The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies

[cal04]

By CHARLES M. BLOW
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html?hp

Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children’s welfare. They can’t be “pro-life” when the “child” is in the womb but indifferent when it’s in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.

(snip)
It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted — and in some cases dangerous — pregnancies for the sake of “unborn children,” then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?

And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion — more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.

This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish — and ultimately deadly. Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their “pro-life” bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term “baby killer.”

[Zoeisright]

1. BRAVO!!!

We need to start pushing this message HARD. I am sick to death of cruel and savage repukes labeling themselves "pro-life". They're anything but.

[47of74]

13. Real prolife people would not have...

...got us into two endless wars, oppose efforts to make sure that Americans have the access they need to health care without going broke, or spent money trying to strip workers of their rights.

[right2bfree]

14. They are pro-life. They need more victims to shoot with thier guns. nt

[Desertrose]

2. It's not about care...it's about control.

They never give a thought to the babies & children or women who raise & carefor them and what they would need.

Really no logic to their stand at all.

AS I've been mentioning recently...I am just tired of all the stupid in the world.

[csziggy]

3. Very good and so is the editoral linked to it - "The War on Women"

http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.jsonp&pagewanted=print">The War on Women

Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families. And this is just the beginning.

The budget bill pushed through the House last Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to women. It’s not likely to pass unchanged, but the urge to compromise may take a toll on these programs. And once the current skirmishing is over, House Republicans are likely to use any legislative vehicle at hand to continue the attack.

The egregious cuts in the House resolution include the elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the absence of Title X’s preventive care, some women would die. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says a rise in unintended pregnancies would result in some 400,000 more abortions a year.

<SNIP>

These are treacherous times for women’s reproductive rights and access to essential health care. House Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to drastically scale back both even as abortion warfare is accelerating in the states. To stop them, President Obama’s firm leadership will be crucial. So will the rising voices of alarmed Americans.

More at link in title.

It is more and more clear that the right wing stance has nothing to do with abortion and every to do with controlling women.

[Bosso 63]

7. People often want to control what they fear.

[sakabatou]

4. As George Carlin once said...

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.

[pacalo]

5. I would have liked the op-ed writer to go furthr beyond the expenses of premature

birth. As George Carlin mentioned, the resentment of the right follows these children throughout their school years.

[right2bfree]

15. Yeap, Carlin knew the score. One wrong move and they will kill anyone or anything in sight.

[Kablooie]

6. Logic again! When will you learn that logic is not part of the plan.

The Republicans are about - power - at - any - cost!

They don't care about the deficit.
They don't care about killing babies.
They don't care about destroying lives.
They don't care about costs.

They only care about power.

And they define themselves by looking at Democrat's views and setting themselves 180 degrees opposite.
It it totally automatic and has nothing - I repeat NOTHING to do with logic.
It's a reflexive move.

You can make any airtight, totally undeniable statement and it will be passed over as if it never existed because logic is not part of the argument.

Anything for POWER! Lie for POWER! Destroy for POWER! Kill for POWER!

That's all it's about.

Can't argue with that.

[yurbud]

11. no, it's money. Aborted babies mean a smaller pool of workers and higher wages

[mimitabby]

8. exactly

[LeftishBrit]

9. k&r

[cynzke]

10. In A Nutshell!

Saw this today at another blog. "The last time a Republican cared about my rights....I was a fetus!

[demigoddess]

12. one thing that occurred to me, of all the rich folks who are pro-life

I have not heard of one who had a retarded, handicapped etc child. Except for Palin and that doesn't really count. Just the odds alone tell me that some of these people should be parents of handicapped children. And they do not seem to adopt any unwanted children either. Just movie stars do that. but not the Koch brothers, etc. Am I wrong??