********************************************************
PLEASE REMIT YOUR AAM DUES
Visit: www.AfricanAssociation.org !!!
********************************************************
John, good morning! Wonderful to hear from you...I know I can always count on you. You are so dependable.
Now that the pleasantries are out of the way, on to business! First of all, if you've read the history of the eugenics movement in this country, you would be a little more aware of what I was saying. Ignore the red flags, (why do you keep trying to put me in conservative, republican, movements like tea bags & fox watchers??? I do none of these...tea bags go in hot water, foxes are in the woods & zoos.) please. Why are they so anxious to provide abortions for poor women? Why are they willing to spend precious tax dollars on this? As a people & as people of color we owe it to ourselves to ask this question and to discover the answer.
Cease to exist, never. Exist in fewer numbers, eliminate our tax base, our children, & affect our future success & prosperity, quite possibly.
You apparently have not read about the problems other countries are having because they are at or below replacement rate. We have to replace ourselves or we will suffer more deprivation as the population ages.
John, I am shocked, shocked, that you, too, are blinded to the "abortion as health care" hype. How did that happen? Logic, John, logic. Use some. How on earth can any sane person refer to abortion as reproductive health care when abortions are by their very nature "anti-reproductive????"
Marketing, semantics, & hype. John, the emperor has no clothes & remember that I told you.
Back to my original instructions which you did not follow, please analyze why they want poor women to have abortions; the reasons must be pretty important for them to insist that they be funded by precious tax dollars. Then go study the eugenics movement in this country.
P.S. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but, you know, it's kind of funny that the Dems don't want poor people to have access to better schools & education through vouchers, even though they haven't really done what needs to be done to improve education for minorities & the poor. They want poor & minority women to have abortions (so there aren't too many)...it's as if they are engineering a population of people capable of filling the myriad of service level jobs required to care for an aging, non-minority population.
*********************************
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf
Total fertility rate
The total fertility rate (TFR) summarizes the potential impact of current fertility patterns on completed family size. The TFR estimates the number of births that a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 women would have if they experienced throughout their childbearing years the same age-specific birth rates observed in a given year. The rate can be expressed as the average number of children that would be born per woman. Because it is computed from age-specific birth rates, the TFR is age-adjusted and can be readily compared among populations across time or among geographic areas.
The TFR was 2,100.5 (or 2.1 births per woman) in 2006, a 2 percent increase compared with 2005 (2,053.5) and the highest reported since 1971 (2,266.5) (Tables 4, 8, 14, and 15). This is the first year the U.S. TFR has been above replacement since 1971. Replacement is the level at which a given generation can exactly replace itself, generally considered to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women.
From 1990 to 1997, the TFR decreased substantially (from 2,081.0 to 1,971.0), but has generally increased since 1998. The increase in the TFR in 2006 reflects the increase in birth rates for nearly all age groups, especially for those women aged 15–19 and 20–24 years (see section on ‘‘Age of Mother’’).
The TFR also increased for nearly all race and Hispanic origin groups between 2005 and 2006 with the rate increasing 1 percent for non-Hispanic white, 3 percent for Hispanic, and 5 percent for non-Hispanic black women. Rates for API and AIAN women rose 2 and 5 percent, respectively. Rates for Puerto Rican and Mexican women increased 1 and 2 percent, respectively, whereas the rate for Cuban women was essentially unchanged. The rate for ‘‘other’’ Hispanics rose 7 percent.
Differences among these groups are even more apparent when their rates are compared with the ‘‘replacement’’ rate. As previously mentioned, the U.S. TFR in 2006 was above replacement for the first time since 1971. The TFRs for non-Hispanic black (2,115.0) and Hispanic women (2,959.5), as well as women in the following specified Hispanic origin groups,Mexican(3,107.5),PuertoRican(2,167.0),and‘‘other’’Hispanic(3,014.0)wereabovereplacementin2006(Tables4,8,14,and15).
On 03/16/10, John Stafford Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ********************************************************
>
> PLEASE REMIT YOUR AAM DUES
> Visit: www.AfricanAssociation.org !!!
>
> ********************************************************
>
> LOL, Vera! So, black women having access to abortion means that they will automatically abort their babies, and all black people will suddenly cease to exist? Abortion is now a component of some crazy race war? ROTFLMAO.
>
> Your assertion is actually diminutive and racist, because it assumes that black women cannot be trusted to properly use their access to medical care, and that only conservative white males should have control over their uteri because they know what is best for them.
>
> But if you would stop trying to slant everything as Republican or Democrat (ObamaCare), as someone wrote to you last week, your arguments might hold some water, but they come off as far fetched, and politically derisive Tea Bagger rants. Also, maybe if you had some real experience with issues effecting the African American urban poor today, you might re-think your conservative-at-all-cost values.
