Jesurgislac’s Journal

June 15, 2008

US: Pro-life politicians are anti-children

Here’s a convenient piece of documentation: American politicians, and how they vote on pro-child policies.

You can look up the worst and the best politicians for yourself.

John McCain has a 10% score, by the way. Barack Obama has a 60% score. (Hillary Clinton has a 70% score.)

Correlating the pro-child politicians against the “pro-life” politicians, unsurprisingly, we find that the politicians most likely to vote against children are the politicians also most likely to vote “pro-life”. Being anti-child has a strong correlation with being anti-woman.

I won’t give them a link, but the NRLC has a convenient little tool by which you can look up different politicians and discover how they voted on anti-women bills: McCain has the lowest score as anti-child in the Senate, and he also has a lot of bright green ticks on NRLC (and is endorsed by them as a “pro-life” candidate).

David Vitter, James Inhofe, James W. DeMint, Tom Coburn: score at 20%, – strongly anti-child: and all of them have a 100% voting record as anti-women. Among the legislation they supported was a vote that had the effect of defunding UNPFA.

You can continue checking: it’s tedious but disgusting work, confirming that if you’re the kind of politician who votes to limit women’s choices, you are the kind of politician who votes against helping children.

Pro-lifers don’t care about preventing abortions (a pro-lifer showed up in the comments to that post to confirm this): but if you ask them, they’ll claim their justification for trying to make abortion difficult to access or illegal is “Helping moms, saving babies, ending abortion!”

Yet they vote for and urge others to vote for politicians who don’t care about helping moms, or saving babies (or older children) and who actively prefer to avoid preventing abortions.

Now why do they do that? If they wanted to “help moms” they could campaign for paid maternity leave, for free healthcare for pregnant women and children. If they wanted to “save babies” – well, babies and older children – they could campaign for and support politicians who can be trusted to vote for policies supporting children.

There are Senators who score 100% on voting for pro-child legislation (listed below) and, unsurprisingly, NRLC doesn’t like how they vote very much. Check their names: some of them have a few approving green ticks from NRLC for voting for anti-woman legislation, but most have nothing. NRLC doesn’t score points for voting to help children: all NRLC cares about is the codeword “saving babies” – which has nothing to do with actually helping real children, any more than it has anything to do with preventing abortions.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) 100%
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) 100%
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 100%
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) 100%
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) 100%
Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA) 100%
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) 100%
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) 100%
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) 100%
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) 100%
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) 100%
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) 100%
Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-WI) 100%
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) 100%
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) 100%
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) 100%
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D/I-CT) 100%
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) 100%
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) 100%
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) 100%
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) 100%
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) 100%
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) 100%
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) 100%
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) 100%

7 Comments »

  1. Obviously your bent is toward Government provided social welfare when the actual burden of the children should rest with the parents (mom & dad). Why is it the Government’s place to provide the shelter and other necessities of life. When the home is broken or destroyed because the father leaves, or the mother abandons a child, whose responsibility is it? My wife and I have been married for 37 years, have provided for our children, lost a nineteen year old son to suicide, and worked all these years because we care for someone other than ourselves. Self-centered people care only about themselves and whats in it for them. The original intent of the federal government was to provide postal service and military protection to the colonies. If men and women (how we were created to procreate) had values today that included respect for life then things would be different. Our moral and value system has been under fire and we are reaping what we have sown as a nation. I don’t think we have seen the worst yet. Wait until we are invaded by someone like China or Russia. Wait until our cities are destroyed and there is no infrastructure left for us to move from city to city. We have not seen anything yet! God help this country. II Chronicles 7:14 is still valid! God’s Word hasn’t changed. We are beginning to reap what we’ve sown for the last 50 years. The Federal government can never provide what rightfully falls on the parents. The broken home is the reason for broken society. America needs to return to their Creator before it is too late to redeem what remains of our society.

    Comment by Tip Sanders — June 16, 2008 @ 8:11 pm | Reply

  2. First of all, Tip, I’m so sorry about your son: it is a terrible thing for a parent to lose your child, and terrible when anyone reaches a point where they cannot bear to live.

    If men and women ….. had values today that included respect for life then things would be different.

    I agree: but since you argue that children should be left to starve and die if their parents can’t provide for them, I see your lack of respect for life as part of the problem. Not you individually, of course: a whole mass of people who, as you say, “care only about themselves” – who refuse to care for others, who are intrinsically selfish, who think that if a child’s parents can’t provide “shelter and other necessities of life” children should be left to do without, and die on the streets as children used to die in the “good old days”.

