Latest CDC report reveals minorites having most abortions
by Kelli
The CDC Abortion Surveillance Report dated November 29, 2013 reveals that in 2010, 56.7% of abortions reported to the CDC nationwide were done on Hispanic and Black women….
According to the CDC Abortion Surveillance Report there were 415,479 abortions for known ethnicity reported for selected states in 2010. 153,045 (or 36.8 percent) were non-Hispanic white babies, 148,261 (or 35.7 percent) were non-Hispanic black babies, 87,240 (or 21.0 percent) were Hispanic babies, and 26,933 (or 6.5 percent) were babies of other races or ethnicities….
The report reveals that a majority of Black or Hispanic babies were aborted in New Jersey (55.9 percent), the District of Columbia (64.8 percent) and Georgia (73.2 percent).
~ The Global Dispatch, December 5
The press release post also headlines: “81.9 percent of babies aborted in New York City, 63.7 percent in Texas were Black or Hispanic.”
More here.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Many of the specific tables (the race/ethnicity most specifically) did not include Illinois. Was the data not reported or was the state just left out on some categories?
The politics of abortion have always been about racism. Ask Margaret Sanger.
My opinion is that it has to do with poverty. The disproportionate amount of abortions performed on women of minority groups seems to coincide with how much more they are disproportionately in poverty compared to white people as a whole (obviously, a percentage of white people are in poverty, but minority groups disproportionately make up those under the poverty line). I think poor people are easier to prey on for all kinds of nasty things, including abortion.
This racial difference is especially striking especially seeing as both black and Hispanic groups report being religious at higher rates than people who don’t belong to a minority groups. This seems like it would coincide with a lower rate of abortion, that religious sentiment (especially among Hispanics, who are heavily Catholic), but instead we get this disproportionate amount of minorities getting abortions. I think poverty is probably the main factor.
PP targets minority, low income neighborhoods.
Pretending to “help.”
Yes, still waiting for abortion to solve the poverty issue.
Is the idea to get rid of the impoverished to solve the issue???
??? I wasn’t saying it was remotely a solution. I think poor people are basically preyed upon by this way of targeting poverty stricken groups with abortion, and as we can see by the disproportionate rate of poverty in the minority groups, abortion obviously hasn’t gotten them as a whole to a proportionate rate of poverty.
No, Jack, I wasn’t talking about you. I was just speaking in general. The pro-abortion consensus seems to be that abortion helps those in poverty, when the truth is, it doesn’t.
Even if abortion could solve poverty, it still wouldn’t be acceptable. Unless we’re gonna be okay with offing two-year-old children as well if their parents are poor.
Oh I see Kel! I was like…. I wasn’t saying it was justified.
But yeah, I’ve honestly not seen anyone abort their way out of poverty, and I’ve lived on the streets, and in the poor neighborhoods and around as desperately poor as you can get. What usually happens is someone aborts, thinking it’s the best decision, and then gets depressed and never moves on with their lives. This is really common among young poor Hispanic women down here, because they tend to be Catholic and having the abortion absolutely screws them up.
Well hasnt this been the case for quite some time? When Id protest Martin Ruddocks clinic Id say about 95% or even more of his patients were Aftican American.
Typo African…above post. Im typing from a tiny phone.
Hi Jack…hope u are well. Say do you know where xalasie went now that i have u here?
I liked her. I miss her comments.
Hi Heather I’m okay. I haven’t talked to her in a while. She got a new job and is super busy for one thing.
Shocking and heartbreaking statistics. And yet from black leaders we hear . . .
“CRICKETS”
I wonder what the abortion rate among Asian women is? I know their out of wedlock birthrate is quite low (15 percent).
Jack, I would say that poverty is a factor, but there is quite a deal of promiscuous behavior in the black community and many black women don’t use birth control. I am not saying that to “judge” anyone but this is from my own observations.
Yeah, but that’s pretty common among all impoverished urban populations. though there is probably some cultural differences among the black population that make it more likely. It’s not as statistically noticeable among white people because they are less likely to live in impoverished urban areas. Hispanics tend to have the same “no birth control” thing often for religious things going on as far as I can tell, which I find rather weird. So, premarital sex is immoral but you’re gonna do that, but birth control is just a step too far? And abortion is acceptable but not birth control? Don’t ask me how that works. I think some of it has to do with not wanting the shame of an unwed pregnancy, too, at least when it comes to the young Hispanics who come from more traditional families.
So, premarital sex is immoral but you’re gonna do that, but birth control is just a step too far?
