Friday, May 25, 2012

Scandal = Executive pay cuts, unless...

Since arriving at my parents' home in Florida a few days ago, I have been bombarded by radio and print advertisements concerning Health Management Associates (HMA), which owns dozens of hospitals across the country.  The advertisements attack HMA for basing executive pay solely on profits, "even though HMA has been plagued by multiple government investigations, lawsuits, and scandals."  Sure enough, the website WrongWayHMA.org offers extensive documentation of these issues.

Naturally, I'm as opposed to health care scandals as the next person, so I found the campaign enlightening.  The advertisements also got me thinking about another nationwide healthcare provider that has been plagued by multiple government investigations, lawsuits, and scandals: Planned Parenthood
Cecile Richards and
husband Kirk Adams

Here's where it gets interesting.  The anti-HMA campaign is sponsored by "the doctors, nurses and caregivers of the Service Employees International Union."  The SEIU's health care division is operated by long-time labor organizer Kirk Adams.  And Kirk Adams is married to none other than Cecile Richards, the CEO of Planned Parenthood.

In short, scandals at clinics are bad, and the executives who oversee them ought to take a pay cut-- unless it's your wife, making $340,000 a year at the nation's largest abortion chain.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Poll Finds Decrease in Self-Described "Pro-Choicers"


A new Gallup poll found that the number of Americans describing themselves as "pro-choice" has hit a record low of 41% (compared to 50% who call themselves "pro-life").

  • The amounts of Democrats describing themselves as "pro-choice" versus "pro-life" has remained relatively stable over the last year.  
  • Self-described "pro-life" Republicans have increased from 68% to 72%, while "pro-choice" Republicans have decreased from 28% to 22%.  However the poll's margin of error is +4%, making the increase in "pro-life" Republicans statistically insignificant.  
  • The change is more marked for independents: "pro-choice" Independents have decreased 6 percentage points while "pro-life" Independents have increased 10 percentage points.
(Gallup notes that the shift in views is not due to a different political composition in the sample set; the political composition of this poll's sample set is similar to the sample set used in 2011.)

While there has been a shift in identification as "pro-choice" versus "pro-life," Americans' views on the morality of abortion remain nearly identical to the views expressed in the 2011 Gallup poll: 51% of Americans consider abortion morally wrong, and 38% consider it morally acceptable.  Similarly, when asked whether they think abortion ought to be legal under any circumstances (25%), legal under certain circumstances (52%), or illegal under all circumstances (20%), the percentages are statistically the same as the results from 2011.

In other words, in the last year Americans' labels for their abortion positions have shifted significantly, but their views on the morality and legality of abortion have remained steady. 

What do you think may have caused this increase in self-described "pro-lifers," especially among Independents?  Is this useful to the pro-life movement?  Why or why not?

UPDATE: A Washington Post blog entry explores the new Gallup poll, including a look at the religious tone of the pro-life movement:
Many past civil rights movements in this country, such as the move to end slavery or the fight for women’s suffrage, were deeply rooted in religious conviction. Such is the case with the pro-life movement. But with each of these movements there was a tipping point where Americans saw that one need not be a devoutly religious person to recognize the social justice issue at stake and to get behind the cause. This is happening with abortion in America.
Let's hope so! 

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Whole Life Video Contest


I Am Whole Life is an organization dedicated to promoting respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person regardless of ability, age, status, ethnicity, or sex.  According to their FB page, I Am Whole Life specifically focuses on fighting human sex trafficking, embryo destruction, eugenics, abortion, and capital punishment (among other issues).

I Am Whole Life is currently hosting a video contest with the following instructions:

  1. Pick a song with a Whole Life theme.
  2. Cover the song and submit it as a video response by May 31st.
  3. Explain the Whole Life theme in the description.
Winners will receive a Whole Life t-shirt. :-)

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

The Language Disconnect


[Today's post is written by guest blogger KB.]


Let’s set the record straight. 

Pro-Choicers: When talking about abortion, the vast majority of pro-lifers do not hate women.  They do not think women should be subservient to men, should have no life outside of childrearing and most don’t even believe the government should stand in the way of women controlling their own bodies.  That isn’t the focus of the pro-life belief system at all.