>
> But thank you for the morning laugh.
>
> John
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Vera Crowell wrote:
>
> > ********************************************************
> >
> > PLEASE REMIT YOUR AAM DUES
> > Visit: www.AfricanAssociation.org !!!
> >
> > ********************************************************
> >
> > NOTE: I know the article title is designed to raise an emotional red flag; ignore that. Please read the article. This is important for us as people of color. Why are the Dems expecting poor women to get abortions? Only rich people should have babies? If women stopped having babies because they are poor, many of us wouldn't be here today. When you analyze who is more likely to be poor, and then question why they want to try to save 'money' by aborting poor womens' babies, this should be cause for alarm...or maybe not.
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123590196012672.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123590196012672.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h)
> > ****************************
> >
> > * The Wall Street Journal
> >
> > * BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
> > * MARCH 15, 2010
> >
> > ObamaCare and Eugenics
> > How abortion subsidies threaten reproductive liberty.
> >
> > By JAMES TARANTO
> >
> > National Review's Bob Costa catches up with Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who, although not opposed to ObamaCare, has said he and a dozen or so like-minded colleagues will vote "no" if it includes subsidies for abortion:
> >
> > Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. "I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance," he says. "Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered." The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, "are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party."
> >
> > What are Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue--come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."
> >
> > Stupak frames his argument too narrowly. Forget about "life" for a while--the Democratic leaders' position ought to be equally shocking to those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.
> >
> > What Stupak is hearing from his colleagues is not the pro-choice argument that the government should permit abortion as a matter of individual liberty. Rather, they claim that the government should encourage abortion as a social expedient--a cost-cutting measure.
> >
> > The first thing one must say about this position is that when stated categorically, it is nonsense. Sure, babies are expensive. But from society's standpoint, that expense is a necessary investment--the only way to produce the next generation of productive adults. A society in which babies are a net long-term cost--in which the average person consumes more over his lifetime than he produces--is unsustainable. A policy aimed at reducing the number of babies born would be economically ruinous, because within a few decades it would result in a shortage of workers and taxpayers.
> >
> > But as a matter of cold cost-benefit analysis, not all babies are equal. Some are costlier than others, and not all grow into productive adults. In particular, certain disabilities and diseases are very expensive to treat and limit productive adulthood by causing either early death or lifelong dependency.
> >
> > In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an "improvement" in the "quality" (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born. This is known as eugenics.
> >
> > Getting government into the eugenics business would have disturbing implications for reproductive liberty. What would happen to a woman who received, say, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome? She would be free (as she is today) to exercise her right to have an abortion. But would she be free to exercise her right not to have an abortion?
> >
> > Presumably the government could not directly force her to abort, as this would provoke political outrage and run afoul of Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings. But one can easily imagine softer forms of coercion coming into play. A government-run insurance plan, for instance, could deny or limit coverage for the treatment of certain conditions if diagnosed before fetal viability, on the ground that the taxpayer should not be forced to pay the costs of the woman's choice to carry her child to term. Perhaps the courts would find this an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose, but that does not strike us as an open-and-shut case.
> >
> > Pro-choice advocates have argued that even persuasive measures aimed at curtailing abortion are objectionable, although the Supreme Court has disagreed. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court by a 7-2 vote upheld a Pennsylvania law mandating "that counselors provide women seeking abortions with information concerning alternatives to abortion, the availability of medical assistance benefits, and the possibility of child support payments."
> >
> > It's not hard to imagine the federal government's establishing counseling protocols designed to encourage abortion in certain situations--for example, informing a woman after a Down syndrome diagnosis of the burdens (but not the joys) of rearing a child with that condition. This seems no less an infringement of reproductive liberty than the Pennsylvania law to which the pro-choice side objects.
> >
> > For Bart Stupak, who believes abortion is a form of homicide, opposing abortion subsidies is an easy choice. But those who are pro-choice--as opposed to pro-abortion--should object as strongly to government policies designed to encourage abortion as to those intended to discourage it. "Keep your cost-cutting measures off my body!" may not become the new pro-choice rallying cry, but it should.
> >
> > *** Send email to the list: [log in to unmask] ***
> > *** Access AAM list archives: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/AAM.html (http://listserv.icors.org/archives/AAM.html) ***
>
> *** Send email to the list: [log in to unmask] ***
> *** Access AAM list archives: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/AAM.html (http://listserv.icors.org/archives/AAM.html) ***
>
>
--
******************************
"In the days before volcanoes were invented, lava had to be hand carried down from the mountains and poured on the sleeping villagers.
This took a great deal of time."
*** Send email to the list: [log in to unmask] ***
*** Access AAM list archives: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/AAM.html ***
|
