November 30, 2004
Disturbing Political News 2
1) The other health care issue. 2) America’s college bound are destined for unprecedented debt. 3) Poll finds Americans support Roe V. Wade. 4) Lowering the minimum wage is one outcome of government policies. 5) Bush gets some more money to under educate school kids.
1) Mental Illness in America is the unspoken, and other half, of the health care crisis. The Washington Post reports:
The study -- the result of a months-long examination of the state's foster care and mental health services -- chronicles the difficult decisions that thousands of Virginia parents have made to relinquish custody of their children to the foster care system so they can get mental health services that are otherwise unavailable or unaffordable.
For far too many insurance companies, benefits for mental health are greatly reduced from those of physical maladies. The underlying premise for this appears to be that fraud and cost risks are higher. But, the facts seem to oppose that conclusion. Most mental health issues would not require hospitalization if adequate insurance coverage were available, and the overhead costs for outpatient treatments consist of little more than the lease on the office, remuneration to the health care provider, and prescriptions.
While there is a potential for fraud by patients in the form of seeking treatment that is not needed, the stigma attached to mental health issues would appear to counter such fraud dramatically. So, why are benefits for health care so wanting? It is an issue America needs to address.
2) America's college bound are also bound for unprecedented debt levels. The Christian Science Monitor reports:
"These young adults are doing everything society tells them to do," says Tamara Draut, coauthor of a new study, "Generation Broke: The Growth of Debt Among Young Americans," published by Demos, a public-policy group in New York. "They're going to college, taking on tremendous student-loan debt, and working longer hours than ever before while in college. When they get in the real world, they can't get ahead because of the debt they went into to get the degree to get the good job."
The biggest single contributing factor is the transfer of the cost of college from government grants to interest bearing student loans. Americans in general are holding the highest debt loads in its history and there is no end in sight to the loading of the credit wagon. This is just another sign that our economy and wages are simply not keeping pace with consumer needs for the basics of living a middle class lifestyle.
3) A USA Today story on an Associated Press poll reports:
The poll found that 59% say Bush should choose a nominee who would uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. About three in 10, 31%, said they want a nominee who would overturn the decision, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
While President Bush has not said he will appoint Supreme Court Justices on the basis of their intent to overturn Roe V. Wade, it is clear to many that Bush's views would predispose his selections in that direction. Will the President oppose the majority view of the American people in this regard and hide behind the thin veil of saying this one issue is not a litmus test for his selections? The evidence of course will be in his selections and whether they create a majority on the court that will send women to back alley make shift clinics for abortions that leave them dead of infections, massive hemorrhaging, or infertile due to massive scarring. Overturning will not stop abortions just as the war on drugs has not stopped demand for the black market products.
4) Many 'right to work' states, most of them Bush support states in the last election, champion laws and programs that recategorize jobs as 'independent contractor' forcing wages to fall below minimum wage, without overtime pay or health and pension benefits. Right to work states are states that establish laws to prevent unionization efforts and give employers the widest possible discretion in hiring and firing according to the company's needs. Independent contractor status in the eyes of the law does not necessarily mean one has established their own entrepreneurial start-up company. More often, it means immigrants and unskilled workers can have low wage no benefits jobs provided by the state. One such story appears at WashingtonPost.com entitled, For Aides to the Frail in Md., the Reward Isn't in the Pay.
5) Your tax dollars will support Bush in his efforts to under educate your children about sex. The Associated Press reports the recent omnibus spending bill by Congress increased federal tax dollar spending on one of President Bush's favored brainwashing programs in schools, sexual abstinence only. The story reports:
Congress last weekend included more than $131 million for abstinence programs in a $388 billion spending bill, an increase of $30 million but about $100 million less than Bush requested. Meanwhile, a national evaluation of abstinence programs has been delayed, with a final report not expected until 2006. ...Posted by David R. Remer at November 30, 2004 04:05 PMThose who say schools also should be teaching youths how to use contraceptives say Horn's argument ignores reality. Surveys indicate that roughly 50 percent of teens say they have sex before they leave high school. While the nation's teenage pregnancy rate is declining, young people 15 to 24 account for about half the new cases of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States each year.
Teaching only about abstinence means students will be less able to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, say supporters of comprehensive sexual education.
It may be a mistake to expect a dysfunctional
government to do any of these things correctly?
Especially, when the government wants to meddle
in everything, and be responsible for nothing.
And, based on the government’s track-record,
should we expect it to change?
Why does it seem that government can’t even do the most simple things correctly?
Is it because they don’t have enough money?
No, revenues are now up to about $1.8 trillion per year.
Why all these problems?
It seems like politicians’ brains turn into
jelly as soon as they arrive in D.C. ,
and suddenly lose all common sense and integrity.
