Inauguration day may be historic and significant for African Americans, but it will be a very sad day for one faction of America...the unborn."The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do," Barack Obama stated at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event.
Really? With everything going on in the country, the first thing you'd do is make certain that a woman has every right America can offer her to murder her own child (or, if that makes you more comfortable, "evacuate her fetus")?
It isn't just that Obama is pro-choice. It's that he supports partial birth abortion and actually opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. This legislation was passed after Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, discovered live, aborted babies being placed in soiled utility rooms to await death following induced labor abortions. So disturbing is this practice that even Hillary Clinton supported the protection of infants born alive through failed abortion attempts.
Last year, Obama stood before a group of Planned Parenthood advocates, citing his two little girls as the reason for his presence. He claimed to want them to have the ability to "dream without limit, to achieve without constraint and to be absolutely free to seek their own happiness." Apparently, they can't do so without the right to have intercourse and later decide to kill their unborn child at will.
So, as tears of joy and pride are shed for the historic occasion slated for January, the cries of millions of babies will go unheard as he vows to silence them with every bit of power he has.
40 comments:
It is a shame that pro-lifers focus only on the symptom and not the problem. The symptom is abortion while the problem is pregnancy.
Studies have proven that abstinence education doesn’t work. In fact, studies show that a higher percentage of teens become pregnant that have taken the abstinence pledge than among those that haven’t taken the pledge.
Education and prevention get at the root of the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Let’s face it; today’s teens are having sex more than ever. None of the efforts have made a dent in this trend. In fact, nature drives these young adults to procreate. If more adults faced reality and worked together on a realistic solution the number of abortions could be reduced dramatically through prevention.
What is even sadder is that the pro-life group is so concerned about unborn fetuses that they neglect the born. Genocide occurs daily in countries like Sudan and other African continent nations. Who is the champion for these children, currently on the earth?
If we all work together and focus on the real, basic problems we have a much better chance for success.
It's a shame that pro-choicers only focus on themselves and their rights and ignore the hard facts of abortion...that it's premeditated, cold-blooded murder.
Who needs education, birth control and abstinence when you can go out, have a good time, and dispose of your own flesh and blood like it's an inconvenient piece of garbage?
Millions are being slaughtered right in our country. We'd like to help everyone, we really would, but you want us to ignore this problem just because you believe there are worse problems out there? Fat chance, my friend.
I didn't say ignore the problem. To the contrary, I said identify the real problem and focus on reducing the problem. You're still hung up on abortion and not the problem which is pregnancy.
And I didn't say ignore the problem here in the USA by focusing on problems elsewhere. I merely made a point that pro-lifers ONLY care about stopping abortion, not preventing the problem in the first place. They also don't care as much for the lives of the actually born.
As I said originally, if we all work together and focus on the real, basic problems we have a much better chance for success. If the pro-lifers only focus on abortion they'll be in an endless war and will waste precious resources on the effort that could be used for greater success. Hmm. Sounds kind of like Iraq, doesn't it?
Pro-lifers do more than just "talk" about abortion and protest. They hold baby showers for unwed mothers, they counsel women who have had abortions and they provide assistance for young mothers in need.
It's a great cause, one which does more than just cause difficulty for pro-choicers.
That being said, I agree with you. Serious attention needs to be paid to why there is so much teen pregnancy in the first place. Morals start in the home, though. There is nothing more difficult than changing a person's values. By the time we could get a hold of them, it's much too late.
Abortion is a nasty issue that only the most sick-minded take joy in supporting. Yes, I am pro choice, but that doesn't make me pro abortion. I strongly feel that government has no place in a woman's uterus.
Obama voted against partial-birth abortion bans because the bans did not have sufficient legislation to cover the health of the mother. I think we can all agree that if the mother's life is in danger, she should have the option to carry out this difficult procedure.
I'm reminded of what Obama said when he accepted his party's nomination. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but he said that both sides of the abortion issue with never agree. It's just not going to happen. But what we can agree on is decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies. In the spirit of coming together, I think that, as a country and for the good of everyone in it, we would be better served to focus our energy on that issue.
