Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

The emphasis by the media and the GOP on Palin’s brave “choice” to go through with her last pregnancy is what continues to befuddle me. She’s an anti-choice person who is being praised for making what they deem as the right choice, forgetting somehow that in their ideal world view, she wouldn’t have had the freedom of that choice in the first place. Grrr.

It actually turns out that it was cut 20% from a fourfold increase to a “mere” threefold increase since 2006.

http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?partner =justgive&npoId=332976

So no, it’s not true that she slashed funding to this group. She merely tripled it instead of quadrupling it.

Another WaPo talking point bites the dust….

from Wikipedia on Joe Biden:
“His wife and infant daughter died in a car accident shortly after he was first elected to the Senate in 1972. His two sons, Beau and Hunter, were seriously injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries. Biden was sworn into office from their bedside. Persuaded not to resign in order to care for them, Biden began the practice of commuting an hour and a half each day on the train from his home in the Wilmington suburbs to Washington, D.C., which he continues to do.”

if Joe Biden was able to serve in the Senate under extreme familial circumstances, why can’t Palin?

hey, look. we’re all players in a free market. what makes you think we should receive benefits reserved for citizens anyway? who cares if you are born into a shittier lot than me? you’re on your own, sucka.

Bubba - maybe your link didn’t come through right or maybe I’m missing it, but where does it detail a 3-fold increase in funding from ‘06 to ‘07?

Bubba - She still cut funding to the program and she is documented that she didn’t support it in the article.

Skibs - I don’t see where Smither’s is questioning her ability to change her babies diapers, her daughter’s babies diaper’s and Mccain’s diapers and still be VP. Just seems like a lot of poo…

Little D, tripling funding is not a cut in any sane universe, and if you want a really good view of what Gov. Palin believes about supporting young mothers, you’ll do better to look at her church than her work in government.

For example, I’m against government funding of centers like this, but I’ve been contributing my own time, resources, and money towards crisis pregnancy centers (including help for young mothers) for the past 18 years. I’ve personally counseled several young mothers and at least one young father in these things.

So to take a look at public policy, you’d think I didn’t care. Look at my checkbooks and daytimer, however, and you’d see a different story.

I’d suggest that Gov. Palin has a similar story that she could tell.

Checkbook; the link has government contributions from both 2006 and 2007. In 2006, it was about 1.2 million dollars. The picture our host provides is for 3.9 million dollars.

I’d like a pay cut like that. Wouldn’t you?

I don’t know, that’s for Palin to decide how to work it, just like Biden figured out how to effectively balance his family responsibilities and duties. Don’t we all do that daily?

Skibby, Palin does have every right to run as a VP candidate irregardless of her family situation, but we all have the right to ask why? As a successful working mom, her decision simply doesn’t sit well with me. I know what it takes to balance career and family from a woman’s point of view and in this case, the math on having it all doesn’t work. Something will give and it’s already showing, her family. One could say her choice is heroic, putting her country before her family, but knowing that there are a lot more qualified men and women out there to run for this position without her immediate family commitments, I’ve just have to wonder why? Is it her ego? I don’t know, but she simply doesn’t represent me.

@Bike Bubba: thanks for putting in volunteer time, bubba.

Still, I have to wonder: is your counsel professional in the sense that you are qualified to do so? There are lots of folks out there who lend their time as role-models to affect positive change in their world, but it doesn’t mean they are qualified (certification as a psychologist or social worker, for instance).

I think it is good and compassionate that our tax dollars go toward these sorts of organizations. Moreover, I’m in favor of organizations that do not put religious, moral or political spin onto the subject matter than they aim to treat/improve. I would ask whether you’re able to leave your beliefs at the door when counseling these youngsters?

@Bike Bubba: What someone is willing to do as a part of her church group is not the same as what someone is willing to do for her country. More likely, the beliefs of that church are a picture of the beliefs that she would like to impose on the population as a whole.