Yeah, that doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know how people pick what is “sinful” and what isn’t. I remember I had a client who was a devout Jehovah’s Witness and I casually mentioned if her kids were going trick or treating. She became livid and starting talking about how Haloween is “giving honor to Satan,” etc.. Yet she had six different kids by three different men and had never been married! Which is more “sinful” — handing out candy to trick or treaters or having premarital sex with different men? And BTW, Christmas and Easter are also based on pagan holidays, too.
Black women are the most avid churchgoers in the country, yet we have ahigh rate of sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and out of wedlock births — 75 percent and counting. I don’t go to church but I never had an STD, an abortion, and had one child by one man — who at the time was my husband. I am not trying to say I am morally superior to anyone but something doesn’t add up here.
Also, the world is heaping praise upon Nelson Mandela but he was no friend of the prolife movement. In 1996 he signed a bill legalizing abortion. At the time I remember there was a problem because there were very few doctors who were willing to do them. I don’t know if the situation has changed since then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_South_Africa
PP targets minority, low income neighborhoods. Pretending to “help.” – not true. PP locates where demand for it’s multifarious services are highest. Socio-economic conditions and cultural factors drive the abortion rates amongst blacks and hispanics.
True.
And the word is nefarious not mulitfarious.
You are hilarious!!!! ohmyword
Phylimiss…my pastor pointed out the same thing. A woman who was African American and from Silent No More would protest together. Sandy had both an illegal abortion as well as a legal one. We became fast friends. She explained to me that her family had pretty much disowned her for not voting for Obama. Yes they all went to church yet Sandy refused to cave.
This is really common among young poor Hispanic women down here, because they tend to be Catholic and having the abortion absolutely screws them up.
That’s really sad, Jack. Aren’t there programs to help them? And most of all, WHERE ARE ALL THE FATHERS OF THESE ABORTED BABIES?
I’m mostly talking about the sex workers and street kids I’ve been around and such, so “fathers” (sperm donors) don’t enter in the equation. There are programs, but they are overworked and underfunded. And there are a lot of “social justice” types who see abortion as a good part of this whole crappy system of “help”.
I think if a man is arrested for prostitution he should be charged the child support equivalent of two or more children to be payable to programs to help underprivileged sex workers/street kids/whatever for eighteen years. Seems only fair since they just gallivant along their way with a slap on the wrist, while the girls (and many boys as well, though not on the pregnancy side) have their lives ruined with stuff like abortions, fatherless children that get taken by the state or live in squalor, STDs, etc.
Not true. The claim of ‘targeting’ is spurious, disingenuous and fictitious.
You may find the claim that it is true desirous, but it’s overly ambitious.
Agenda driven propaganda is no substitute for facts.
Your response is humorous.
Yes the social work profession is extremely proabortion. The only group I know of actively involved in working with the poor that is also prolife are the Catholic Workers.
Its so sad that children are being sexually exploited like this.
Tossing out words doesn’t make the world so, abortion fan.
Sanger’s own racist writings say more than any pro-lifer could. A disease can begin with a bacteria or virus, but a disease can also begin with an idea. Abortionism is a disease. Get well soon; it’s never too late to choose life.
Some people die due to a lack of knowledge and not stupidity. That applies to poverty also. One is not poor if they can find $400+ for an abortion. Someone who introduces others to sex or drugs or most other such things that leads to your life and money going out of their self control does not ‘love’ them and surely is not ‘helping’ them. The drug pusher and Planned Parenthood have a lot in common. When the drug pusher gives out ‘free samples’ he is looking for future customers. Same with PP. PP’s condoms were the lowest rated by Consumer Reports magazine. Even is one does not become pregnant, one would still need to be checked for STDs and could use more products for that life style. That equals more money.
Birth control products are not self control. Pushing them makes one an accomplice to the sin of lust. Their is no thrill worth the punishment due to being a pusher. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Even if you do not believe in the Bible, pushing sex, birth control and abortion is not helping anyone. That knowledge will help more people have more time and money to become richer in material things AND get to where they really want to be which is in Heaven.
Hi Jack 5:56PM
On the subject of male customers of prostitutes, my brother told me an hilarious story.
As a police officer he was on patrol and noticed a man had let a prostitute into his vehicle. Pulling the guy over my brother inquired as to the lady in the car who he said was his “friend”. After reviewing the guy’s license, etc., my brother then said: I’m going to call your house sometime in the next hour and you had better be home”. The “friend” bolted, the john, by now sweating bullets, made a dash for his house. My brother never called.