What the heck are they doing over there in D.C. ?
Perhaps we should first determine what the fundamental problem is,
and propose a fundamental solution ?
I agree.
Why should the govt be responsible for any of these things?
To date, the govt has proven only to be able to make a mess out of everything it controls.
Let us run our own lives.
To many pow wows and peace pipes full of whacky weed.
Posted by: bugcrazy at November 30, 2004 05:30 PMThe poll about Roe is completely misreported, as talked about professor Eugune Volohk:
Sounds pretty striking (and I should note that it’s important even given the substantial correction that I note below). But here’s what the poll actually asked, courtesy of the ever-valuable PollingReport.com:
“As you may know, President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint several new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during his second term. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?”
But wait, Roe didn’t just make abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. It also made it legal at any time before viability (limiting government regulation to that related to protecting “maternal health”); the Court said viability would be at about six or seven months (though over time, the line has moved up a bit, as the 1992 Casey decision recognized). I suspect that such months-four-to-six abortions would be considerably more controversial than ones in months one through three.
Now I should say the poll is still pretty significant, because it shows broad support for the constitutional protection of first-trimester abortions. But it doesn’t show equal support for all aspects of Roe, especially its protection of second-trimester abortions. And while I realize that poll questions have to be kept simple, (1) I suspect that the polltakers shouldn’t have oversimplified things this much, to the point of material inaccuracy, and (2) at least they should alert media organizations that the question contains this oversimplification.
And, of course, this is yet another reminder to be highly skeptical of media reports of surveys. Good thing that PollingReport.com now lets us check them more closely, though I suspect that no more than a tiny percentage of readers will ever check them this closely.”
Currently, the courts are striking down partial birth abortion bans that most people, even democrats support. I guess pro-aborts only care what the people think on these issues as long as the people agree with them….
Also, This poll is misleading in that it makes people think that if Roe is overturned, abortion will be elligal. In fact, these same people, if they support abortion, can do something that we are supposed to do in this country- an “official poll”- or, more accurately, a VOTE ON AN ISSUE THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT DECIDE. Thats what our system is built on, and thats why Roe is so wrong (among other reasons).
And that is why this poll is incredibly stupid. It does not ask whether Roe was correct as a CONSTITUTIONAL matter, but rather whether people “want” to keep it. Of course, most people are completely ignorant to the fact that most serious constitutional scholars (even most of the supreme court that upheld Roe ONLY based on Stare Decisis) believe Roe is wrong as a matter of constitutional interpriation.
but of course, the liberals courts have made such a mess out of our constitution that I cant expect them to respect any part of it, oh well. I am so tired of people paying lip-service to the constitution only when it serves their interests, but this destroying the document when it does not…
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 30, 2004 05:42 PMMisha, Constitutional arguments dating back to the authors have to be taken with a grain of salt and even contradict your stance. The original Constitution and Bill of Rights did not extend a whole host of rights to women, children, blacks, American Indians, etc. etc.
One has to do a lot of interpreting in order to get to Constitutional justification for women’s suffrage, the current tax system, and a host of other legislations that passed Congressional muster.
Since the original Constitution does not, in any way, address a definition for when life begins, nor when Constitutional protections apply to non-men, it is one hell of a stretch to try to defend overturning Roe V. Wade on Constitutional grounds. On the other hand, the Constitution does delegate to the states all issues not addressed by the Federal Constitution. Therefore, the only Constitutionally valid argument regarding Roe V. Wade that can be made is that IF it is overturned by the Supreme Court, the states have the right to permit abortions by their own legislation.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2004 11:40 PMDavid- a couple important points
1. Women’s sufferage was put in via constitutional amendment (19th)- no stretching of the text of the constitution was used.
2. Our tax system was also put in by amendment (16th amendment)- again, the people realized that the constitution needed to be changed.
3. I think you are confused on the Roe issue- which perhaps is what is leading you to your position. What Scalia and Thomas and Renquist have said is not that Roe should be exactly flipped and the constitution should Ban abortion, but rather that Roe should be thrown out and the people should have a right to decide on abortion.
Moreover, since you agree with them that the constitution “does not, in any way, address a definition for when life begins” you are taking the Scalia position exactly. (I suggest you read his dissent in Casey, in which he says the court has “no business” in the area of abortion).
To think that Roe v. Wade would be flipped to the point of actually banning abortions would require appointing FIVE justices FAR more right-wing than Scalia or Thomas (and from having looked at the short lists, not one person on that list fits that bill).
To sum up. In order to uphold Roe v. Wade, you would need to be able to prove that the constitution conclusively allows abortions. In order to ban abortion via the courts, you would have to show that the constitution conclusively bans abortion. If you believe that neither of these burdens can be met, then you are with the demonzied conservative jurists who want to overturn Roe, and put judicial presumption in its place.