Not all pro-choicers are like you. I appreciate and respect you for not taking joy in supporting it. Some people do, believe it or not.
People can do what they want with their own bodies. I respect the right to choose as well. You can choose to have sex. Once another human being is created, it's not their own body they're choosing for.
Let's face it, a very small percentage of women have abortions because of rape/incest/ endangerment to the mother. More women abort their babies because they wanted a boy and it's a girl. Let's not make abortion a noble cause by taking a sliver of the pie and magnifying it.
There is nothing noble about killing an innocent child because, for whatever reason, it was inconvenient for you.
Agreed. It's just the one issue pro-choicers point to in order to evoke sympathy for the mother. Regardless of the circumstances, children count on their mothers to protect them. Aborted children are abandoned and harmed by the one person in the world they should be able to count on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overzealous, conservative blogger
It's that he supports partial birth abortion and actually opposed the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act.
This is actually two misstatements. Barack Obama didn't oppose the "Born-Alive Protection Act", he simply wanted certain language in it fixed, and that language had absolutely nothing to do with "partial-birth abortion". He was concerned about language in the legislation that would put doctors obeying existing laws in danger of breaking the new BAIPA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overzealous, conservative blogger
This legislation was passed after Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, discovered live, aborted babies being placed in soiled utility rooms to await death following induced labor abortions.
Ahh, Jill Stanek. What is generally known of this woman is the story of her discovering some sort of evil, liberal conspiracy to kill babies. What's not generally reported is that she's, for all intents and purposes, a wing-nut. Jill came into the public spotlight when she testified the above, but she is in no way a credible witness on the subject. She had a record of lying and exaggerating about abortion, and has done so repeatedly since giving testimony. She is the one that started the assertion that Barack Obama supports "infanticide". Quite simply, there's no reason at all to believe this woman. Stating as fact that she witnessed live babies being left to die is dishonest.
Media Matters - Media cite anti-abortion activist and Obama critic Jill Stanek as though she's credible
Quote:
Originally Posted by overzealous, conservative blogger
So disturbing is this practice that even Hillary Clinton supported the protection of infants born alive through failed abortion attempts.
She supported an entirely different piece of legislation, actually, as Hillary Clinton would have no reason at all to be giving her opinion on Illinois state affairs.
Overzealous, liberal responder:
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 was introduced in U.S. House on June 14, 2001
(H.R. 2175) and U.S. Senate (S. 1050).
Both Sens. Hillary Clinton (NY) and John Kerry (MA)voted “yes”. This legislation was not limited to Illinois. It simply stemmed from there.
I understand there is some controversy over the "verbiage" of the bill and that is now why Obama says he voted against it (before he voted for it). This is a typical dilemma for politicians. They don’t get everything they want and refuse to vote a certain way until they get their way. Well, it is my opinion that this was worth putting pettiness aside. Babies were suffering and being left to die (outside of their mother’s womb).
President-elect Barack Obama is one of the most pro-choice politicians of our time. Few would argue that fact. I am against abortion. You can bet that if I hear of brutality against children and politicians do nothing (or worse, make it easier for the acts to occur), I’ll be looking into it and writing about it.
I appreciate the opposition. It keeps me on my toes, but I firmly stand by my words.
Calling Stanek a "wing-nut" does not discredit her claim. This woman witnessed brutal acts against born infants. Her points were valid. If they were not, the issue never would’ve made it to the House and Senate. She had nothing to personally gain by exposing this horrible process.
Lastly, the venom in your words leads me to believe that you are pro-choice and most likely believe that my views stem from some crazy, religious, self-righteous background. I assure you, they do not. My views on abortion relate to my humanity, not my religion.
I take pride in what I write and if I am ever factually incorrect, I would hope that it would be respectfully brought to my attention. I would like you to know that I do research and check facts. It’s not some opinion I spout without serious thought.
I ask that you do not dismiss my words because you don't agree with them. I will do my best to offer you that courtesy in return.
Thank you for taking the time to read and thank you for your comments.