Furthermore, to pretend that time and money that you give to crisis pregnancy centers is somehow on the same plane as taxes or any kind of non-prejudicial service is disingenuous. The raison d’etre (I know how much you guys will love that French) for the crisis pregnancy centers is to steer young people in need away from information regarding abortion and contraceptive options. These are offices that deliberately act as decoys to divert someone who is looking for honest-to-goodness healthcare in a time of need. They rarely have any qualified healthcare professionals on hand, and those who are present do not provide complete or accurate information. This has been established time-and-again by random testing of centers for accuracy of information, many of which have been censured by various states for variations on malpractice and false advertising.

That said, I believe that time and money given to any kind of service endeavor is a good thing. If Palin gives money to a church effort, if bike bubba talks to some folks going through a rough patch, I imagine that that helps a portion of those people. No program helps everyone. The problem is that these efforts are all personal and only appropriate for someone driven by personal feeling. Policy is a public issue and requires an approach that supercedes the moral “I” and “Me” that the Right seeks to arrogate by wedding social service programs to religious affiliation.

Bubba - Don’t think you know what Pallin does or doesn’t do with her time or money. You know as much as the rest of us.

I commend you volunteering your time, but if you have one hand open and the other hand holding a bible when you’re doing this, don’t bother.

So - because she has a family she shouldn’t run? That confuses me - as my wife works full time, always has. I’m the full time parent at home - her husband can do the same. Certainly he’s qualified to be a parent or does he need to be vetted?

And no she doesn’t represent you as she is CLEARLY willing to sacrifice whatever it may take and whatever is thrown at her to serve her country proudly.

“Conservatives only care about the unborn children. Once that kid is born they are own their own. If they screw up they will have a nice prison cell ready and waiting.”

That is a load of crap. There are many many families out there that are willing to adopt for whatever reason.

Also under this arguement, you could reason that liberals don’t care about unborn LIVING children. They support the killing of a living human being that has not had a chance at life.

They support the killing of a living human being that has not had a chance at life.

Check yourself, Dube. “Liberals” tend to be pro-choice and not, as you suggest, pro-abortion. There is a big difference.

Valid point that pro-choice and pro-abortion are different. However, if you support pro-choice and a woman decides to have an abortion, aren’t you supporting her choice and in turn supporting the killing of that child?

You have to define your parameter on when “child” is? If it’s at point of conception then perhaps, but if it’s at point of birth then no.

@Dube’: Ehh, I don’t think one can extrapolate the latter from the former. Conversely, if the woman chooses to go through with the pregnancy, does that make an observer any less pro-choice? I think it’s misleading that many pro-life (as they call themselves) activists paint those who believe in choice as negligent of and lacking compassion for human life. I would argue the opposite — it is one’s compassion for life and care for others that is the root of pro-life beliefs.

So, where as you’ve presented it as “killing a child” I would present it as “terminating a pregnancy,” depending of course on when this was undertaken. I generally would not condone late-term abortion, for example, as I would see this as something akin to what you call “killing a child.” But I am not the bearer of all the knowledge of every possible situation or scenario in the world and so I don’t try to tell people how to proceed in their lives — tollerance. How does it go? The wise man knows himself to be a fool and the fool thinks himself wise?

This is an incredibly complex subject has been boiled down to you’re either for or against abortion (and killing babies) when there’s so much more to it. I have never been presented with such a decision and I don’t imagine it’s an easy one to make; nor do I imagine the majority of women, couples or families take it lightly. I’ve said this in regard to various other topics on this blog, but oversimplifications doesn’t do us any good.

@Dube’: That is a load of crap. There are many many families out there that are willing to adopt for whatever reason.

No point in giving the baby up for adoption if the relevant health care and postpartum support aren’t there. Last I checked conservatives were against universal health care and expanding programs to help the poor. Add to that parental notification laws for underage pregnancies (to bad if you’re from an abusive household.) And yes… I then agree that prolifers don’t give a crap about the kid post birth. I have _rarely_ met a prolifer who seriously thinks and/or supports legislation post pregnancy that would aid the poor child.

