last year.
The idea: shift the language away from “pro-life” and find a new term. Republican Sen. Todd Young started out earlier this week by using the term “pro-baby,” while the term “pro-mother” has also been suggested.
New York Magazine’s Irin Carmon joined MSNBC host Chris Hayes on the network and noted that even people who supported abortion rights have been known to tell pollsters they were “pro-life.”
“Who’s against ‘life’? ‘Pro-choice,’ by contrast, never satisfied anybody in the movement that supports abortion rights, because it was wishy-washy and kind of libertarian,” Carmon said. “But as you well know, Republicans don’t have a messaging problem — they have a women getting sepsis problem. They have a teenager or pre-teen being forced to carry to term problem. They have a problem that the Alabama attorney general says he will prosecute people who try to help people cross state lines to get an abortion. No language change in the world can occlude the reality of what these policies actually mean beyond the rhetoric.”
Hayes said that it goes deeper than just rhetoric, but is actually “conceptual.”
“The point is that you’re saying, this is a human life, and it has to be treated like a human life — the six-week fetus,” Hayes said. “That has implications — moral implications, legal implications — that they don’t want to face, but are the actual implications of the thing that they’re saying.”
Carmon argued that a term like “pro-baby” is a stretch.
“Even what they’re suggesting as an alternative — ‘pro-baby,’ ‘pro-mother’ — anybody reading the news… I mean, voters are not stupid,” Carmon said. “We see again and again, in referenda, in proxy elections that concern this issue, that voters actually really understand what is happening here, and so the attempt to kind of change the subject is not effective so far. And honestly, if the reality weren’t so hideous, them backing away from pro-life would actually be kind of funny.”
Hayes responded, finding some dark comedy in this decision.
“Yeah. I mean, I take some humor in it, because I watched them use this for so long,” Hayes said. “I mean, this is all about politics, right?”
The MSNBC host went on to explain why he believes Republicans “have a substance problem, they don’t have a messaging problem.”
“Here’s how I think they understand it,” Hayes began. “I think they think that the extremes are what’s killing them, politically. The story of the woman who has to get sepsis in the parking lot. The story of the Texas woman who is forced to give birth, and forced to carry to term a non-viable fetus. The woman in Florida who had to hold this baby who took two breaths before it died, that her father-in-law called ‘state-sanctioned torture.'”
Hayes continued, “They’re like, ‘if we can get rid of that, maybe we put some exceptions in, and we get a consensus at 12 weeks, we’re going to be good.’ That’s what they think, and that’s what they’re going to try to message on.”
Carmon disagreed that Republicans are even ready to engage with the issue in that way. Instead, conservatives seem to be shifting back to “old, tried and true” arguments based around later-term abortions.
“They just want to go back to saying that it’s Democrats who are extreme,” Carmon said, “and that’s why you’re also seeing people — at least rhetorically, not so much with their votes on the national level — but saying, OK, everybody should be supporting a 15-week ban.”
Carmon pointed out that this proposed national ban wouldn’t just create a limit in states like Alabama, but would limit abortion rights in states where voters generally support the right to have an abortion.
You can watch the full discussion between Hayes and Carmon above.
The post MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Shocked Republicans Want to Stop Saying ‘Pro-Life’: It’s ‘Incredibly Effective’ (Video) appeared first on TheWrap.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Sept 10, 2023 21:39:05 GMT
Republicans seek new term for 'pro-life' to fend off more electoral losses
MSNBC
9,716 views Sep 8, 2023 #GOP #Republicans #AbortionRights
NBC News' Julie Tsirkin reports on how Republicans are trying to find a new term for "pro-life" abortion messaging after GOP candidates faced election losses when reproductive rights were on the ballot.
|
|