Quote:
This is actually two misstatements. Barack Obama didn't oppose the "Born-Alive Protection Act", he simply wanted certain language in it fixed, and that language had absolutely nothing to do with "partial-birth abortion". He was concerned about language in the legislation that would put doctors obeying existing laws in danger of breaking the new BAIPA.
Yes, the language he wanted to fix was the language that stated he didn't want the doctor performing the abortion to have to wait on another doctor to tell if the fetus was viable or not.
Totally different.
Quote:
Media Matters - Media cite anti-abortion activist and Obama critic Jill Stanek as though she is credible
Anyone who cites media matters (a subsidiary of George Soros and founded in part by the Clintons) as factual, then calls Fox news biased needs a little reality check. Media matters is the Wikipedia of liberalism. Facts are changed on the basis of what makes who look bad and if they are for us or against us.
[The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 was introduced in U.S. House on June 14, 2001 (H.R. 2175) and U.S. Senate (S. 1050). Both Sens. Hillary Clinton (NY) and John Kerry (MA)voted “yes”. This legislation was not limited to Illinois. It simply stemmed from there.]
As someone who took the time to read both piece of legislation, I can tell you the language was very much different between the federal and Illinois version of the bill, which renders the comparison incorrect. Saying that Hillary Clinton voted yes in the same breath as saying Obama voted no is dishonest. She voted yes on something different. Please, read them if you don't believe me.
[I understand there is some controversy over the "verbiage" of the bill and that is now why Obama says he voted against it (before he voted for it). This is a typical dilemma for politicians. They don’t get everything they want and refuse to vote a certain way until they get their way. Well, it is my opinion that this was worth putting pettiness aside. Babies were suffering and being left to die (outside of their mother’s womb).]
Infanticide was already illegal in Illinois before the legislation; therefore his "refus[ing] to vote a certain way until [he got his] way" really wasn't anything bad. It was responsible. Why did he hold out? He didn't want doctors to be prosecuted or sued for obeying existing laws.
[President-elect Barack Obama is one of the most pro-choice politicians of our time. Few would argue that fact. I am against abortion. You can bet that if I hear of brutality against children and politicians do nothing (or worse, make it easier for the acts to occur), I’ll be looking into it and writing about it.]
You don't need to make yourself out to be some sort of hero; that should be left up to readers. The fact is that Senator Obama never, ever supported infanticide. He simply wanted the legislation that was passing through on his watch to be fair to doctors. His decision had nothing to do with the infants.
[Calling Stanek a "wing-nut" does not discredit her claim. This woman witnessed brutal acts against born infants. Her points were valid. If they were not, the issue never would’ve made it to the House and Senate. She had nothing to personally gain by exposing this horrible process.]
The same House and Senate that were convinced overnight that Iraq had WMDs? They don’t strike me as infallible bastions of intellectual ability.
Calling Jill Stanek a wing nut doesn't discredit her, explaining that she has a history of lying about abortion sure does go a long way to, though.
[Lastly, the venom in your words leads me to believe that you are pro-choice and most likely believe that my views stem from some crazy, religious, self-righteous background. I assure you, they do not. My views on abortion relate to my humanity, not my religion]
I'm a pro-lifer. I believe abortion is an overused, (probably) immoral act, and we should seek all other reasonable solutions from sex education to proper contraception to the morning after pill instead of allowing the fetus to grow before removing them.
Regardless, Roe v. Wade makes abortion legal; therefore we have to abide by that ruling until the court revisits the issue. And even as a pro-lifer, I can admit that we (pro-choicers and pro-lifers) don't know when life begins because the question combines science, religion, and philosophy, the latter being gray areas. Anyone, on either side, that states, as fact, they know when life begins is a fundamentalist.
Barack Obama is a strong pro-choicer. Knit pick me if you'd like, but the truth is that he voted "no" on the Born-Alive Infants Protection. This is fact.
He is extremely pro-choice and (as seen on my links) vows to put this issue at top priority.