Frank, you got me. I hate America. That’s what the Smithers’ do.

Did I ever say Palin had no right to run? I just happen to think that she places personal ambition over family and even country. It’s not like she’s the only person that can fill this postion or the most qualified for that matter. So save the ultimate sacrifice stuff for someone else.

BTW did I mention that I’m a moderate independent voter who does not believe in glass ceilings and believes that a woman can and should be president or VP. I just happen to believe it should be the right woman for the right reasons. Nice try McCain campaign…

@smithers - no problem… figured you were part of the choir on that topic.

I love it. The same people who kept yapping about Barack Obama not having enough experience to be President because the Executive Office had so much complex responsibility are now yapping about how running for, and being, Vice President, is an equivalent job to their 9-5 at the local corporation.

Jeez, people sure attack an alternative opinion.

Checkbook: I believe you can extrapolate the latter from the former since you are supporting her choice.

I am not going to determine when it can be deemed a child since that is very difficult. I will note though that about 8 weeks, the fetus now has all major organs in limbs in place. There are still many abortions that take place after this stage. You can decide whether you call that a living being or not.

@Mrs. Smithers: I humbly submit that y’all actually hate the American working family not just any old Americans. Carry on.

Interesting perspective; so my vote to spend someone else’s money means more than contributing my own time and money to a cause?

Not in my book. You want to show me how much you care, show me your checkbook, and keep out of mine.

For those who are interested, my counseling was a little bit on the financial side to help young moms keep in college, and other time was also spent delivering used clothing racks to the clothing closet maintained for moms and yes, their babies. (you want to help people, sometimes there’s no better tool than a pickup)

And yes, Gov. Palin’s former church in Wasilla, Wasilla Assembly of God, does maintain similar services. It’s a pretty standard thing; crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics over two to one, and virtually any pastor or board of deacons at any evangelical church (hundreds of thousands of them) maintains a “deacons’ fund” to help with situations like that faced by Bristol Palin. I’ve been part of such decisions personally.

So to claim “you’re on your own after your baby is born” is just a bald-faced lie from the pit of NARAL, really. Let’s let it die.

Pro-Choice vs. Anti Choice vs. Pro Abortion vs. Pro Life

Wrong Argument.

Do we want safe, legal abortions in America or unregulated, sketchy abortions in America?

I want an America where anyone can easily get an abortion but we make it a less common choice by teaching kids what options they have when abstinence fails and provide universal health care so mothers can give birth to and raise healthy children.

i did my part, freshman year of high school at the football games I handed out hundreds of condoms. Some made their way to some action and some made their way into balloons…either way - good times.

i did my part, freshman year of high school at the football games I handed out hundreds of condoms. Some made their way to some action and some made their way into balloons…either way - good times.

If you had written your phone number a little more legibly on them less would have become balloons.

Safe and legal abortions? Not quite sure about that one–if memory serves, I read about ~5 abortionists each year who lose their licenses due to failure to maintain things like basic sanitary standards, and a similar number of mothers lose their lives each year due to botched abortions. Once you correct for the use of proper antibiotics to heal botched abortions, there really isn’t a correlation between whether abortion is legal and whether it’s safe.

(the # of deaths due to illegal abortions in the year prior to Roe, for example, was just 23)

Bubba - Where’s the links to support your data or is this more of your interpretations?

There is this little service called “google” that will allow you to look it up for yourself, no? But here you go:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1. htm#tab19

Reality is that the back alley abortionist of the 1960s was really just a moonlighting ob/gyn with an underperforming conscience, not a hoodlum with a dirty coat hanger.

There goes another PP/NARAL talking point, if only people will take a look at the evidence.