    We don’t do that any more, because now we have more respect for life. We have respect for children’s need for love and affection for and from their parents. Collectively, we the taxpayers now agree to help provide for children if their parents can’t provide them with what they need. That you can seriously argue that children ought to suffer and die if their parents can’t provide for them, is certainly strong indication that America’s morals and values have come under fire. If God’s Word hasn’t changed, then Matthew 25:31–46 is still valid, and America indeed needs to remember those values. Pro-life Christians do not appear to be familiar with that part of the gospels, or to read much of what Jesus said at all.

    You may find this of interest: THE MISUSE OF II CHRONICLES 7:14 which reminds Christians familiar with this quoted passage what it means in context.

    Comment by jesurgislac — June 16, 2008 @ 11:41 pm | Reply

  3. Tip, I too am sorry about your boy. I can only wish you and your family peace.

    However, the connection between being anti-choice and anti-child is about as surprising as the discovery that water is wet.

    EVERYBODY who is anti-choice claims to be acting from the noblest of motives–in this case, the wellbeing of what they claim to view as a child. What else would you expect them to say?

    But if you look at their actions rather than their words, what’s absolutely consistent isn’t concern for children. What IS consistent among these folks is sticking their noses into everyone else’s bedrooms, at every opportunity.

    These are the people who feel that if a girl unwillingly gets pregnant, it’s just her tough luck, because it’s a suitable punishment for having had sex in the first place. In other words, motherhood = punishment. It’s not hard to see how someone who holds that view would be anti-child, but it’s impossible to see how that could ever be viewed as “pro-life.

    You claim that government should have a limited role in general–yet you seem to believe that it should be micromanaging everyone else’s love life (not yours, of course).

    Wait until we are invaded by someone like China or Russia.
    If America get invaded, it won’t be because people are having sex without your approval–it’ll happen because the Republicans have spent the last 7 years hollowing out our military.

    Right now, if the Chinese decided to invade, we’d be sitting ducks. We’ve got scarcely any militia at home.

    Gee, I bet you voted for that.

    But the Chinese won’t bother to invade because–you know those trillions of dollars of debt that the Republicans have run up in the last 7.4 years? Guess who we owe it to? That’s right–the Chinese. So they don’t have to invade–they can just call in their markers. How convenient for them.

    Gee–bet you voted for that, too.
    Hope you’re enjoying it–it scares the heck out of me.

    Comment by Molly, NYC — June 20, 2008 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

  4. If someone advocates freedom of choice to kill life in the womb, isn’t that anti-child?
    How is it that someone who deplores killing life in the womb is automatically anti-child?

    Comment by Bob Jentzsch — August 26, 2008 @ 3:56 am | Reply

  5. Bob: If someone advocates freedom of choice to kill life in the womb, isn’t that anti-child?

    There’s a curious lack of possessive pronouns in that sentence. Unsurprisingly, given that the vast majority of the politicians in Congress do not have a womb. (Nor, I suspect, do you.)

    So let me fix that for you:
    “If someone advocates that a pregnant girl or woman shall have freedom to decide to terminate her own pregnancy, and that the government shall not regulate on a pregnant woman’s right to make her own medical decisions in consultation with her doctor, isn’t that anti-child?”

    No.

    See for further information: The basics – why pro-choice is the only moral option.

    How is it that someone who deplores killing life in the womb is automatically anti-child?

    Not always. Many of the politicians listed as pro-child have made statements “deploring killing life in the womb”. What they have not done is voted to remove the right of women to decide for themselves.

    The reason politicians who vote for government control over women’s uteruses are in general also anti-child is because the kind of politicians who think the government has a right to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will, are evil people who use their power not to help, but to oppress and punish. It follows that they’re not going to vote for policies that would help women and children.

    I just hadn’t known that you could actually correlate this.

    Comment by jesurgislac — August 26, 2008 @ 7:48 am | Reply

  6. “politicians who think the government has a right to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will…”

    When a girl is pregnant that means she has had sex, and most of the time it’s freely chosen. At most 1% of abortions are from rape or incest, 6% to protect the mother’s health or life. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

    If a couple is having sex they should expect a child. It’s not a new phenomena. That means something has gone right, not wrong. Fertility is good, it means you’re healthy. In the culture we’re living in its advertised that sex is something just for mere pleasure, and that when an infant is conceived it’s a terrible inconvenience to the man and the woman. Sex education is aimed at how to properly put on a condom, and not that that’s how babies are made. It isn’t uncommon to run into a high school graduate of low SES who had no idea sex could impregnate his girlfriend.