I do not claim to be a hero. I’m disappointed that you view my thoughts this way. The heroes are the young women who protect their children and give birth rather than kill the "inconvenient" child growing inside them.
If you are indeed pro-life, I am very confused as to how we are finding ourselves on opposite ends of this argument.
I find abortion heart breaking. I write because it helps me to get that emotion out. If it helps readers understand a different point of view, that's just a bonus. If it infuriates another enough to challenge me...well, I guess that's how I will develop a thick skin.
Rather than "quoting" me and trying to make me appear less than credible when there are clearly facts to back up my words...
Why do you feel so upset by this entry? I'm not patronizing you. I'm curious.
It upsets me that we've voted a man into power who has such disregard for our vunerable children.
Obama is very pro-choice. He is. He is.
If you knew me, you'd know that I am not an arrogant woman, nor a self-serving woman. The words I write are out of concern for humanity, not to be a martyr or a hero. I couldn't care less about a legacy, accolades or acknowledgement. We may have a communtication barrier, but don't misunderstand my intentions.
Thank you again for your interest and insight.
There is a big diference between pro-choice and being for abortion. Choice is limitless while abortion has one end in mind. Choice provides many ways to prevent pregnancy, many choices to help deal with a birth and abortion as a last choice.
Religion for years has made sex something dirty unless you were married. Unfortunately, everyone is doing it and organized religion generally has its head in the sand. In fact, I learned more about sex in the back halls and stairways of church and from preacher's sons and daughters than from anywhere else. It's a shame schools don't do more to help kids understand and also provide ways to prevent pregnancy rather than abstinance pledges that have failed miserably.
Taking a life is wrong. Deciding when life exists in a viable state is debatable. In fact, life exists as a sperm and an egg as these tissues are living things and just as much living before and after they are joined.
As it has been said many places, including on this blog, Roe v. Wade isn't going away. All the effort of pro-lifers is being wasted when that effort could be directed to prevention of unwanted pregnancy, which is the real problem, or helping those deal with unwanted pregnancy when it does happen.
Most of the time people make connections between pro-lifers and religion because most pro-lifers are religious. Spiritual people are tired of religious people trying to force their views and dogma on others. Religion should be something personal.
Here is something interesting from Wikipedia:
An important distinction exists between spirituality in religion and spirituality as opposed to religion. In recent[update] years, spirituality as opposed to religion often carries connotations of a believer having a faith more personal, less dogmatic, more open to new ideas and myriad influences, and more pluralistic than the doctrinal/dogmatic faiths of mature religions.[1] It also can connote the nature of believers' personal relationship or "connection" with their god(s) or belief-system(s), as opposed to the general relationship with a Deity as shared by all members of a given faith.
Those who speak of spirituality as opposed to religion generally meta-religiously believe in the existence of many "spiritual paths" and deny any objective truth about the best path to follow. Rather, adherents of this definition of the term emphasize the importance of finding one's own path to whatever-god-there-is, rather than following what others say works. In summary: the path which makes the most coherent sense becomes the correct one (for oneself).
Many adherents of orthodox religions who regard spirituality as an aspect of their religious experience tend to contrast spirituality with secular "worldliness" rather than with the ritual expression of their religion.
People of a more New-Age disposition tend to regard spirituality not as religion per se, but as the active and vital connection to a force/power/energy, spirit, or sense of the deep self. As cultural historian and yogi William Irwin Thompson (1938 - ) put it, "Religion is not identical with spirituality; rather religion is the form spirituality takes in civilization." (1981, 103)
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/
I recently had a political discussion with the in-laws at our Christmas party (hey, they brought it up) and when abortion came up, I asked if they'd ever seen what it looks like. No one had. Above is a link to pictures of aborted babies. If you are like most, you won't look because you know how brutal it can be and don't want to see it.
More to come. I haven't read the last comment completely, but I'll be late for work if I keep this up!
No one will argue that it is disgusting and gross. The point is that fighting abortion may be a worthy cause but it is a waste of time, jusk like prohibition was a waste of time and the drug war is also a huge waste of time - and money. Why not put your efforts why they will actually produce a result?