Bike Bubba, you made your last two statements up. In 2005 there were 1.21 million induced abortions performed in the US, 0.3% resulted in complications necessitating hospitalization. 4 - 6 women likely died of abortion associated complications during that year, though it’s also likely that the procedure was performed later in gestation and a pre-existing maternal morbidity both instigated the procedure and complicated the outcome. Having an abortion today is ten times safer in terms of mortality and morbidity than carrying a pregnancy to term here in the US, particularly if you’re poor or part of a racial minority for whom neonatal and maternal mortality are much higher than for white and wealthy women. 1/3 to 40% of women in the US will have an induced abortion at some point in their lives. That number was higher 30 years ago.

The number of deaths due to illegal abortions is impossible to count and must be estimated. Deaths due to “sepsis, not otherwise specified” in otherwise healthy young women decrease with the legalization of abortion.

More to the point, countries with legal access to abortion also generally have lower rates of abortion since those countries generally are more effective in helping their citizens prevent unintended pregnancy. In the US we could lower our abortion rate if we did a better job of providing comprehensive sex education and made contraception mandatorily covered by health insurance.

To nitpick:
(the # of deaths due to illegal abortions in the year prior to Roe, for example, was just 23)

roe v wade was decided in 1973. The CDC data you link to indicates 39 deaths due to illegal abortions (and 24 due to legal). Deaths due to legal abortions look to be trending down, with some spikes.

Also the data you supplied does not seem to support the “there really isn’t a correlation between whether abortion is legal and whether it’s safe.” statement. As the data doesn’t go before 1972. So we only have one point of reference (1972) to compare.

In addition the data is reliant on the reporting of various centers and the study itself says this is concern (data could be missed, practices of collection vary, etc.) Essentially all the problems one expects from a survey. Not insurmountable, but has to be taken into effect.

bubba, your linkage makes your comment even more humorous since the number 23 appears nowhere on the table. anyway, D, I also recommend this article:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.h tml

The CDC surveillance articles mostly just tabulate data, but are interesting nonetheless.

oh and if I read correctly that 39 per 1000 procedures. have to double check.

I take that back.. 39 total, not per 1000

Bubba - Thanks for providing the link you pulled your BS from.

Guys, you do remember I said “if memory serves.” The fact here is that in the 1960s and 1970s, abortion advocates made up the claim that thousands of women were dying each year due to illegal abortions. The CDC data simply do not support this.

Rather, they support the claim that reduced abortion deaths are not due to legalization, but rather to better treatment of sepsis from when doctors puncture the uterus and the bowel. Many/most of the deaths these days are from the same doctors who are losing their licenses.

How many others were maimed/rendered sterile by these butchers before being caught? And some of you guys find this humorous?

(and sorry, I’ll take CDC over Guttmacher any day)

@Bike Bubba: What’s this? Bike Bubba acknowledging a government entity is actually credible and not the downfall of society? Can it be true?

The fact here is that in the 1960s and 1970s, abortion advocates made up the claim that thousands of women were dying each year due to illegal abortions. The CDC data simply do not support this.

Two points:
1) the claim by abortion rights advocate refers to number of deaths before Roe v. Wade. The Straight Dope does an excellent job determining the real numbers and one of the advocates for abortion rights explains where her estimate comes from. (http://tinyurl.com/6phkk6)
2) CDC data given only goes to one year before Roe v. Wade so you can’t infer deaths due to abortions, up or down, before that. Again the rights advocates, when talking this issue, generally mean deaths pre roe v wade, not post.

Plus given the CDC study is a survey and not a census I’m surprised you trust it at all. Based on you previous statements about statistics.

Bubba,

The Ob/Gyn with an underperforming conscience was only available to women who had regular family doctors. If you’re rich enough to have great health insurance, abortions will never be too far out of reach. If you’re poor you’ll rely on people with less empathetic motives.

If we criminalize abortion providers and patients, what punishment should we dole out?

If you and your friends at crisis pregnancy centers (providers of “comprehensive” services) think abortion is murder we should lock these folks up for life or sentence them to death, right?