I think it is true that people who claim to be religious often ignore their religion when it interferes with justifying an abortion. That’s why I think it is important to focus on secular arguments against abortion rather than making it a religious issue. A lot of people can tell themselves that Jesus will understand that “my abortion is different”, but it is harder to deny the reality of things such as scientific information on fetal development.
Tossing out words doesn’t make the world so, abortion fan. – that’s the point I was making, fetus before all else fan.
Sanger’s own racist writings say more than any pro-lifer could. – ah, the desperate clinging to a woman who died in 1966 who bears zero relevance to PP or the pro-choice movement.
A disease can begin with a bacteria or virus, but a disease can also begin with an idea. – oh really, you have the scientific evidence to support this? I’d looove to see it.
Abortionism is a disease. – I would simply looove to see a rational rationale for this.
Get well soon; it’s never too late to choose life. – I always have and always do choose life.
“I think poor people are basically preyed upon by this way of targeting poverty stricken groups with abortion.”
Hi Jack. Some groups have more abortions because they have more unwanted pregnancies. Honestly, the “targeting” talk is just plain silly. Example: 40+ black women of childbearing years will have abortions in a given year due to having unwanted pregnancies. This is about twice the rate for American women in total.
You are correct that poverty plays an enormous part. The rate of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies for women in poverty is more than 5 times as high as for women in the highest income group. Not sure what is meant by “highest income group,” but it’s from “Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006,” in ‘Contraception’ ( 2011 by Finer and Zolna)
About 2/3 of the births from unplanned pregnancies are paid for by public insurance programs, mostly Medicaid.
Correction: 40+ black women per 1000 of childbearing years will have abortions in a given year due to having unwanted pregnancies. This is about twice the rate for American women in total.
Sorry about that.
“Socio-economic conditions and cultural factors drive the abortion rates amongst blacks and hispanics.”
Someone has to tell “reality” that in 2013 socio-economic conditions have been addressed VERY ADEQUATELY by various programs and services. Someone also needs to advise “reality” that it is truly a travesty for him to use “cultural factors” as a reason for an abortion. Doe he realize how this demeans and devalues the very women he so purports to “support?” ? His strategy must be to use anything he can to justify his masters (PP).
Thomas R., you REALLY need to stop feeding the troll.
“Someone has to tell “reality” that in 2013 socio-economic conditions have been addressed VERY ADEQUATELY by various programs and services.”
Hi Thomas R. You are missing Reality’s point. Even aside from that, how do you see that there has been this “very adequate” addressing? Even the areas that public policy and programs can address and affect, still remain quite problematic.
Someone has to tell “reality” that in 2013 socio-economic conditions have been addressed VERY ADEQUATELY by various programs and services. – yeah, I suppose you could classify most poor people not often dying of starvation, exposure or lack of health care “very adequate”.
Someone also needs to advise “reality” that it is truly a travesty for him to use “cultural factors” as a reason for an abortion. – the cultural factors are what lead to unwanted pregnancies which then lead to abortions.
Doe he realize how this demeans and devalues the very women he so purports to “support?” ? – oh goody. Explain your thinking on this one “thomas r.”
His strategy must be to use anything he can to justify his masters (PP). – I do not now, nor have I ever had, any association with PP. No one is my master. Nor does PP need my support. They have a multitude of satisfied customers to do that.
“Nor does PP need my support. They have a multitude of satisfied customers to do that.”
Hi Reality. Yes, of course. And why make a big deal about the race of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? This whole thread has an element of circus-like illogic and faulty pretenses.
“Latest CDC report reveals minorites having most abortions.” Should be “minorities,” but who is thinking that this is “breaking news,” anyway? It has been this way for decades (despite Thomas’s assertion that things have been ‘very adequately addressed’).
African-Americans and Puerto-Rican Americans have higher rates of high blood pressure than do other Hispanic groups and Caucasians. Just think of those “racist” doctors “targeting” these groups for treatment…..
“an element of circus-like illogic and faulty pretenses” indeed Carlos. It fits with some of the sensationalist headlines and claims completely lacking in substance which are also observed at times.
And why do gas stations target car-owners, what’s that all about? Anti-pedestrianists.
Uh Carlos,
Racist doctors wouldn’t target Blacks and Puerto Ricans for treatment, they’d just let them suffer the consequences of their high BP.
Reality,
Your comment about gas station owners being anti pedestrianists might have some basis in fact. After all, if everyone walked and didn’t drive, they’d be out of business, right?