I think plenty of people eat meat but they don't want to watch their foods slaughtered. Who is doing something about the children in Somalia and places like that that are already living?
And like a previous poster said, prevention solves the abortion problem. You can reduce many more abortions by preventing the pregnancies in the first place.
Right to Life supporters do all kinds of things for mothers who choose life. They also support women who experience depression, regret and guilt after having an abortion.
They aren't going to turn their backs on this brutality because somemay think there are worse problems out there.
We're talking about cold-blooded, premeditated murder.
We have an obligation to defend what happens to the body of an innocent child who can't defend itself against the one woman who is supposed to protect it.
Legislation is the only thing that can defend babies without infringing on rights. You didn't misread that. RTL doesn't infringe on rights. People can do what they want with their own bodies. They do not own their unborn child and they have no right to slaughter it.
My mother never owned me. She gave me home for 9 months (and 25 years after that), but at no point should she have had the right to decide if I lived or died.
Right, and you are stopping abortions!
When will you step up, face reality and figure out how to stop the problem - unwanted pregnancy? Stop the problem and stop the symptom. But you never acknowledge that premise, you just keep talking about the poor unborn babies.
Stop pregnancies and you won't have unborn babies to deal with. But perhaps that's what you enjoy fighting for and don't care about prevention.
And are you saying that what goes on in other countries like Somalia and Rhwanda isn't cruel and unusual, premediated murder?
No one ever said RTL infringes on rights because they have no power. Like you said, only legislation will change anything and good luck with that - you have Obama for the next 8 years. But RTL can do more than just try to cause prblems locally - they can make a difference if they choose to, but religion tries to make people do things like religion has always done.
Not quite sure what to say. We can't run into every bedroom and enforce good decision making prior to intercourse.
We can only say that if they do make bad decisions, there will be consequences. So...think twice. Who needs to think twice when abortion is easy and only going to be made easier through Obama?
This has zero to do with religion and everything to do with human rights and respect for all of humanity.
I understand your point of view. I'd prefer to catch the problem before it becomes one, but unfortunately...that is an individual's choice. They get to choose to have sex or not. We don't have any right to tell them otherwise. We only have control over violence and brutality toward children.
I am an extremely empathetic person. I care about all of humanity. I certainly didn't say that other causes aren't worth while or equally disturbing.
This thought/entry happens to deal with abortion. I'm not going to apologize for my opinion and I'm certainly not going to avoid the topic.
I respect yours and understand your point of view. I'd like the problem to be prevented altogether as well.
Abortion is a choice as well as having unprotected sex. You don't get to prevent abortions from happening just like you can't prevent sex from happening. By the time someone is in the bedroom it is too late; prevention begins much earlier. Through education and planned parenthood clinics our youth can obtain eaducation regarding birth control and products to aid in birth control.
If your efforts were half as strong for education and prevention you would be more successful reducing the problem and thus the need for abortion. Everyone would win.
Okay, I get it. You want abortion to be ignored and somehow find a way into the homes and minds of sexually active, but not parentally ready, citizens.
Tell you what...you fight for condoms, we'll fight for babies. Maybe one day we'll stop all the atrocities.
Wouldn't you find it strange if abortion was going on and no one cared? Wouldn't that say something terrible about our society?
I can see your point of view...why can't you see mine?
No, you don't get what I said. Go read it again and pay attention this time. I can see your point but it is pointless. Read on:
Lie #2 is that Republicans are the party of social conservatives and religious fundamentalists. But despite talking big about banning abortion and gay marriage, the Republicans have done little to actually promote the causes that social conservatives hold dear. The problem here is that the Republicans have become addicted to using issues like abortion to mobilize their base. If the Republicans actually succeeded in making abortion totally illegal there would be a huge backlash, which would then mobilize the Democratic liberal base against them. Also note that the Bush administration used their power over judicial appointments and federal prosecutors to pursue political ends, not the ends desired by social conservatives. In short, the Republican party is using social conservatives.
I find it interesting that one of the most controversial and emotionally charged issues of our time is one that has zero chance of being resolved.
Debating abortion is fairly useless, in my opinion. Everyone knows all of the facts (even though people from both sides sometimes distort them to fit his or her point).
What the debate almost always boils down to is morality and belief. I don't believe it is immoral to have an abortion nor do I refer to fetuses as unborn babies or anything close to that.
However, my belief doesn't so blind me that I cannot see the opposition's point of view. I've seen ultrasounds and pictures and whatnot. I can understand why the other side believes that it is immoral to have an abortion because it does look like a murder. The key word being "look," because I don't believe it is murder.
And that's where we have an impasse. While I am more than willing to concede the fact that I thoroughly understand the opposition's point of view, I don't feel that they understand mind.
My side has to stop viewing the opposition as freedom snatchers who favor big government. We have to respect that it's more personal than that.
However, the opposition has to stop viewing my side as some left-wing, fetus-hungry baby killer and realize that it's more complicated than that.
Brandon January 2, 2009 9:21 AM
Nicely put!
Even the Palin's think prevention is best. To pull a quote from Palin's press release:
Bristol Palin said she "obviously discourages" teen pregnancy and knows that plans she previously made for herself will now forever be changed. "Teenagers need to prevent pregnancy to begin with -– this isn't ideal."
Not to break up the liberal love fest, but I'd love to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I respect and enjoy debating folks with opposing viewpoints, but this is a lose/lose situation.
If you all don't think abortion is murder, you've turned a blind eye to the basic rules of humanity in order to serve your own selfish needs and opinions.
If you really mean what you say you would place more effort in prevention.
If, on the other hand, your goal is simply to have others agree with your position that abortion is murder your efforts are probably pointed in the right direction. You get to have fun debating when life is formed (which many could debate occura when a sperm and egg are first formed, not just joined). Unfortunately, those efforts won't be as effective in resulting in fewer abortions like a big focus on prevention would. For example, would you rather spend time reating polio or develop a vacine?
The bottom line: if you really want to cut down on abortions cut down on pregnancy. That is my point and the one you repeatedly ignore. That position is neither conservative, liberal or religious for that matter, simply practical.
I BELIEVE YOU'RE CORRECT. Prevention is a practical and intelligent way to stop abortion. We don't disagree on that.
However, prevention is ultimately up to the individual. Abortion is up to the government. That's why you see RTL working from that end.
It's not just teens having abortions. The majority of women having abortions know all about prevention. They just choose to overlook it because they know there is an easy out.
Again, if preventing abortion is a government responsibility, you are wasting your time. It doesn’t benefit government to overturn Roe v. Wade so it will never happen.
Moreover, you say prevention is the individual’s responsibility and stopping abortion is the government’s responsibility as if you are speaking of two different entities. Government of the people, by the people and for the people is what democracy is all about. If government is the people then you have effectively reached a catch 22.
Second, it is mighty presumptuous of you to think that the majority of women having abortions made a conscious choice to use that as a preemptive method of birth control. And if that really were the case, you’d be much more effective with education regarding more effective means of birth control. Trying to tell people only what they cannot do doesn’t provide options (plural) for what they can do.
I will never relent on my stance that prevention is much effective than controlling and vastly more effective at solving the problem by preventing it in the first place. And that doesn’t mean when two people have made it to the bedroom. Rather, it begins at the beginning.
I hear from USA TODAY that team birth rates are up and that abstinence programs aren't working. The call is for more birth control. What effect does rising teen pregnancy have on the abortion rate? I'm sure it's going up as well.
I'll bet one dqy you will shift your focus more to pregnancy rather than just no abortions. That's a sure-fire way to cut back on abortions!
Below: A list of events just emailed me from the Right to Life organization at Oakland University. It's not all- burning down abortion clinics and simply praying for an end. The group is dedicated to solutions and guidance.