    “anti-woman?” I’m sorry, as a woman I’d like to be protected from the manipulation that the culture more than happily provides for me to “be free” and have the child ripped from my uterus so that I can spend the rest of my life thinking about it. Oh how gloriously free I’ll be.

    “The suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth…. the rate for women following a live birth was 5.9 per 100,000; following miscarriage 18.1; following abortion 34.7.” M. Gissler, Abortion/Suicide Link,Br. Med. J., Dec. 6, 1996

    http://www.abortionfacts.com

    abortion is anti-woman, anti-child, anti-love, anti-life.

    Comment by Magdelina — October 26, 2008 @ 8:24 pm | Reply

  7. When a girl is pregnant that means she has had sex, and most of the time it’s freely chosen.

    Irrelevant. As I note in my post on the basics, choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to get pregnant/have a baby.

    If a couple is having sex they should expect a child.

    Nonsense. We’re wired as a species to have sex for pleasure and for emotional bonding. Obviously, a woman who is having heterosexual intercourse may conceive even though she didn’t intend to, but plainly, most people who have sex, most of the time, do not “expect” to have a child, and don’t want one. Before abortion became safe for women, unwanted babies were killed or let die: even today, where abortion is inaccessible/unsafe, infanticide is much more common. It is a mystery to me why so many pro-lifers want to return to the bad old days where unwanted children were more likely to be let die than an unwanted pregnancy was to be aborted.

    That means something has gone right, not wrong. Fertility is good, it means you’re healthy.

    If a woman wants to have a baby, getting pregnant means something has gone right. If a woman – or a couple – have been attempting not to get pregnant, obviously getting pregnant means something has gone wrong.

    Sex education is aimed at how to properly put on a condom, and not that that’s how babies are made. It isn’t uncommon to run into a high school graduate of low SES who had no idea sex could impregnate his girlfriend.

    Well, if true, that sounds like the US really needs mandatory and comprehensive sex education for all children, from which parents are not allowed to withdraw their children unless they can show they’re teaching them the exact same materials at home. I mean really. A six-year-old should know “how babies are made”. (Your anecdotal unsourced information about ignorant boys is not particularly convincing, though. Of course, pro-lifers also tend to be on the side of keeping children ignorant and calling that “protecting their innocence” or “abstinence-only education”.

    I’m sorry, as a woman I’d like to be protected from the manipulation that the culture more than happily provides for me to “be free” and have the child ripped from my uterus so that I can spend the rest of my life thinking about it.

    Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. (Though if you have an abortion at >8 weeks, which is when the vast majority of abortions are carried out, the process is so far from “ripping a child from a uterus” that your comment seems ludicrous.) Seriously. You have the option to have an abortion – you live in a free country where a woman can’t be forced, either to have an abortion or to have a baby. You want to be protected from that freedom? Too bad: it saves women’s lives. Women should not have to die because you are afraid of having the power to decide for yourself whether or not to be pregnant.

    “The suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth…. the rate for women following a live birth was 5.9 per 100,000; following miscarriage 18.1; following abortion 34.7.” M. Gissler, Abortion/Suicide Link,Br. Med. J., Dec. 6, 1996

    Research has shown, in fact, that the strongest risk factors for attempted suicide in adults are: 1. depression, 2. alcohol abuse, 3. cocaine use, and 4. separation or divorce. In 1990, 1.6M abortions were performed in the US – the highest figure ever. If Gissler was even remotely correct, there would have been about 500 suicides among women who had had abortions – though I note (which should have been your clue!) that Gissler doesn’t give a figure of how many years since abortion for these suicides. A woman suffering from alcohol abuse or who is addicted to cocaine or who is in a state of severe depression is being responsible by deciding not to have a baby, if she gets pregnant: but her decision not to have a baby does not correlate to an underlying cause for suicide. cite (Likewise, one valid reason for deciding to terminate a pregnancy is if the woman realises that she won’t be able to bring up the child without a partner – and the partner has left.) In other words, Gissing is correlating two factors and claiming one causes the other. That’s presuming that Gissing didn’t just make his figures up… because the evidence is just not there. “Legal, voluntary abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy does not threaten most women’s mental health or cause them great emotional distress” 1990.

    Murder is the leading cause of death in the US for pregnant women. Should women avoid pregnancy because they risk being murdered? No: the simple fact is, that while carrying a baby to term is a health risk, most women who decide to carry a baby to term are young and in good health. Back in the bad old days when women were legally subject to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, illegal/unsafe abortion was a leading cause of death among young women, and of course maternal morbidity/mortality rates were far higher.

    Comment by jesurgislac — October 27, 2008 @ 7:26 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: