The American Spectator

Rose | 12.29.08 @ 10:49AM

The good news is that Obama's policies on abortion will leave fewer "children" to suffer the results of his out of control spending policies. So, you see, he is consistent!

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.29.08 @ 12:00PM

Let me state upfront that I do not want to pay for abortions, in any trimester, either domestic or foreign. But if I have to make a choice of that or being the sugar daddy to all those being born into poverty, paying for children being born to children, or increasing the income of mothers having children by multiple fathers by all means full speed ahead to Planned Parenthood.

Linda Murray| 12.29.08 @ 1:35PM

I find Michael L. Hauschild's comments despicable. Six of my children were adopted from a Russian orphanage costing that government thousands of dollars over the years they were cared for. Should they have been aborted? Two of my children were born to drug addicted women, one of whom had just been released from jail. Should those two have been ushered into heaven before birth? Another birth mom needed government assistance leading up to the birth of her second child which my husband and I were blessed to adopt. I can't imagine her life being snuffed away in order for the government to save a few thousand dollars.

In all I have eleven beautiful children, ten adopted and one from birth as a young, single mom. All eleven should have been aborted in Mr. Hauschild's world, however, all eleven are wonderful, productive, beautiful human beings that were deserving of life from the moment of their conception.

This world is full of cheaters, however, condoning the ending of an innocent life in such a horrible fashion as through abortion is not the answer.

Marc Jeric| 12.29.08 @ 2:18PM

Abortion is a big and lucrative business. Assume an abortion "clinic" with one doctor, one nurse, and one receptionist. The average cost of an abortion is now approaching $1,000. One doctor in that small clinic can perform 40 abortions in 8 hours of work; in 200 work days the clinic will gross 200x40x$1,000 = $8 million per year. The costs of running that small clinic are about as follows:
a) rent $2,000/months, or $24,000 per year;
b) electric bill $1,000/month, or $12,000/year;
c) janitorial services $500/month, or $6,000/year;
d) medical supplies appr. $5,000/month or $60,000/year;
e) salary and benefits for the nurse $8,000/month or $96,000/year;
f) salary and benefits for the receptionist $5,000/month or $60,000/year;
g) accounting cost appr. $10,000/year;
h) security about $6,000/year.
The gross net for the doctor/owner of that small clinic is about $750,000/year before taxes, or some $600,000/year net.
No wonder that Howard Dean, owner of several abortion mills in Vermont, turned our to be a multi-millionaire before becoming the chief of Democrat Party.

Marc Jeric| 12.29.08 @ 2:20PM

Let me correct the error above - the annual gross income after expenses is $3,750,000 and not $750,000; sorry.

Marc Jeric| 12.29.08 @ 2:23PM

Another error: gross anuual income after expenses is $7,400,000 for such a small clinic. Sorry again.

Jack Bauer| 12.29.08 @ 2:26PM

Linda Murray -- God bless the fact you have a heart the size of Texas.

Your generosity of spirit humbles me. More power to you.

Slippery Road| 12.29.08 @ 3:25PM

Michael L. Hauschild's solution would lead to the sterilization programs which existed in the United States in the 1920's. The same programs eventually lead to eugenics (as they did in America), which were later put into practice by Hitler. Be careful, Mr. Hauschild. Devaluing life in such a matter is a very slippery road. The same road which would lead to you being euthanized once you are no longer a "productive" citizen.

Rose Colored Glasses| 12.29.08 @ 4:03PM

Cars are more important than American children. God save the unborn.

Jeremiah| 12.29.08 @ 4:12PM

There are many fascinating contradictions within modern day "conservatism," and abortion brings them to the surface with piercing clarity.

I urge you all to read Michael L. Hauschild's post above.

Consider how ill informed and mean a viewpoint my be considered "conservative."

Welfare, which scarcely exists at all in this country anymore, never consumed much of the budget. Republicans convinced you that your tax burden was largely due to black women driving Cadillacs and having babies for the monthly checks, and eager to blame your anxieties on someone other than the rich and powerful, you fell for it.

I am opposed to abortion. First because my faith teaches against it, but second because science has now shown without a doubt that a "fetus" is an unborn child, period.

Astonishing as it is for me to write this, I share Sarah Palin's view on this one topic, although I wish our country were doing more to benefit the children who were born to the poor.

There are a growing number of Democrats who are pro-life (including Harry Reid). Those of you who stay within the Ranks of the Moloch-worshhiping Republicans might think about which party is actually worth working to change -- the Democratic party, which is tragically in error on the issue of abortion, or the Republican party, which is wrong about everything else.

Jeremiah| 12.29.08 @ 4:20PM

OK, OK. Not everything.

Republicans are right about school vouchers, too (just so long as they're accompanied by massive increases in spending on public schools).

You see, Jeremiah is open minded and always willing to listen.

Bob| 12.29.08 @ 4:37PM

The goal here is reducing abortions. The money spent on abstinence education didn't reduce them and should be cut. If Obama can reduce the number, he should go for it. If that means an emphasis on contraception and age appropriate sex education, all the better. Let's get programs that give results and leave religion in the church.

dgdc| 12.29.08 @ 5:25PM

It's life as usual. Taxes will be spent on programs that some oppose. People who want abortions will get them. The party who won will politely (condescendingly) ignore the party that lost.
Obama might as well be a virulent prolifer for all the difference it will make.
He does seem to lack Bush's rabid anti-science/intellectual bent so there may be some reform there.

Prince| 12.29.08 @ 6:05PM

It's not radical if Third-world countries realised it was the smart thing to do before you.
Regardless, a good reporter never takes sides. You're a disgrace.

Frank| 12.29.08 @ 6:55PM

Jeremiah | 12.29.08 @ 4:12PM
Oh really, welfare scarecely exists? Just because they changed the name to Earned Income Credit (EIC), don't kid yourself. It is and has always been a substantial burden on this country. That being said, it is has nothing to do with the subject of abortion. Your claim that Republicans scared us into thinking welfare moms are driving Cadiallacs is misleading as well. The oposite is true. The left has tried to scare people into believing that if we restrict abortion, the welfare ranks will swell. No imperical evidence to suggest that is true. Please be honest with us and yourself. This ain't Hufington Post.

Jeremiah| 12.29.08 @ 8:38PM

Frank

Show me where a leftist has attempted "to scare people into believing that if we restrict abortion, the welfare ranks will swell."

I challenge you. Name the publication or person on the "left" who has said just a thing.

It's nonsense. The "left" usually makes arguments about the connection between abortion and access to education, social services and medical care. It is a simple truth that when young women (especially) see a doctor regularly and attend school they are far less likely to become pregnant.

"Welfare" is a word that wasn't even a part of the national debate until McCain / Palin brought it up, lamely, towards the end of the campaign.

IF the EIC is welfare, then the word has started to lose its meaning.

There used to be something called "welfare" that is now largely gone, although it exists in very limited and differs from state to state.

Now, as ever, rural whites in red states receive more government assistance than any other group, but I know you will all go on believing in the myth of the Black Welfare Queen forever.

Stan in Sugar Land| 12.29.08 @ 8:49PM

Consider this, believe it or not we have a serious labor shortage in the US, to cover the labor shortage we have approximately 40 million legal and illegal immigrants currently in the US. Do you think there is any relationship between the 40-50 million abortions performed since Roe v Wade and the number of immigrants in the US? Someone has to do those jobs, note these jobs run from basic labor to a PhD in advanced science and engineering.

Interloper| 12.30.08 @ 6:29AM

To state or restate the pertinent facts:

• Abortion services are a small part of Planned Parenthood and other women's health practices. Most of their budgets are spent on gynecological exams and treatment and education efforts. Federal funds are not used to fund any aspect of abortions.

• Abstinence based 'education' does not work. Children who are part of such programs are more likely to have sex, become pregnant or cause a pregnancy, and develop venereal diseases. The most recent big longitudinal study places the differential between them and children who receive real sex education at 10 percent.

• People who use contraception are more than 95 percent likely not to cause a pregnancy or become pregnant. Girls and women who do not become pregnant do not need abortions. (That is the main point of President-elect Barack Obama's position, and utterly not refutable.)

• Adoption is not a solution for most children who are non-white, handicapped, or older Americans. (The greatest North American adopters of black children are white Canadians and African-Americans. As demonstrated on this thread, many white Americans will pay large sums to adopt children from Europe because the children are white. Their second choice is girls from China or Korea. Repeat, a white Canadian is more likely to adopt a black American child than a white American is.)

The comments from Right Wingers on this thread confirm their prejudices. They say next to nothing about the actual issues.

P.S. to Bass:

'Cord' should be 'chord.'

Bob| 12.30.08 @ 8:46AM

Even though I'm a fiscal conservative, Interloper is absolutely right on the factual interpretation of this issue. The hard right Republicans and their "anti-intellectual" orientation of belief over reason does not allow them to engage in reality. The same is true for the hard left on issues of the environment and animal rights.

This gets me back to what Republicans should become -- the party of pragmatic conservatism. If something doesn't work, drop it even though it might conflict with what you think your value system should be.

If we deal with facts, those from both the right and left can agree enough to get something done.

Linda Murray| 12.30.08 @ 2:20PM

A question for Interloper: How many children have you adopted? How many times have you tried to adopt? How many years have you fostered children? How much contact have you had with your local/county children's services departments?

I can tell you from personal experience that there are a number of reasons people go to a foreign country to adopt. The main reason is because if one is diligent, fills out the tons of paperwork, submits to the criminal, health, security, and social services checks, and pays the tens of thousands of dollars charged along the way, then there is a good chance they will #1 actually get a child and #2 can be fairly confident that the adoption won't be overturned at some future time.

I would say that if you've never spent the 10 to 12 months and thousands of dollars to complete an overseas adoption, then you should check it out before casting aspersions on people who have. Many times during our three overseas adoptions I broke down in tears at the overwhelming difficulty of it all. But then a reminder of the little orphan child with one set of clothes, borrowed eyeglasses that don't fit, not a toy to their name never mind a parent or relative that cares, and I would find the energy to continue on.

I can attest to the fact that a domestic adoption is much cheaper with far less paperwork and overall a much easier route to take. But the downside is that it may never happen because the social services departments don't really want to let the children go. It's their job security. I'm sure you don't believe that but my 20 years experience adopting and trying to adopt has formed my opinion.

My husband and I adopted four babies at birth. Two from drug addicted women (one white, one black), one from a teenage mom, and one from an all black, African woman studying at a university in California. Prior to our private adoptions, we had tried for four years to adopt through the foster program in Los Angeles, CA. In between our adoptions we tried to adopt through the Social Services department of Los Angeles. While living in Virgina for five years, we tried several times to adopt children in VA foster care and through a national registry of children needing families. We applied for non-white and handicapped children to no avail. After years of getting nowhere, we went back to our private attorney and decided to go overseas. We picked Russia because that's where our attorney was licensed - not because we wanted a white child.

And as an aside, there is nothing wrong with a white family wanting a white child. Nor is there anything wrong with a black family wanting a black child. Nor an Hispanic family wanting an Hispanic child. I am old enough to have experienced a time when L.A. County Social Services Dept. would only place children in families of the same race. This had been determined to be in the best interest of the child. And as the mother of a 34 year old mixed race man, I can attest to the fact that his being raised by a white mother and white father while he is dark-skinned did cause him confusion growing up, anger as a young man, and only now is he coming to terms with his situation.

Either way, your recriminations should not be about white Americans that don't want to adopt non-white children but should be directed to non-whites that don't adopt children. When we adopted our black African son from Santa Barbara, CA, it was only after many black adoption agencies could not find a family for him.

In closing, my husband and I have enough information to write a book on why the Social Services departments across the country would prefer to keep the children under their control rather than placing them in adoptive homes. That is why so many people will go overseas to adopt. It may cost a lot but if one is persistent, it will get done.

PS - I was curious about your statement as to Canadians adopting black children from the U.S. I just went on-line to do a search and don't have enough time to do a study but the one line that stood out is that "instances of international adoptions of American children are relatively rare....". Personally I think it's great - sort of. I am happy every time a child gets a family - I'm sad they are no longer American - and I'm extra sad that I'm not the one that got them :o)

Interloper| 12.30.08 @ 3:20PM

Linda, you previously said your adopted children were from Russia.

I don't doubt that any child of color reared by someone with extreme Right views, which invariably include denying the effects of racism on people of color, would have emotional problems.

Bob| 12.30.08 @ 3:36PM

Interloper -- I have agreed with most of what you have posted. But on this, you are certainly off base. Assuming what Linda is saying is true as it is difficult to verify that on a blog, anyone who would raise an adopted child of any color should be commended. Whether you agree with Linda's principles or not, a child raised in a loving household who is given a good education will do just fine. There is an abundance of non-adopted children who are a mess -- and you know that. So please, lighten up on this one.

Linda Murray| 12.30.08 @ 4:43PM

Interloper - I have 4 children adopted domestically. They are now 18, 17, and two 16 year old boys. A few years after those four adoptions, we adopted from Russia. Three sets of biological siblings. These children are now 21 & 19, 14 & 9, and 10 & 8. I've grouped them in the order they were adopted. In addition, I have a biological son from a previous relationship. He is now 34. He is half white, half black. So there are eleven children in all ranging from 34 down to 8.

Your most recent comment appears to be directed at me. You state it as if, because I'm conservative, my son had a terrible time transitioning from youth to adult. But what I find so interesting about my situation and our current political situation is that Barack Obama, our new President Elect, was raised in a somewhat similar situation and, based on the excerpts I've heard from his book, "Dreams From My Father", he, too, ended up with the same confusion and anger as a young man. And this same theme was outlined in Shelby Steele's book, "A Bound Man", which I have not read - just heard about.

My grown son was educated in private schools and, as an only child and only grandchild for his first twelve years of life, he was doted on. But that wasn't enough for him to get over the fact that I was white, his grandparents (the only ones involved in his life) were white, and the vast majority of his classmates and peers were white. It's this situation of feeling out of place that I think caused his confusion and then anger.

From birth through his graduation I was not conservative but rather on a path from post 60's liberalism to my current, pro-life, conservative position. So as I look back, his confusion had more to do with the absence of his father and any black influence in his upbringing while all along he considered himself black. I didn't see it at the time - he never mentioned it. I now use that knowledge to deal with my other children and hope they don't have to follow in his footsteps.

And that's why I deem it more appropriate, whenever possible, that a child be reared by parents and family of their own ethnicity. Now I say that while still raising one all-black son and two bi-racial girls and being the grandmother of three racially mixed children. Bottom line for me is that it's better to have a home - a family of any color - in any country (almost) than no family at all.

I agree with Bob's assessment that anyone that adopts is to be commended and that "There is an abundance of non-adopted children who are a mess". I, for one, at the age of 18 and not adopted was a mess as were my siblings. And we came from a fully liberal family.

So life is life and the road is rocky. We do the best we can, we pray a lot, and keep our fingers crossed. And the point is it's better to have a life with its ups and downs than to be aborted before birth and never have that chance at all.

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.30.08 @ 4:48PM

Please take a break from your deliberations, get out your checkbook and donate to my favorite charity the “Add a Chapel” Planned Parenthood building fund. (My Hitler youth sterilization troop lost its tax-exempt status) After monitoring blogs such as this the pro-choice gang have seen the light and are shifting their priorities. Instead of solely providing women the right to control their reproductive systems they are now diversifying. Their expanded role is to provide nuptials to all those gay, lesbian and bisexual couples to increase the ranks of adoptive couples which will reduce the number of abortions provided, a goal I am sure we all can agree upon.

Interloper| 12.30.08 @ 8:08PM

Bob, I must disagree. As recently as 2006 there was a white couple in Ohio who adopted 11 black children and kept them in cages. The Gravelles had concocted a scheme to make money from adoption subsidies that their conservative white neighbors allowed to go on for more than a decade. Some of them said that watching the children be abused was 'funny' or 'a joke.'

It is important that children of color not be placed with people who will dehumanize them.

ruth| 12.30.08 @ 9:24PM

Hauschild is why I'll never be a Libertarian--no heart, and shock of shocks: Bob defended a Conservative. Interloper is as nasty and crazy a Liberal as any I've had the misfortune to meet and, last but not least, Linda Murray, if you've done what you claim to have done, you are an Angel. God bless you.

Interloper| 12.31.08 @ 4:21AM

Linda, I recommend reading both of President-elect Obama's books. They're really well-written and more than worth the price.

I will not respond to commenters who never have anything of substance to say.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 8:11AM

Interloper, please. There are always exceptions to the rule. Adoptions are basically good -- better than the alternative especially to a family who can provide shelter, food, and education. I have left wing and right wing friends that I consider good people with good morals. Some are pro-life and some pro-choice.

Perhaps you have not seen the crime that I have. I grew up in a poor area with gangs and drugs. Comparing that with anyone who adopts kids and takes care of them is ludicrous. While you are right on most issues, on this one you are just plain wrong.

Linda Murray| 12.31.08 @ 12:13PM

Of course no one can tell from an on-line site whether I am telling the truth or not. The fact is, I am.

Interloper talks of the couple that caged their adopted children. I did not follow that story but just the thought of it is enough to make me sick. We once rented to a large family. Over time we found out that a number of their foster/adopted children were seriously handicapped. We eventually had to evict the family after months of them not paying their rent. When we got the house back it was trashed. There was filth everywhere. The house had to have all flooring replaced, all walls washed and/or painted, and all appliances serviced.

Coincidentally, this family was from Ohio. We were living in Virginia at the time. We ended up thinking that they left Ohio with their band of children so that the Ohio social services department could not see how they were living and how they were treating the children. When we checked their finances, they were able to show us that the state of Ohio paid them over $5,000 a month for the care of the children. At that time I assumed that they must be good caretakers of the children or the state wouldn't keep giving them children and paying so much. Boy was I wrong!

After they were evicted and I saw the filthy way they lived, I contacted some of the agencies listed on their application. I could not find one person interested in following up on the case.

And this is one of the big problems with foster care and state adoption agencies. They are totally messed up.

As for our family, we have adopted 10 children all at our own expense. We have never received a penny for any of them. We did not do it for the money as my husband is a professional and fully capable of supporting our large family on his own.

Interloper says: "I will not respond to commenters who never have anything of substance to say. " Linda responds: "Are you like 12 years old or what?"

Linda Murray| 12.31.08 @ 12:26PM

Ruth - I have done what I've said here but I am definitely NOT an angel. And God has blessed us - ten times over!

Our adoption process started out for selfish reasons - my husband and I wanted a large family and I, being older, did not get pregnant. So adoption was the only way to build a family. We waited a long time for our #1 - even had to give back a baby after 2 weeks because the birth mom changed her mind. Since the first took so long we applied right away for a second adoption. We were picked out instantly by a birth mom that wanted a family that had horses. Here in Los Angeles that doesn't happen often and so we had our second daughter within 9 months of the first because we have horses :o) The third was an emergency for the baby - no families available - so we acted out our pro-life views and adopted the baby even though we had a 16 month old and a 7 month old. And the fourth was another emergency. The birth mom abadoned the baby at a Hollywood hospital. He had been born with cocaine in his system and I assume she was scared of getting criminally charged. I was asked to pick him up and keep him until an adoption agency could find a home for him. Well, he never left our home.

From there our attorney directed our attention to Russian orphans and we would have adopted a hundred of them - no, all of them - if we could. One trip to a Russian orphanage would soften even the hearts of Interloper and Hauschild.

Back to the subject: I really appreciate your kind words.

ruth| 12.31.08 @ 5:08PM

Linda, how can you soften the hearts of men when they have none? You do the Lord's work, it's so easy for others to just spew criticism. Interloper is lucky that the cool bloggers on this site reply to liars--or his comments would be completely ignored. Anyway, Linda, Happy New Year to you and your wonderful family.

Linda Murray| 12.31.08 @ 5:49PM

Ruth - And a Happy New Year to you and your family.

Christina Dunigan| 12.31.08 @ 6:34PM

*TItle X -- Planned Parenthood "unbundles" abortion so that we're paying for all the ancillary services -- the pregnancy test, the ultrasound, the medications, the pelvic exam, everything except the actual killing of the fetus. Not only does it allow them to use tax funding to underwrite abortions, it allows them to play data massage and pretend that abortion is only a tiny percentage of their business. Well, yeah, if every abortion also means five or six other services, abortion would still be only 1/6 or 1/7 of your business, even if you did nothing but abortions!

*Defunding abstinence based and promoting contraceptives-based? Well, of course you can't sell contraceptives, STD tests, pregnancy tests, and abortions to teens who keep their pants on.

