<p>"This reasoning was historically used to deny women jobs and/or equal wages. They “don’t really need the money.”</p>
<p>Again, arrogant."</p>
<p>It’s an observation. If you can demonstrate that, say, more than 1/3 of the full-time female employees of Catholic institutions are NOT living in middle-class households, I will be happy to retract it. But I think that my statement was accurate.</p>
<p>“Birth control/abortion holds down “costs” to everyone of an unwanted (often abused) child.”</p>
<p>That is assuming that the only children who are abused are those who were “unwanted” when they were conceived. </p>
<p>Perhaps the problem is determining the meaning of “unintended” or “unwanted.” The CDC found that a sizable percentage of women with “unintended” pregnancies who were NOT using birth control had made that decision because they “didn’t mind getting pregnant.” That data, plus your own life experience, suggests that there is a whole range of attitudes toward pregnancy among sexually active couples, with “desperately trying to conceive” and “absolutely positively do not want a child now” as the extremes on either end. If you assume that everyone who gets pregnant but was not actively trying to conceive is dealing with an “unintended/unwanted” pregnancy, you are going to see a public health crisis where one doesn’t actually exist.</p>
<p>“BTW— it is not my experience that ALL children placed for adoption are snapped up quickly by loving and caring individuals. Apparently there are “values” some potential adoptees have that aren’t met by all babies/children.”</p>
<p>Is it your contention that infants languish in foster care because no adoptive parents are available? It was my understanding that prospective adoptive parents seeking healthy infants – those born to the many mothers with “unwanted” pregnancies who nevertheless choose not to abort – often wait for years for a child. And that most of the children who are not immediately adopted have serious special needs (they are older with emotional health issues, they are part of sibling groups, they have physical disabilities, etc.) that cannot easily be met by well-meaning but inexperienced/untrained adoptive parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you can’t leave reproductive issues aside. Access to birth control is critical to the freedom of half of the population. Women who cannot control if and when they have children cannot control their lives.</p>
<p>But maybe that’s what some want. The opponents of the new rules got exactly what they said they wanted – a complete reversal of the policy they found so troubling. And yet the battle rages on, expanding as it goes. Why?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, yes, yes.
13,552 kids in Texas awating adoption. <a href=“http://www.nacac.org/policy/statefactsheets/TX.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nacac.org/policy/statefactsheets/TX.pdf</a></p>
<p>Texas is not a homogenous anglo upper middle class enclave.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In Texas you’d be wrong.</p>
<p>If you read the stats, race plays a large factor and for children waiting to be adopted in Texas, the average length of stay in care is more than two and a half years (31.6 months). </p>
<p>Then there is the “free market” adoption route for the wealthy. You find a “good clean” pregnant girl and pay big bucks to get her to stay “good” and “clean” and you hope to get a judicial termination of parental rights and adoption done without her withdrawing her consent to voluntary termination of parental rights. You are correct that many potential adoptees in this route have to wait a while. </p>
<p>I have been told it’s a supply side problem to find a racially acceptable “good” and “clean” pregnant girl. I have a friend who adopted two unrelated crack babies. Now she’s a saint. </p>
<p>“Healthy?” Good Christian attitude, don’tcha think?</p>
<p>
There is absolutely no lack of access to birth control in this country. The mandate at issue is not about this at all.</p>
<p>
Where, in the anecdote you posted, does Christianity come into play?</p>
<p>“Blessed are…”</p>
<p>
Where is that?</p>
<p>
Who, or what, are you quoting here?</p>
<p>“Quote:
Is it your contention that infants languish in foster care because no adoptive parents are available?
Yes, yes, yes.
13,552 kids in Texas awating adoption.”</p>
<p>How many of those are infants? The link you posted states that the average age of a child awaiting adoption is 7 or 8. </p>
<p>Yes, obviously race plays a role in the process. As I recall, for many years the social workers who facilitate adoptions made it extremely difficult for white parents to adopt black children, on the grounds that the children needed to stay in their culture. There are many more black children in foster care because so many black children are born to single mothers who decline to place their children for adoption but, ultimately, cannot properly parent them. But by that point, the children have suffered so much emotional and/or physical trauma that it is considerably more difficult to find adoptive parents who can meet their needs. </p>
<p>This is a real tragedy, but the suggestion that requiring Catholic institutions to pay for their employees’ birth control represents a real solution is…debatable.</p>
<p>Claremarie, since you seem to have a handle on what 07dad is saying, perhaps you can explain to me how he gets from
to
</p>
<p>zoosermom,</p>
<p>I think his claim is that the failure of the social welfare system to remove black children from their incompetent parents and place them with suitable adoptive parents in a timely fashion is somehow the fault of white Christian prospective adoptive parents. Maybe because they weren’t willing to buy birth control for the incompetent parents. Not sure, exactly. Perhaps he can explain it.</p>
<p>So all Christians are white? And all whites are Christian?</p>
<p>Boy am I confused. I think I need a cocktail.</p>
<p>The stats cover infants. In 2007, 33% of children aged 0 to 4 in the system were still waiting adoption. </p>
<p>The sin is that pregnant girls are told–dont abort, place your child up for adoption if you do not believe you can raise the child.</p>
<p>Drive US 35 from Texas and on up to Nebraska. There are repeated signs with this message. And, it is bull.</p>
<p>Once the baby is born, if it is the product of incest, has problems or is not the right color, that baby may not be adopted for a very long time. </p>
<p>That girl has been lied to. </p>
<p>Convincing a girl not to abort because of the option to place the child for adoption creates a supply for people with fertility problems. But is the girl told in advance that if the baby has visible physical defects, deformities or even abnormalities, much less cardiovascular, neurological or respiratory problems, that baby is going to be in the system a long time and not quickly adopted by Ward and June Cleaver to go live in Happyville? No. But shell get the message really quickly after the baby is born.</p>
<p>And, often the taxpayer gets to fund it when it goes bad.</p>
<p>Oh man. And of course this particular ‘girl’ would never have been in her situation if only dads employer had been mandated to offer free birth control…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I pay for many things in my insurance that I will probably never use. I even pay for a few things that I couldn’t possibly use, like coverage for prostate cancer. That’s how insurance works. We all pay into the pool for all of the services that any of us might need.</p>
<h1>675 - Why would being the product of incest result in a prolonged adoption time, absent some type of chromosomal anamoly?</h1>
<p>I think you are using a red herring–what % of babies are born with “visible physical defects, deformities or even abnormalities, much less cardiovascular, neurological or respiratory problems”. Not the vast majority, especially to the age group most likely to be having these babies. With the amount of ultrasounds done on a typical pregnancy, many of these problems would be recognized before delivery, and the mother could chose to abort up to 24 weeks.</p>
<p>Any posters have % and raw numbers on the amount of children given up for adoption, by race? If the problem is a larger number of black children and potential white adoptive parents, then maybe barriers to those adoptions need removed.</p>
<p>How are these girls being lied to? Adoption is a viable alternative. I think you are over-stating the actual chances of that baby being difficult to adopt.</p>
<p>Yes, Lasma, but those coverages are not mandated by the federal govt. You can establish a carrier or subscribe to one that doesn’t offer prostate cancer coverage, but you won’t be able to find one that won’t make you pay for birth control, and bc doesn’t even treat a life threatening condition.</p>
<p>Those coverages are likely mandated by state governments in all 50 states.</p>
<p>Again, the federal government is not the leader here, but the follower. They established the package of preventive health services by examining the policies already adopted in the states (including those states governed by Huckabee, Romney, Brewer, etc.), checked them against the recommendations of the science as seen by the CDC, and in consultation with the nation’s largest insurers, and with state insurance commissioners.</p>
<p>Birth control is NOT free. Anywhere. And it is not mandated to be free, in any state, or by the federal government. The cost is included in premiums just like any other preventive health service, which it is.</p>