Pro-lifers: When talking about abortion, the vast majority of pro-choicers do not simply want to kill babies.  They do not think it is okay for people to run around screwing everyone and avoiding consequences, and many recognize abortion as a hard, painful, and potentially terrible decision to make.  Murder isn’t the focus of the pro-choice belief system at all.

This national conversation we are having on the rights of a fetus versus the legalization of abortion is getting us nowhere.  Sure, some minor laws have been passed, some good, some bad,  but nobody is convincing anybody to switch teams.  People have selected their sides and cling more tightly to their opinions than their religion.  The result is a huge language disconnect that makes it difficult to have a rational conversation about the topic and actually make progress on what really matters for all parties: a system that gives respect to individual life and liberty.

The problem is not that pro-lifers and pro-choicers don’t believe in the sanctity of life and liberty, it is that they morally define these concepts differently.  We pro-lifers believe that “life” begins at conception, and the “liberty” to experience the opportunities of life should be well guarded for all people. 

Pro-choicers love life and liberty too.  However, most genuinely do not believe that life begins at conception.  To them, the liberty to live one’s life and all of its opportunities is something that should be protected for those they consider alive.  In that case, it is the mother, and only the mother.  People vary in their view as to when life begins, but ask any pro-choicer and they will tell you they cannot fathom how a 3-week-old embryo would be considered a human being.  It is outside of their classification system, but it doesn’t make them bad or unapproachable people.

Much like the word “god”, the definition of “the start of life” is ambiguous, and every human has their own version.  The lack of a standardized, provable definition is problematic; there is no rational way to convince someone who has already made their mind up on one definition or another.  Barring any 100% solid proof of god the way I define god, I don’t care what you say, I am not going to believe in god.  Similarly, I am not going to believe that a unique human DNA combination, never before seen in the world and never again to be seen, is not a brand new life.  The premise of unique DNA as life is a good one in my opinion, but I will admit it is one qualification out of many that people use to define life.  Others will say a soul, a beating heart, the ability to live independently.  (In the world of unclear and contested definitions, I’d make the argument that it is better to be safe, and save a non-life, than sorry, and destroy a life, but this is rarely a good sell.  They’d argue it is better to be safe and protect a woman’s freedom than sorry and condemn her to servitude.)

So where does that lead us?  How do we bridge that language barrier?  Well, this gives us a few major DON’Ts when talking to a pro-choicer.  Don’t call them a baby-killer; it is a conversation stopper.  Don’t oversimplify their argument to “the rights/life of a mother outweigh the rights/life of a baby”.  Many do not and cannot see a fetus as a baby, so they do not see this dichotomy.  Telling them a fetus has developed organs, that it appears to be able to feel pain, is likely not going to convince them.  

And on the other hand, if someone starts yelling at you, saying your motivations are secretly founded by right wing evangelical Christians who want to keep women forever pregnant (even as you say the only life we have is now, thus it must be protected), stop talking to that person.  At best you’ll walk away frustrated.  At worst you’ll end up becoming emotional and they’ll trot back to their friends, detailing how ignorant and angry pro-lifers are.

Don’t assume you know that in every situation the abortive-minded woman sees the issue as black and white.  In the world of the hypothetical, it is easy to say, “you protect or you kill life – there is no grey area.”  That is true of the result.  That is not true of the rationale.  Parents-to-be may be flooded with far more than rational thoughts when going through an unexpected pregnancy, “Are we doing the right thing?  Can we even afford this?  What will our friends, family, bosses, boyfriend think?   Would we be dooming the child to a horrible life?  Am I even healthy enough to have a child?”  Without understanding that background music, you may come off as callous, naïve and unrealistic.

Watch out for treating pro-life as a religion.  Not everything that goes on in the pro-life world is gold and we need to be prepared to call foul on people with whom we normally agree. For example, when I discuss abortion with my pro-choice friends, I make clear to them that I support non-abortive PP activities; I am not simply part of a club.  This helps demonstrate that I come to my various conclusions independently and we avoid a “my side/ your side” argument.