Misha, I understand. Thanks.
Your premise however that to retain Roe V. Wade, one would have to prove the Constitution approves abortion is a complete misunderstanding of our Constitution. Anything not prohibited nor constrained by the Constitution is permissable. The Constitution is not designed on the basis of all things are illegal unless specifically granted by teh Constitution. Quite the opposite is true. Your premise here is flatly wrong.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2004 12:10 AMDavid- i do not think you are correct on the paricular issue. If you agree that the constitution doesnt not say YES or NO on abortion, then Roe vs. Wade is wrongly decided- there is no real despite about that. You would have to agree that the Supreme Court was incorrect in striking down the Texas state law against abortion, because the constitution does not comment on the issue. That is, the court can only strike down laws that violate the constitution…
BUT…
I do think that you may have (i am not sure purposefully or not) hit on a very interesting point with the following statement:
“Anything not prohibited nor constrained by the Constitution is permissable”
While I think that statement is actually correct, I doubt anyone but a libertarian like me would agree with it these days. Anyway, since i am a libertarian, I take that statement seriously. I think that for the state to take away someone’s freedom in any area, they must be able to show a valid (or compelling) state interest. I think most everyone would agree that there is at least SOME strong state interest in protecting unborn life (even if you think its not fully human life).
After all, we allow the government to limit people’s freedom in the name of protecting ANIMALS (see the Endager Species Act). Moreover, there are state laws which prohibit cruel treatment of animals that have not been struck down by the supreme court… Dont you think that if the government has the power to limit liberty to protect endangered animals, it has power to protect unborn children of our species?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at December 1, 2004 12:28 AMNote also, that the law struck down in Roe was a STATE law. It seems odd to me that you think that even though the federal constitution makes no conclusivecomment on abortion, the Supreme Court can use that constitution to strike down state laws… can you please explain?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at December 1, 2004 12:32 AMWhy should the govt be responsible for any of these things?
Government is the channel through which society can collectively care for and protect its citizens. Simply put: we need to care for our own people, healthy, sick, undereducated, overeducated, etc.
On the education topic: It’s essential to the long-term benefit of the US that we better support education. If students getting out of college can’t afford to live a comfortable (not wealthy but not poor) life due to debt incurred by student loans, then there will be a major blowback to the US economy.
Posted by: Daniel Waldman at December 1, 2004 01:14 AMMisha said If you agree that the constitution doesnt not say YES or NO on abortion, then Roe vs. Wade is wrongly decided- there is no real despite about that.
Not necessarily. One has to examine the context of society at the time Roe v. Wade was decided. Now, I have not studied the briefs of Roe v. Wade, so I am winging it here. But, I was old enough to take in the social context of the decision.
At the time, if you had money, you could go where a safe, legal, abortion could be obtained by a medical doctor. If you were not of means, and lived in an anti-abortion state, your only option was to seek out an illegal abortion by a non-doctor, far too often in unsterile conditions, and in a social climate that stigmatized any who were found out to have had the procedure. There was this disparity in equal access to responsible medical procedures.
Second, headlines in most major cities of the day ran gruesome stories of botched abortions and women’s deaths, and debilitations as a result of underground abortions. The demand for abortion was sufficient to make illegal abortions a very profitable underground activity, and thus thousands of women were dying each year as a result. Illegal abortion set the stage for all manner of other black market medical administrations including markets for controlled substances, which still exist today.
So, the question came down to should women of means be afforded safe abortion on demand, while women without means should be forced into illegal activity and risk of death or debilitation? The woman’s rights were considered since with suffrage and the end of slavery and chattel laws, women had become fully protected by the Constitution. Since, the unborn fetus was never addressed in the Constitution nor established by the Constitution as having any legal rights under the Constitution, it appeared at the time the Constitution was fairly applied to protect a woman’s rights to proper and licensed medical procedure when abortion was the woman’s choice.
In addition, for the government to intrude into the life of women to dictate when and under what circumstances they must bear a child, was viewed as a far reaching breach of Constitutional protections of liberty and pursuit of happiness. Thus the Roe v. Wade decision hinged on the lack of legal standing according to the Constitution of a fetus, millions of which are spontaneously aborted each year by nature, or God, or whatever you want to call it.
So, I would not agree that the Supreme Court had not justification for deciding Roe V. Wade the way they did.
I do think that you may have (i am not sure purposefully or not) hit on a very interesting point with the following statement:
“Anything not prohibited nor constrained by the Constitution is permissable”
Having read the Constitution a few times, it seemed obvious to me that in the manner in which it relegates to the states all powers not reserved by the Federal government in the Constitution, the Constitution is a liberating document, not a restrictive one, in its design and intent.