Racist doctors wouldn’t target Blacks and Puerto Ricans for treatment, they’d just let them suffer the consequences of their high BP. – therefore, if PP were racist they wouldn’t provide all the services they do for Blacks and Puerto Ricans, they’d just let them suffer the consequences of unwanted pregnancies etc. :-)
After all, if everyone walked and didn’t drive, they’d be out of business, right? – quite likely. So you’re saying that if everyone stopped having sex then abortion clinics would be out of business ;-)
“And why make a big deal about the race of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? ”
Um because when certain demographics (race, social class, what have you) have something disproportionately affecting them, it’s usually a good idea to try and figure out why, and give attention to the issue. The minority communities are also disproportionately affected by poverty, abuse, inequities in the criminal “justice” system, etc. Pretending that things like unwanted pregnancy and such don’t affect certain groups more is ridiculous, it certainly doesn’t help the issue.
“African-Americans and Puerto-Rican Americans have higher rates of high blood pressure than do other Hispanic groups and Caucasians. Just think of those “racist” doctors “targeting” these groups ”
I have called no one a racist, and I sincerely doubt most abortion clinic workers or pro-choicers are racist. But I do think people target poor people (especially minorities) with abortion. People want to get rid of the obvious symptoms (like the unwanted baby), instead of doing the much more difficult work of fixing the economic and social causes that lead to this problem in the first place.
And there is also the nasty attitude that I’ve witnessed a lot of people have toward poor people with children, especially poor people who aren’t white. It’s certainly not limited to pro-choicers, but I do think there is quite an undercurrent of unconscious classism and racism towards poor people having children. Which is another way I think “targeting” is an appropriate way to put it.
The weird cognitive dissonance that strikes some progressives when it comes to abortion drives me crazy. The fact that minority groups are disproportionality affected by poverty, crime, abuse, lacking healthcare, etc… That’s a sign of racial inequity and needs to be examined and corrected ( I do agree with that). But when it comes to abortion it’s all “why does the race of a woman who aborts matter?” and it’s not even seen as another example of inequity? Makes no sense and drives me nuts.
Well Jack, when there are people trying to claim that PP ‘target’ certain groups but then also try to claim that those same groups receive ‘very adequate’ support you’ve gotta wonder.
Yes, inequity at its core is the base cause of all the various deleterious outcomes for the affected groups. Of course there are always some folk in society who need to feel that someone is worse off than them, so they’ll attempt to perpetuate those inequities.
“Well Jack, when there are people trying to claim that PP ‘target’ certain groups but then also try to claim that those same groups receive ‘very adequate’ support you’ve gotta wonder.”
We’ll, I don’t think most abortion clinic workers/owners/ whatever are actively racist and trying to get rid of minority communities, or whatever, but I do think that they like their money (at the top, at least, i do think most clinic workers have good intentions even though they are horribly, terribly misguided). So yeah, they target in the way that keeps tier customer base. Why would the execs at PP or other organizations want the minority communities they disproportionately serve have less abortions? It might sound paranoid or whatever, but I sincerely doubt any of the execs are wringing their hands over disproportionate abortion rates as they are bringing home their paycheck that’s at least partially financed by aborting those babies.
I don’t really know what Thomas’s point was with the “adequate” services stuff, he can answer you I guess. I don’t think what we’re doing to combat this stuff is “adequate”, at all, I just don’t think abortion is helping in any way.
Sorry about the typos, my phone sucks and it won’t let me edit.
Why would the execs at PP or other organizations want the minority communities they disproportionately serve have less abortions?– why would they want them to have more? They’re simply responding to need.
PP don’t give returns to shareholders or anything you know. There may at times be ‘operating profits’ but these are put back into the services, not anyones pocket. That’s why this whole ‘for the dollar’ thing is a monumental joke.
It might sound paranoid or whatever – yes, it does. You’ve been drinking the kool aid :-)
I don’t really know what Thomas’s point was with the “adequate” services stuff, he can answer you I guess. – that could be ‘interesting’.
I don’t think what we’re doing to combat this stuff is “adequate”, at all, – me neither.
I just don’t think abortion is helping in any way. – I do.
Eminently readable prose Jack.
“why would they want them to have more? They’re simply responding to need. ”
We’ll they are responding to want, not need for one. Do you really think that the people employed in organizations, who get large paychecks funded ar least in large part by abortion, would be fine if their income lessened greatly if people stopped having them? Like I said, I don’t think anyone is sitting around ecstatic that more blacks have more abortions than whites, but I do think people who make money off abortion have any wish to see the abortion rate lessened. Where’s the incentive?