In the meantime, we need to develop a culture of life – one that takes great pains to help women never have to make that choice, even if it is legal.  One that, if a woman is in a position where she might consider that choice, she gets all the treatment, information and non-judgmental counseling she may need to lift she and her partner out of any emotional fog they may be experiencing.  Instead of protesting a clini (which will do nothing except maybe make staunch pro-choicers hate you more, and women who really feel unsure of what to do have more cause to avoid your perspective), work in your community to make adoption, or becoming a parent, more of a possibility, on both a financial and technical level, as well as a social level.  The stigma of out-of-wedlock children is not as strong as it once was, but it is still there.

Promote contraceptives to those who will listen, even if you personally do not believe contraceptives are a good thing in your moral code.  It is far better for others to to use them than abortion.  If even one abortion is prevented because a woman and her partner used contraception, I’d say it was worth it, wouldn’t you?

This may seem like a weak approach to the topic of abortion, but it is not.  It is the only way to effect real change in the long term and encourage a civil cultural shift, as opposed to more heated, useless arguments.  I don’t think abortion will be something this country truly and finally decides on in my lifetime, so in the meantime, let’s try to do what we can to reduce abortion and make child bearing easier for women who understand that they carry a life.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Open Adoption


Homepage for the Independent Adoption Center.


Among the many reasons women cite for obtaining abortions are the following:

  • Having a child would interfere with the woman's education, work, or ability to care for dependents;
  • The woman cannot afford a baby; and/or
  • The woman is having relationship problems/does not want to be a single mother.
It seems adoption would largely (albeit not wholly) mitigate these potential problems for women with unplanned pregnancies.  However some women believe that, after having carried their child for nine months, adoption would be very emotionally painful.  Some women fear the idea of "always wondering"--wondering how the child is developing, how the adoptive family is treating the child, and whether the child wonders about her mother.

Perhaps this is where open adoption would be helpful.  The Independent Adoption Center (IAC) cites studies showing that adoptees in open adoptions have better psychological outcomes than adoptees in semi-open or closed adoptions.  Additionally, as the IAC explains:
Birthparents in open adoptions typically demonstrate positive self-esteem related to responsible decision making and feeling in control of their life -- making a plan for the baby, instead of abandoning him/her. Birthparents with open adoptions work through the normal feelings of grief much more quickly and easily. 
While open adoption does not solve all the problems of unplanned pregnancy, it is a type of family structure that may make it more plausible for a woman to give life without wreaking havoc on her own.

Friday, May 18, 2012

"Gay marriage, abortion back in campaign spotlight"


"There's no equivalent embrace of abortion rights in Hollywood's products; films depicting unintended pregnancies generally opt for a birth."
As we head into the fray of election season, the San Francisco Chronicle contrasts the gay rights movement and the abortion rights movement. The article notes several differences between the two issues:

  1. Public opinion regarding same-sex marriage has shifted drastically in the last 10 years, with more people accepting the idea; public opinion on abortion has not had such drastic changes (although slightly more Americans now call themselves "pro-life").
  2. Americans who are ambivalent about gay marriage can opt for a live-and-let-live mentality; the moral questions involved with abortion tend to allow less flexibility.
  3. Homosexuality has been largely accepted in popular culture (e.g. Glee, Modern Family); there's no equivalent acceptance of abortion in Hollywood (e.g. Knocked Up, Juno).
  4. Young people are considerably more likely to accept same-sex marriage than older people; there's no equivalent age gap on abortion views.
  5. The gay rights movement is attempting to change the status quo; the abortion rights movement is defending the status quo.
We want your take on this, dear Reader.  Why is the abortion debate so intractable compared to other social issues?  How can we overcome some of that intractability and expand the pro-life movement?

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Pressure To Abort After Diagnosis


Instead of writing this week there are two stories I would like to share with you surrounding misdiagnosis of the child's health condition while in utero. These misdiagnosis that have lead to women being faced with a difficult choice.

What I would like to point out is that doctors are often wrong when diagnosing babies in the womb and many children are missing today because of this diagnosis followed by pressure to abort. Here are just two stories showing the struggle many parents face today:

A seven month pre-born baby in Vietnam was diagnosed by ultrasound as having a disability and was aborted. When family went to barry the aborted child she was still alive: story on Life News.

In 1994 a doctor told parents that their child was at high risk of having a blood disorder which both parents carried and advised them to abort. The little girl is now getting ready to graduate high school: Alyssa shares her story.


For the Dignity of the Born and Unborn,

Timmerie