I think most everyone would agree that there is at least SOME strong state interest in protecting unborn life (even if you think its not fully human life).
I would not. If the fetus is not defined as human with legal standing by the Constitution, and it is not, the value of the fetus is derived from the parents intent to bring human life into this world and establish that life’s citizenship in this country. It is the intent of the parents seek birth of the fetus that determines the value of the fetus. Afterall, if the fetus is born to parents who do not desire a child, the live of that child will be threatened by neglect and resentment. The Constitution asserts the rights of families and individuals to live their lives without undue intrusion by the government in their personal decisions and lives. That is one of the key protective measures of the Constitution, individual citizen’s rights.
This makes it a hands down easy decision for me to make to defend Roe V. Wade. To make criminals of women and men, husbands and wives, girl and boy friends, who out of desperation make the decision to not permit a pregancy to go full term, is a gross intrusion upon the individual rights of those men and women whose individual rights to live free of government intrusion into their private lives is asserted in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution however, defines natural citizenship (with regard to presidency) as having been BORN in this country. In the absence of any other reference to the unborn, it is clear to me the fetus has no legal standing of its own under the Constitution and only derives value under the Constitution from the Parental intent to bring the fetus to term and birth in this country. Absent that intent, the fetus has no value in the Constitution.
David, your argument again missed the point.
1. The “citizen” argument is a red hearing. Even though i grant that a unborn child is not a citizen, the constitution also protects PERSONS (see the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause- which applies to PERSON (“nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”)). So the citizen question is not important in the least, unless someone wants to apply the “priveledges and inuminites” clause to unborn children, that is :).
2. The next question is can the state give legal status to unborn children- i think the answer to that is clearly YES. yes on TWO indepedent grounds:
(1) As you previously said on this thread, the constitution does not define “person.” It is pretty obvious that Congress has the rightful power to decide that unborn children are “persons” within the meaning of the 14th amendment. This is so on both originalist and evoluting principles grounds. On originalist grounds, unborn children had extensive protections in the law at the passage of the 14th amendment. On evolving principles grounds, if the people NOW recognize unborn children as persons, they should be able to protect them. If the people do not see unborn children as persons, then Roe is uselesss, because no legislation would be passed. I think the perfect example of this evolving understand is that we have come to recognize late-term unborn children as worthy of legal protection, which is why even most democrats support the partial birth abortion ban…
(2) You miss a very obvious point that I made in my post which is that Congress and ESPECIALLY the states have a right to STATUTORALY give legal importance to even ANIMALS. Surely you admit that the constitution does not given legal protections to animals (right?), and yet animals protected under the Endangered Species Act and under numerous state laws (correct?). I find it amazing that someone could argue that states have the power to protect animals, but not the power to protect beings of our very own species!!
Let me note here that is completely undisputed that Congress has the power to create the “legal standing” you are seeking- it is one of its powers (under its administration of the courts ect.)
So there you have it, TWO completely indepedent and rather obvious statutory grounds upon which unborn children can be protected BY either Congress or by the individual states. There is actually a third grounds- which I would term “parental responsibility”- but I am working on an article on that and I will leave that to the day I post it (Which should be sometime after finals are over).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at December 1, 2004 01:59 AMMisha, those are good arguments, but not without appropriate counter.
To your #1 point: The Constitution does not guarantee equal rights, liberties and freedoms between citizens and non-citizens. The Constitution has absolutely no problem with limiting the rights of non-citizens, both in the Constitution and statutorally. Hence, fetuses may be granted some rights derived from their value to the parents as in the Peterson case where 2nd degree murder applied, and at the same time find no tort with a woman who aborts as a result of overstrenuous or dangerous recreational activity. The fetus is a non-citizen, therefore, the rights and freedoms of citizens do not have to apply equally to non-citizens. The Constitution makes such a distinction as precedent abundantly clear when it established that the President must be native born, not naturalized. The Constitution therefore at the outset distinguishes classes of people for varying rights, liberties, and freedoms.
As to your second point in which you state 2. The next question is can the state give legal status to unborn children- i think the answer to that is clearly YES.
The State CAN give legal status to the fetus just as easily as it can refuse legal status to the fetus. But the precedent and polls demonstrate that the will of the majority is to leave Roe V. Wade intact. A Constitutional Amendment can be passed to grant full citizenship rights to all fetuses.
But, to do so would mire the courts in a host of suits and criminal actions against women whose activities in life detrimentally affect the fetus. That is not where the Supreme Court chose to go with fetal rights and for damn good reason.