Events and Speakers this semester
January 29th 12-1 pm: Dr. Anne Mitchell on fetal development
February 13th 5-9 pm: Baby Shower fundraiser for local crisis pregnancy center. (Oakland Room of the OC)
March 2nd 12-1 pm: Speaker TBA (Fireside Lounge)
March 19th 12-1 pm: Gerard Smigell on sidewalk counseling
April 7th 12-1 pm: Danielle Center on living a life of chastity (Fireside Lounge)
Nothing about prevention other than the chastity thing which we all know ins't working...
http://www.gcapp.org/about-us-history-g-capp
The concept for the Georgia Campaign for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention began in 1994 when I attended the U. N. Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt, as the Goodwill Ambassador to the United Nation's Population fund. At that time, Georgia led the nation as the state with the highest rate of adolescent pregnancy and I believed that the way to address the issue was by expanding the use of contraception.
The Cairo Conference was unique in that is was the first time that women were central to the development of a U. N. conference's Plan of Action. These women were frontline workers from around the world for whom population growth was neither a demographic issue, nor simply a health issue.
Upon my return to Georgia I traveled to different parts of the state to talk to our own frontline workers and to learn about adolescent life here. At that time, more than 29,000 teens were becoming pregnant annually in Georgia; about 7 of every 100 girls were becoming mothers. 99 out 100 teen pregnancies were unplanned, and, nearly 1/4 of teen births in Georgia were repeat births -- ranking Georgia 44th in the nation.
I remember looking into the eyes of a 14-year-old girl in a hospital in Albany, Georgia, who was in labor with her 2nd child. I was told she lived in a shack that lacked running water and electricity. I knew intuitively that unless one could change the conditions of her life there would probably be more children to come. Even assuming there was a family planning clinic accessible to her and affordable, what would motivate this child to use these services? What future could she see for herself that would be compromised by having children so soon?
Girls who grow up in poverty and without hope of bettering their situation are likely to be teen mothers. The best contraceptive, it turns out, is hope. In this country, 80% of mothers who begin their families as teenagers were living at or below the poverty line long before they became pregnant. Without early and on-going interventions, their early parenthood virtually guarantees that they and their children will spend their lives in poverty.
I discovered that keeping girls in school is an important to reducing early pregnancy and parenthood in the U. S. as it is in other parts of the world. School failure and dropout are associated with many risk behaviors in both boys and girls including early and unprotected sex.
So is the lack of an involved father. Boys who grow up with an involved father, whether or not the father lives in the home and is married to the mother, will have more confidence in himself, do better in school and tend to be less violent. Girls with involved fathers tend to delay onset of sexual activity and postpone childbearing.
Girls who have experienced sexual abuse or sexual coercion tend to initiate sexual activity earlier, have multiple partners and engage in unsafe sex. A United States study found that sexual and physical abuse are powerful predictors of early pregnancy. Some studies shows that 60% or more of mothers 15 years or younger have been abused! Usually the abuser is an adult man, often a parent or family member. Sexual abuse robs a girl of a sense of identity, of ownership of her body. For these girls the idea of negotiating contraceptive use with a partner would be anathema.
Cairo taught me how gender role stereotypes directly effect a girl's sexual and reproductive behavior. For instance, our culture portrays sexually active girls as "loose" or "cheap" thereby inhibiting girls from seeking information or services such as contraception for fear that this would be an acknowledgement that they want and plan on having sex. Often girls are unable or unwilling to negotiate condom use because they are taught by our culture to be docile and to please the man at all costs or they fear accusations of unfaithfulness or even violence, especially when partners are several years older, increasing the level of intimidation.
I came to see that while sexuality education, reproductive health and family planning services are critical components in any effort to prevent adolescent pregnancy they are not enough. Too many other factors influence whether a youth has sufficient motivation and adequate access to contraception or to act differently because of what she or he has learned in a classroom. In addition, family planning services that are appropriate for adult clients may too often not be adequate for young people whose needs and problems are different. Clinics often exclude single adolescents, either formally or informally, through inconvenient hours, lack of privacy or judgmental staff.
