Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

GOP ignores children once they're outside the womb..

Posted by   + Show Post

G.O.P. IGNORES CHILDREN ONCE THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE WOMB

A recent road trip took me into the precincts of rural Georgia and Florida, far away from the traffic jams, boutique coffeehouses and National Public Radio signals that frame my familiar landscape. Along the way, billboards reminded me that I was outside my natural habitat: anti-abortion declarations appeared every 40 or 50 miles.

"Pregnant? Your baby's heart is already beating!" "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. -- God." And, with a photo of an adorable smiling baby, "My heart beat 18 days from conception."

The slogans suggest a stirring compassion for women struggling with an unplanned pregnancy and a deep-seated moral aversion to pregnancy termination. But the morality and compassion have remarkably short attention spans, losing interest in those children once they are outside the womb.

These same stretches of Georgia and Florida, like conservative landscapes all over the country that want to roll back reproductive freedoms, are thick with voters who fight the social safety net that would assist children from less-affluent homes. Head Start, Medicaid and even food stamps are unpopular with those voters.

Through more than 25 years of writing about Roe vs. Wade and the politics that it spawned, I've never been able to wrap my head around the huge gap between anti-abortionists' supposed devotion to fetuses and their animosity toward poor children once they are born. (Catholic theology at least embraces a "whole-life" ethic that works against both abortion and poverty, but Catholic bishops have seemed more upset lately about contraceptives than about the poor.) While many conservative voters explain their anti-abortion views as Bible-based, their Bibles seem to have edited out Jesus' charity toward the less fortunate.

That brain-busting cognitive dissonance is also on full display in Washington, where just last week the GOP-dominated House of Representatives passed a bill that would outlaw all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. After the bill was amended to make exceptions for a woman's health or rape -- if the victim reports the assault within 48 hours -- U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., withdrew his support. The exceptions made the bill too liberal for his politics.

Meanwhile, this same Republican Congress has insisted on cutting one of the nation's premier food-assistance programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. GOP hard-liners amended the farm bill wending its way through the legislative process to cut $2 billion from food stamps because, they believe, it now feeds too many people. Subsidies to big-farming operations, meanwhile, remained largely intact.

The proposed food stamp cuts are only one assault on the programs that assist less-fortunate children once they are born. Republicans have also trained their sights on Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. Paul Ryan, the GOP's relentless budget-cutter, wants to turn Medicaid into a block grant to the states, which almost certainly means that fewer people would be served. About half of Medicaid's beneficiaries are children.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act, whose name implies more medical knowledge than its proponents actually have, has no chance of becoming law since it won't pass the Senate. Its ban onabortion after 20 weeks, passed by the House along partisan lines, was merely another gratuitous provocation designed to satisfy a conservative base that never tires of attacks on women's reproductive freedom.

Outside Washington, however, attempts to limit access to abortion are gaining ground. From Alaska to Alabama, GOP-dominated legislatures are doing everything they can think of to curtail a woman's right to choose. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 14 states have enacted new restrictions on abortion this year.

That re-energized activism around reproductive rights slams the door on recent advice from Republican strategists who want their party to highlight issues that might draw a broader array of voters. Among other things, they have gently -- or stridently, depending on the setting -- advised Republican elected officials to downplay contentious social issues and focus on job creation, broad economic revival and income inequality. Clearly, those Republican lawmakers haven't gotten the message.

Still, GOP bigwigs get furious when they are accused of conducting a war on women. But what else is it? It's clearly not a great moral crusade to save children.

(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)

http://news.yahoo.com/g-o-p-ignores-children-once-theyre-outside-050010443.html

by on Jun. 22, 2013 at 2:01 AM
Replies (31-40):
Sisteract
by Whoopie on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:13 AM
1 mom liked this

Yep

Quoting snookyfritz:

For a political party to champion the cause of an end to abortion and then rip out from under  the very people they claim to want save, social safety nets is very hypocritical


yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM
2 moms liked this

 So it was okay when the Democratic Senate Agriculture Committee cut more than 4 billion from the program?  I missed the post blasting this...can you give me a link?