In fact, the state can potentially do anything it wants including converting the nation from democracy to fascism if the people and votes are there to make sufficient amendments to the Constitution. That however is a wholly insufficient argument to justify doing so.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2004 06:17 AMMisha, your last argument on animal rights makes no sense to me. Animals are granted rights, but not to the exclusion of protected rights of citizens. The abortion rights issue has to weigh the rights of the parents as citizens, against the rights of the fetus, which for reasons mentioned above, should not be granted equal citizen rights with the parents. To do so would result in a police state monitoring parental actions throughout their lifetime and weighing the effects of those actions upon a fetus. Such a move could easily result in laws in the future which prohibit smoking women from ever conceiving, or barring pregnant women from a host of lifes activities like race car driving, sky diving, and skiing. Or, at the very least, prosecuting women who have been informed of pregnancy who go on to engage in activities that result in increased risks to the fetus should an accident befall them.
Roe V. Wade correctly avoided opening that pandora’s box, which very likely would increase the powers of the police state to intrude upon the private lives and activities of adult citizens in the name of acting on behalf of the fetus.
Misha—
The Supreme Court has always had the power to strike down those state laws that violate the federal constitution. Let us not forget that we as Americans hold duel citizenship; i.e. we are citizens of the state in which we reside and citizens of the United States. State law have never be able to escape the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, nor should they.
E.M.= the point, of course, is whether laws protecting unborn children actualy violate the constitution. Few actually take that claim seriously anymore (because it has no basis in history, text or theory of the constitution), and arguments for upholding Roe are now more prudential (as David’s stronger arguments- rather than his citizenship argument, which I think most can see is a red hearing) or stare decisis (See Casey). The fiction that hte constitution does not allow us to protect unborn children has been rather clearly exposed as a constitutional matter- so all we really have left is David’s prudential concerns and Stare Decisis concerns.
Also, David- you continue to be wrong about citizens… The law limits the rights of CITIZENS with the Endander Species Act, does it not?
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at December 1, 2004 10:57 AMalso, there is no need to give FULL citizenship rights to unborn children to protect them. All we have to do is given them protections under the law given to non-citizens, which are extensive (as a person who lived in this country for many years as a non-citizen I was very glad for that :)).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at December 1, 2004 11:01 AMThe abortion issue is a sad situation.
(01) When does life really begin ?
Is it at the instant of conception ?
Is it sometime after conception and before birth ?
(02) Who’s rights have precedence ? The mother or the unborn child ?
(03) If the child’s rights have precedence, should abortion should be illegal ?
Should women be forced to carry a child to term ?
(04) If the mother’s rights have precedence, should abortion should be legal ?
(05) Should men butt-out of this argument ?
(06) Are there exceptions where it is legal sometimes and illegal other times ?
What if there are life-threatening health risks for the mother ?
What if the mother’s pregnancy is a result of rape ?
If the pregnancy is a result of rape, is that the fault of the unborn child ?
(07) If abortion is illegal, can government enforce the law ?
Will government take measures to make abortion impossible ?
Will government monitor all pregnant women ?
Will government and tax payers fund the cost to ensure the child is born ?
Will government only punish people after the crime ?
Will government pay women to carry the child to full term ?
What if the women takes an RU486 pill or something to abort the fetus ?
What about women who use abortion repeatedly as a method of birth control ?
If women go to a state or country where abortion is legal,
and return to the U.S. afterward, will they still be punished ?
Typically, government can not successfully legislate morals.
Should government refrain from making such a law that it can and/or will not enforce ?
(08) If abortion is legal, is it moral ?
If abortion is immoral, should it be legal ?
(09) And what makes some women feel that is their only alternative
(excluding extenuating circumstances such as health risks) ?
Personally, I believe abortion is sad, and I believe it is morally wrong, and
should be strongly discouraged, but I am not yet ready to criminalize it either,
because this is one sad case where we ALL share the blame for completely
failing to create a world where we ALL are genuinely willing and prepared to
cherish and protect the life of the innocent and defenseless, living and unborn.
I would prefer to FIRST take measures to ensure that women never feel like
abortion is their only alternative.
Daniel- most of those are all excellent questions! Usually, these kinds of delicate policy disputes are decided through the political process. I think most people agree that BOTH unborn children and mother are important, which is why we need to balance rights and duties (Even if many think mothers are more important). Unforuntately the courts have decided that they and they alone are allowed to do this balancing. If Roe is overturned, the political process can begin to work through these questions.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at December 1, 2004 11:49 AMI would prefer to FIRST take measures to ensure that women never feel like abortion is their only alternative.I totally agree. My position on this comes as a father of an adopted daughter who I had to wait a year for. I have read post after post saying that criminalizing abortion sentences a child to a lifetime of being unwanted and possibly abused. There are thousands of people in America who would give anything for one of those children. There are thousands of people who pay huge sums of money and endure buraucratic nightmares to go to China or Russia to adopt children. I am astounded at the prevailing feeling in this country that it is better to abort a baby than to put it up for adoption. Most adoptive parents will pay medical costs for the birth mother, provide counseling, and all kinds of other support systems. Most adoptions in this country are at least partially open so the birth mother can be involved in the child’s life if she wants to be. The babies go to loving homes where they know they are wanted. Perhaps we need to work on changing the general feeling toward adoption as a necessary step to eliminating abortions. I don’t know how we’d do that but I sure wish we could. Posted by: brian at December 1, 2004 01:04 PM
Brian, there are also a great number of children the state can’t give away. They have to pay folks to take them.