For all these reasons, I created G-CAPP to broaden the traditional adolescent pregnancy prevention agenda to address the social antecedents that lie beneath the problem behavior. These include poverty, unemployment, violence, drugs, lack of good parenting, school failure, and dropout, child abuse, alienation from mainstream society, racism and gender bias. This approach necessitates working not only with girls but also with boys, not only with their mothers but also with their fathers, with their communities and with society at large.
G-CAPP identifies best practices and strategies, locates appropriate agencies to involve in management, assists in locating funding, and ensures that programs are being properly implemented. Our community-based organizers engage the communities in determining which programs meet their needs. They work with community leaders, residents, youth and caring networks within each community to create sustainable programs and a positive environment that will reduce the rate of adolescent pregnancy and increase opportunities for young people and their parents.
Youth and their families need programs and opportunities created for them such as job development and community policing, and they need activities that are done with them such as programs that build their skills and capacities. But they also need self-initiated opportunities done by them such as advocacy and organizing, and, ultimately programs they run themselves. G-CAPP wants to ensure that the communities in which we work benefit from comprehensive multi-faceted efforts that weave together different interventions to create an integrated "for, with, and by" web.
Along side our community-based work, statewide advocacy is a central part of what we do. We are a campaign after all. You can be doing extraordinary work at the community level and then look over your shoulder one day to find that a minor's right to confidential access to clinics, or comprehensive sexuality education, or funding for after school programs have been taken away. Voter education and mobilization is critical to countering the efforts of those who think the "just say no" message is effective for all adolescents. On a proactive level, G-CAPP hopes to institutionalize through policy the models that have proven effective in the field.
The problem with the "just say no" message isn't the "no" it's the "just." This is not a simple issue and our polling shows that a majority of Georgians understand this. By activating that majority and amplifying its voice, G-CAPP can become a catalyst for change, the reduction of adolescent pregnancy can become more than a statistical blip, and a great service will be done for future generations.
Jane Fonda,
Founder and Chairperson
Looks like Jane Fonda is getting the last word on this blog!
The baby was sucking its thumb when it was suddenly jolted in the warm home it had been living in for nine months.
Something strange was happening, he knew. He was frightened as he felt himself moving down from the warm fluid he'd been kicking and rolling around in for the past few months. He could hear the muffled sounds of the familiar voice he'd come to know best throughout his time here.
Suddenly he was being squeezed through a small canal. His feet became cold as he entered the outside, then his legs, then his stomach and chest. "What was happening?" he thought.
He then felt a sharp, cold tool touch just above his neck. His legs were kicking in the new, cold air. Then, his screams were muffled as the instrument was jabbed into his skull. It was the most painful experience imaginable. His body was lifeless, but his soul remained. The doctor sucked out his brain matter and his head collapsed.
The remaining portion of his tiny body was brought out into the world.
The voice he'd come to know was then free to go on with her career and continue sleeping with this really hot guy she'd recently met. He wasn't so keen on kids and she wasn't yet ready to take on the responsiblity from that other hot guy she was dating last year who turned out to be a total jerk.
Jane Fonda's piece attempted to evoke some sympathy from its audience. But, this is why we fight against abortion.
This is why we don't look at a gunshot victim and stop to ponder how it could be prevented before we try to save the victim from certain death.
Corny as it may sound to you, this is what makes my heart ache. The mom's feelings and situation are a distant second.
Then why not work to prevent the pregnancy from ever happening. that's a real solution. At least Fonda is being proactive and looking at all the reasons behind unwanted pregnancy as a preventative measure.
What's wrong with contraception? Or are you listening to a man that supposedly doesn't even have sex? Supposedly...
You must not have read the Fonda piece because it never said anything about abortion, only understanding the whys and PREVENTION. Apparently no one cares about the mothers either.
No, I read it. It's about the hardships for "moms"...and prevention, I know.
If crazy Jane Fonda (I know her stance on abortion already) can help with that, RTL will take it from the other end and maybe we can fix it all. Someone has got to stick up for the babies slaughtered every day (in the meantime).
That's the whole point - if you don't have unplanned pregnancy you don't have slaughtered babies. Just remember, when you put "ed" on the end of a word it becomes past tense.
Post a Comment