*Repealing the Hyde Amendment and Mexico City Policy (restoring tax dollars for abortions at home and abroad, respectively) will injure women. The CDC's study of the effect of the Hyde Amendment compared states that picked up the tab for elective abortions with those who didn't. Those who picked up the tab had no change in hospital admissions for abortion complications for medicaid-eligible women. Those who provided no tax funding for abortions saw a drop in hospital admissions for abortion complications among medicaid-eligible women -- with no rise in childbirth complications. The Hyde Amendment was clearly preventing abortion injuries. So why do the so-called champions of women's health oppose it?

Christina Dunigan| 12.31.08 @ 6:45PM

I have to respond to Interloper's claims:

"• Abortion services are a small part of Planned Parenthood and other women's health practices. .... Federal funds are not used to fund any aspect of abortions."

The only part of the abortion we're not paying for is the actual scraping. They "unbundle" the services in their bookkeeping, so that they can charge us for the pregnancy test, the counseling, the pelvic exam, the ultrasound, the medication. And of course when they do that it also makes abortion look like a much smaller portion of their business than it actually is.

"• Abstinence based 'education' does not work. "

If by "does not work" you mean "does not produce a new generation of consumers of PP's products and services, you're right. Look at California, that gets an "A" grade from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for "prevention" -- and has one of the highest abortion rates in the country!

"• People who use contraception are more than 95 percent likely not to cause a pregnancy or become pregnant. "

Per any given year of sexual activity. If you have 100 chaste teenagers, there will be zero pregnancies. If you have 100 teenagers on birth control, you will have (assuming they use it consistently and properly) 5 pregnancies. Multiply that by millions. And factor in failure to use the methods consistently and properly, and you have ... well, California.

Though use of a contraceptive decreases the odds that any given act of intercourse will result in pregnancy, it causes an astronomical increase in acts of intercourse -- and not only intercourse, but intercourse in situations in which a pregnancy will not be welcome. It's a recipe for abortion.

"• Adoption is not a solution for most children who are non-white, handicapped, or older Americans. "

Only because those kids are stuck in foster care and not available for adoption. Well, except for babies with Down syndrome -- there is a two year waiting list for families that want to adopt a baby with DS. That's the FAMILY that has to wait two years to get a baby, not the BABY who has to wait two years to get a family.

" As demonstrated on this thread, many white Americans will pay large sums to adopt children from Europe because the children are white."

Which, I suppose, is why adoptions from Asia are so common that Wal Mart ran a commercial featuring a white woman with an Asian child in her shopping cart.

ruth| 12.31.08 @ 8:20PM

I frequently laugh and shake my head when I read many Liberals' posts. The vile assertions and out-right lies about Conservatives are too numerous to count. The only hate I encounter on AMSpecBlog is Liberal hate. Interloper is a perfect example of the angry Leftist--a stereotype actually--and I feel sorry for him--no heart and no soul. Only God can save Interloper from himself.

ruth| 12.31.08 @ 8:23PM

Christina, the only thing PP and NARAL champion is the almighty dollar. They don't give a damn about women.

Gman| 1.3.09 @ 7:44PM

We're blaming Obama for the problems Bush is leaving behind. What's the real reason you dislike Obama, a man who is trying to re-build the USA from debt and world chaos.

ruth| 1.4.09 @ 9:54PM

Gman, wrong thread--Bush is pro-life and Obama is pro-abortion. We're pro-lifers and are unhappy about Obama's record of infanticide. Also, you haven't seen debt and chaos yet, wait until Obama's policies really sink our country.

Faith| 1.23.09 @ 7:50AM

Jeremiah, Where do you live anyway in "la la" land? I work in a grocery store and every first of the month there are black and white, mostly large women come to the check out ,some with two carts loaded down with mostly junk food, whip out their food stamp card when it's time to pay!

Faith| 1.23.09 @ 7:57AM

Jeremiah...........The head of planned parenthood said that. She also so that if we restricted abortion there would be too many children for adoption!

Rhon| 1.26.09 @ 9:24PM

Marc Jeric-
could you please send me some info on Howard Dean-my mother and I are arguing and she doesn't believe he owned abortion clinics....Help!!!
Thanks

links of london sale| 9.10.09 @ 11:00PM

Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！