Let’s not let your experience become extrapolated to represent all of reality, because it doesn’t. You had a fine experience. Many do, also, many don’t. Abuses and frauds of the foster care system reach the headlines from time to time, but, by and large, such things are kept quiet and/or local.
Reality as evidenced by stories making the news here in Texas occasionally is that there are a host of folks out there taking on foster kids for the money. You know from your experience, that adopting is a financial drain to a varying extent depending on income. Well, for many poorer people, taking foster kids is a profitable venture. That says a lot about what the kind of care and resources these foster kids are NOT receiving.
There are still race and gender and disability biases in the adoption system as well which make a host of children largely undesireable for adoption for long periods of time.
Adoption is a wonderful social mechanism. It is by no means a panacea for unwanted kids.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2004 02:48 AMMisha asked Also, David- you continue to be wrong about citizens… The law limits the rights of CITIZENS with the Endander Species Act, does it not?
Note that I used word protected rights of citizens. I.E. animal rights do not supercede our constitutionally guaranteed rights as citizens. Due process and all that supercedes animal rights. We have rights to own pets. The laws say we don’t have the right to maliciously or negligently abuse certain classes of our animals. If we do, then due process under the law kicks in. This is the balancing of citizen rights with non-citizen rights.
There is a reasonable compromise to be struck on abortion, something along the lines of late term abortions are illegal unless for the sake of the fetus or the health and life of the mother it would be better to terminate the life of the fetus. The problem with such a compromise is that it would not be struck if left to the special interest lobbying groups and legislation. Thus, the Roe V. Wade, still provides the best long term solution. Overturn it, and there will be all kinds of abuses of the law and Constitution in terms of detrimental consequences to women and parents. Outlaw abortions, and you will begin filling our prisons with a host of otherwise law abiding citizens, ruining not only their lives, but the lives of their loved ones.
What if we determined life in the same way we determine death, by brain function?
Posted by: Rocky at December 2, 2004 03:01 AMRocky, wouldn’t work. It would not swing the religious over due to the soul issue. A human soul is a human soul regardless of brain function. To some extent, there is merit to the argument if one replaces the word soul with humanity. But, it would not resolve the divisiveness of the issue for the populace. Though it could serve as a legal standard. But even that legal standard of brain function is being fought in the courts in Florida with the woman whose husband sued to let her go, but, Jeb Bush jumped in to keep her alive despite all tests showing her to be cognitively brain dead.
The soul is one of the major facets of divisiveness over this issue. The soul is not governable by laws. Hence, any solution that depends on the integrity of the soul or absence thereof, is no solution at all, either.
This lies at the heart of the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution. If our laws reflect protection of the soul, we will in principal violate the establishment clause of the Constitution. Hence the desire by many, including justices, to interpret the establishment clause as separation of church of state. Failure to interpret the establishment clause in that fashion leads inexorably toward a state like Iran, where religion and law are one and the same.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2004 03:21 AMDavid,
Most of your comments about adoption are based on foster care, not adoption. Foster care is generally used when children are taken away from parents due to neglect, abuse, etc. The circumstances of foster children are completely different than those of adopted children. Foster children are wards of the state, and the foster parents have no real expectation of keeping the children, since return to their family is the primary objective. The foster care system is under the control of the state, and often the children involved are older, previously abused, and difficult. Foster parents are paid for their efforts, adoptive parents pay considerable amounts. All of these factors make foster care much different from adoption.
Let’s not let your experience become extrapolated to represent all of reality, because it doesn’t. You had a fine experience. Many do, also, many don’t. Abuses and frauds of the foster care system reach the headlines from time to time, but, by and large, such things are kept quiet and/or local.
My experience is not unique by any means, and applying my adoption experience, involving adoption agencies, adoption support organizations, foster care training, and working within three separate states does not constitute extrapolating to all reality. The fact is that the vast majority of adoptions are highly successful, and I know from personal experience that there is a huge demand for children to adopt.