Beyond this.....did you read the bill?  It has all kinds of extra subsidies...millions for the wine industry.  All kinds of extra crap that equal a TRILLION dollars that we don't have.  I would have voted against it for the price tag alone.

 

 

yourspecialkid
by Platinum Member on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:23 AM
2 moms liked this

 For anyone actually interested in what is going on....the actual legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:3:./temp/~c113BHN7mu::

doomshroom
by Bronze Member on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:25 AM
10 moms liked this

for the tl:dr crowd.

Bam.
skylight555
by Member on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:34 AM

I don't care how many children ones have as long as they don't use taxpayers money to pay to raise them. Period.

mehamil1
by Platinum Member on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Quoting DestinyHLewis:

I suppose it would be far too much for people to grasp PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in their actions or in actions as it may be, and expect them to take precautions, or be ready to take care of the child they chose to have? 

 Nope. It's everyone else's  problem and monetary responsibility. That is the core problem here. Not a problem of evil republicans forcing women to have babies. MOST of those chose their path. I am not talking about rape or incest victims. The problem in general with our society is that our government has convinced a crap ton of people they have no personal responsibility for their children, and if they have them, everyone else will pay the bill. It's owed. 

T-HoneyLuv
by on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM
1 mom liked this
This comment reeks of " I have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation so I will just whine about how the TRUTH is dividing this country "
I will eagerly be watching the next attack post on Liberals and see how much you care about division. * eyeroll *


Quoting Carpy:

Let's keep dividing with bullshit

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
faire_jour
by on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:50 AM
5 moms liked this

Aren't they taking responsibility by seeking a legal, medical solution to end an unwanted pregnancy?


Quoting DestinyHLewis:

I suppose it would be far too much for people to grasp PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in their actions or in actions as it may be, and expect them to take precautions, or be ready to take care of the child they chose to have? 

 Nope. It's everyone else's  problem and monetary responsibility. That is the core problem here. Not a problem of evil republicans forcing women to have babies. MOST of those chose their path. I am not talking about rape or incest victims. The problem in general with our society is that our government has convinced a crap ton of people they have no personal responsibility for their children, and if they have them, everyone else will pay the bill. It's owed. 



mehamil1
by Platinum Member on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:56 AM

I can't speak for lifeforchrist but I've followed her along for awhile now. I think she's one of those few pro life people that does support social welfare programs that help children. They do exist. Crazy, I know. But they do. 

I'm pro choice by the way. 

Quoting AdrianneHill:
And yet you say nothing about the breathing children alive and in need. Do they not deserve your protections and protestations too?
Ready to follow pregnant women around with admonishments for life and offers of assistance but the lives of children whose parents are trying or aren't are deemed just more fodder for the free lunch-prison corridor.
Go on, scream for the right of potential but ignore it in front of you for being poor and a burden on society.

Quoting lifeforchrist:

 because being dead and ripped into pieces is the better kinder option. Abortion hypocrites make me gag.

mehamil1
by Platinum Member on Jun. 22, 2013 at 10:58 AM
3 moms liked this

This needs to be put up on a billboard. 

While we sit here squabbling about the poor and such, an oil company just got another $9000 bajillion in subsidies that they don't need. That's where the true waste is. Not spending money on the poor to keep them out of abject poverty. 

Quoting Woodbabe:

Everyone keeps talking about personal responsibility and not expecting the government to pay to raise those children...while supporting the transfer of bazillions of dollars in aid and guns to foreign countries. Why is it okay to fund other countries, feed and educate THOSE children, arm their parents and line the pockets of their corrupt governments but NOT spend an equivalent amount of money on our own children? Why don't we tell the other countries to take responsibility for themselves instead? Think of how much better our children would be if all that money shipped overseas was instead invested in America?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)