I also doubt that foster care abuses are often kept quiet or local. Since abuses of the foster care system are generally graphic, they would tend to lead in the news. To prove my point:
Reality as evidenced by stories making the news here in Texas occasionally is that there are a host of folks out there taking on foster kids for the money. You know from your experience, that adopting is a financial drain to a varying extent depending on income. Well, for many poorer people, taking foster kids is a profitable venture. That says a lot about what the kind of care and resources these foster kids are NOT receiving.
I don’t know how accepting a small amount of money to provide a home for abused and neglected children constitutes something that should be attacked, but in any case foster care and adoption are not the same thing. I would suggest that the confusion of the two and the tarnishing of adoption with the same brush as the widely reported foster care abuses has lead to the decrease in willingness to place for adoption.
Brian, there are also a great number of children the state can’t give away. They have to pay folks to take them
The agency I used has at least five parents waiting for every child availaible, regardless of race, and that number will grow since the agency rules regarding number of children each couple can adopt have been relaxed. The main deterrent to being adopted is age; adoptive families generally want babies they can raise as their own, and are less likely to adopt older children. Presenting adoption as an alternative to abortion would not come with this difficulty.
I know that the foster care system is broken, but I also know that the vast majority of foster parents provide a good service for very little recompence. I am not advocating foster care or adoption as a panacea. I am simply pointing out that there are alternatives for unwanted children besides abortion or a life of abuse and neglect.
Posted by: brian at December 2, 2004 10:40 AMbrian, your experience aside, why are there hundreds of thousands of children still waiting for adoption?
I have seen statistics (I just had to use google to find this) that say that the abortion rate has dropped in the last 15 years, but the adoption rate has remained the same.
Why aren’t the folks picketting the abortion clinics, out trying to adopt the children they save that are put up for adoption?
Statistics show that the women giving their newborns for adoption are mostly white and above the poverty line, while minorities and the poor favor abortion.
Why is this?
Rocky,
your experience aside, why are there hundreds of thousands of children still waiting for adoption?
There are a lot of reasons why so many children are waiting for adoption. In the studies I found, a lot of these are older children in foster care, and older children are harder to place. The foster care system also makes it difficult to adopt through it for a variety of reasons. I think this is really sad. I have several friends who adopted older children and have wonderful families.
Many couples, especially young ones, can’t afford adoption, since it can be incredibly expensive. I’m sure there are lots of other reasons. However, looking at it from the “demand” end, babies are very hard to come by. There were over 16,000 children adopted from other countries by US parents in 1998, and I’m sure that number is much higher now. Adopting from another country costs at least double a domestic adoption, the child is older, and the bureaucracy is worse. If there were unwanted babies overloading the system in America, most people wouldn’t go to the extra trouble. If in fact there are these hundreds of thousands of babies waiting for adoption, It should be easier to find them.
I have seen statistics (I just had to use google to find this) that say that the abortion rate has dropped in the last 15 years, but the adoption rate has remained the same.
I would say that the reason the adoption rate has remained the same despite the decrease in abortion would be either because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies or because there is less of a stigma attached to being a single mother and more to giving the baby up for adoption. TV reflects some of these ideas. In my experience, (mostly Law and Order, and my wife telling me about daytime shows like Dr. Phil) adoptive parents are usually portrayed as fanatical baby-hungry zealots who will do anything to get their hands on a baby, and foster care is shown as an evil hole of abuse. I think that the decision to parent as a single mother is great and I’m glad that there is less stigma attached. I just think that for some reason, adoption has become less of a viable option for a lot of people.
Why aren’t the folks picketting the abortion clinics, out trying to adopt the children they save that are put up for adoption?
I would gladly have picketed an abortion clinic, asking the mothers to give me their baby, but I went through an agency instead. I don’t really think picketing and yelling at women who are probably suffering and have already made up their minds would be either kind or effective. I would, however, much rather see this kind of approach than the “you’re going to hell” standard. It might even work for some people. Mother Theresa asked everyone who was considering abortion to give the baby to her. I don’t have her resources, but I could certainly handle one or two more :).
Statistics show that the women giving their newborns for adoption are mostly white and above the poverty line, while minorities and the poor favor abortion.
Why is this?
I think culture has a lot to do with why minorities and the poor don’t place for adoption. My daughter’s birth mother is from El Salvador, and wouldn’t tell anyone she was going to place for adoption. She checked into the hospital under a false name and told all of her friends that the baby died, because she would have been ostracized. I’m not too familiar with the African-American culture but I think there is a real stigma to giving up a baby in most cultures.
I think a lot of poor people might think they may have to pay medical bills. Some poor people may not be physically able to take time off work to have the baby, go to the doctor, etc. without losing their jobs, losing their homes, starving, or close to it.
I don’t think that adoption is the end-all-be-all of solving abortion. I think that a real effort by the government, churches and other groups to make it a more viable option would reduce the number of abortions. I think that there should be a number of alternatives to abortion, each of which would reduce the number of abortions performed. I have a huge problem with people who say that abortion needs to be illegal but don’t want to do anything about the mothers or children. If abortion is to be illegal, there needs to be a mechanism for mothers to have money to live while they are not working because they are in the hospital or at the doctor, or taking care of thier newborn. There needs to be support for adoption and other social programs. There needs to be a way to get child care and still afford food and rent. There needs to be a way to hold fathers accountable for their children. I think the right wing is missing the point when they want to simultaneously cut social programs and abortion. I think that the problem of abortion can and should be solved, but I think it takes a lot more effort than just overturning Roe.
Brian, to reply to your response to mine: You are quite correct, adoption and foster care are different words, but, both are involved in the adoption process.
The demand for adoption you speak of is for newborns to 3 years of age. After 3 years of age, demand begins dropping precipitously. Hence the much lower placement rate from foster care programs than from private adoption agencies. Private adoption agencies are largely in the business of adoption of recently born, for which, as you say, there is a demand exceeding supply, regardless of race, etc. (medical problems being the exception to some degree).
Thus, I have to concede to you that in regard to the abortion issue, there is merit to the argument that adoption is a viable alternative for women wanting to make that choice. The foster care industry doesn’t come into the equation due to their large base of older children for which demand decreases with age of the child.
Adoption rate is currently determined by between 204,000 and 275,000 (sources vary) of persons currently seeking to adopt. This statistic is the limiting factor on the effectiveness of adoption as an alternative to abortions. There are between 1.5 and 1.8 Million abortions per year in America by best estimates based on planned parenthood and abortionist polling.
This leaves a gap of of between 1.25 and 1.4 Million children who would be added to the foster care system if abortions were illegal. The foster care system would buckly under this kind of load and cost to the taxpayers for foster care.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2004 05:26 PMDavid,
Thanks for your statistics, It’s good to have some concrete numbers. I think, though, that if adoption was easier, the numbers of people seeking children would increase, shrinking the margin somewhat. Also, all of those children would not be adopted or added to the foster care system, since most people would probably choose to parent, or have relatives help, and all of the things that are done now by people who choose not to have abortions. I think adoption is a good answer for that segment of the children who are so unwanted they would be abused or neglected, which I doubt would be incredibly high. I know that adoption/foster care is not the whole answer, and have said so several times throughout my comments. I think that a combination of increased emphasis on adoption, and support for those who would choose to parent if they felt like they had the choice, could significantly reduce abortion. I don’t think that anyone thinks that abortion is ever a good thing. I’d like to see it prevented, not just outlawed. I know my ideas are not solving the whole problem, but I think it is a problem that can be solved. I guess I’m an idealistic pro-life religious liberal, but I think I make some sense.
Brian, your logic and reason are hard to find fault with. I do not want to see abortion outlawed, the negative consequences would erase or outweigh the benefits in my assessment outlined above. That said, I completely agree that much more can be done to reduce abortions without denying the right of a woman to choose.
Parental consent is a no brainer for those underage, and violates nothing Constitutionally or in the Roe V. Wade decision. Mandatory counselling by elective abortion seekers offered by abortion issue neutral counselors is also not going to violate any legal or ethical standards. Finally, as you suggest, streamlining the adoption process and making adoption more affordable (up to a point) will go along way toward reducing abortions.
One crucial requirement for reducing abortions however, is establishing reliable, credible, and current statistics and databases regarding abortion, foster care, success rates, abuse rates, as well as profiles. My review of the literature indicates America has no clear picture of what is going on with abortion, adoption and foster care since very little current and comprehensive data is being collected.
If comprehensive and reliable data showed high success rates for adoption and foster care, it would make the choice for expectant mothers unable or unwilling to raise their child, confidence in a non-abortion option.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 2, 2004 06:30 PMDavid,
Thanks for the compliment. I agree that counseling and parental notification could go a long way towards adressing the problem of abortion. I would really like to see reliable, accessible data on adoption. I would like abortion to be criminalized on what I see as ethical grounds, but I also agree that the practical problems criminalization would cause may outweigh the benefits. I don’t think that abortion is an issue that can be won by one side or the other, but I think that compromises and dealing with the actual problems leads to reasonable, effective solutions. Our discussion has highlighted for me some of the problems with the current political system. I think a majority of people would be supportive of the ideas we’ve talked about, but the all or nothing, adversarial approach currently in use prevents to a large extent compromises that could actually make a difference.
Brian said, but the all or nothing, adversarial approach currently in use prevents to a large extent compromises that could actually make a difference.
It is a bit frightening isn’t it that such a rational approach is so abhorrent to so many. Scary!
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 3, 2004 03:58 AM