“PP don’t give returns to shareholders or anything you know. There may at times be ‘operating profits’ but these are put back into the services, not anyones pocket. That’s why this whole ‘for the dollar’ thing is a monumental joke.”
We’ll first, I didn’t know we were solely talking about PP. I was under the impression that they do, what, 25% of US abortions? 30%? Don’t remember the exact numbers. But there’s still many abortions that are performed by private clinics or for profit businesses, not just PP with their non-profit status. And anyway, you can’t deny there are many people within PP, even with their non-profit status, that pull in decent paychecks. Their doctors make decent money, their execs make decent money. Cecile Richards makes like 500K a year, or thereabouts. I don’t think these people have any incentive to lessen the abortion rate, of minorities or otherwise. They won’t get the funding that they do if people stopped having abortions (and remember, a lot their clients are low income, like I said this whole thing targets poor people). The other services they provide don’t pull in near the cash that abortion does. You can’t tell me that the abortion industry is the only industry where people don’t care how much work they have or what kind of money they make.
But anyway, even if they all were volunteers and didn’t make a dime it wouldn’t change the fact they were killing humans, and the majority of The humans getting killed are minorities even if that’s not their intent.
Reality 11:48PM
Uh no. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Carlos spoke of ”racist” doctors targeting Blacks and Puerto Ricans with high for treatment. He contradicts itself.
Its as nonsensical as your statement about sex and abortion clinics being out of business.
“Of course there are always some folk in society who need to feel that someone is worse off than them, so they’ll attempt to perpetuate those inequities.”
Glad you said “some” because this person wants everyone to be better off than myself. That way I would not have to help them and, if I needed help, they could help me. :)
“There may at times be ‘operating profits’ but these are put back into the services, not anyones pocket.”
That dream is a nightmare. You need to read about the broken down and dirty conditions at some PP and other abortion clinics. One way to fix that is any non-profit, politician, or business AND their staff that excepts government money could pay no one anymore that 3 or 4 times the poverty level for the top 1 or 2 people and everyone else less. Abortion or whatever. If it is about money, make it on your own.
We’ll they are responding to want, not need for one. – well that’s a matter of opinion of course.
Does anyone in any organisation like it if business drops off and jobs are lost. The good ones find new things to do.
I was under the impression that they do, what, 25% of US abortions? 30%…..PP with their non-profit status. – yet we keep being told PP is the vast ‘all about the money’ organisation. Which is it?
And anyway, you can’t deny there are many people within PP, even with their non-profit status, that pull in decent paychecks. – I don’t know about ‘many’. And such like happens in medicine. And many other fields.
Their doctors make decent money, their execs make decent money. Cecile Richards makes like 500K a year, or thereabouts.– quite modest by comparison with equlivilent roles.
I don’t think these people have any incentive to lessen the abortion rate, of minorities or otherwise. – I don’t think its a prime consideration either way. They’re just focussed on what they do.
They won’t get the funding that they do if people stopped having abortions (and remember, a lot their clients are low income, like I said this whole thing targets poor people). – ‘targets’? They just do their jobs of delivering the array of services demnaded by clients.
The other services they provide don’t pull in near the cash that abortion does. You can’t tell me that the abortion industry is the only industry where people don’t care how much work they have or what kind of money they make. – that’s right, it’s like any other service industry.
Uh no. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Carlos spoke of ”racist” doctors targeting Blacks and Puerto Ricans with high for treatment. – indeed he did. Just like anti-choicers claiming PP target the same groups for abortions.
He contradicts itself. – not at all.
Its as nonsensical as your statement about sex and abortion clinics being out of business. – you said that if everyone stopped driving then gas stations would go out of business. Therefore, if you want abortion providers to go out of business everyone needs to stop having sex.
Glad you said “some” because this person wants everyone to be better off than myself. – and that is why I said ‘some’ Patty.
You need to read about the broken down and dirty conditions at some PP and other abortion clinics. – that would indicate a need for more funding.
pay no one anymore that 3 or 4 times the poverty level for the top 1 or 2 people and everyone else less – yet we recently had a cavalcade of ‘abortion workers’ relating tales of being paid a pittance amongst other things.
Abortion or whatever. If it is about money, make it on your own. – yes, the ‘whatever’ could get rather broad.
Carlos I appreciate your input on my suppositions and observations of the multitude of programs that are expanding for the poor as we speak. Some will actually never think its enough so where does it end? At some point personal responsibility kicks in don’t you think? or do we just promote a welfare state to the extreme? (I am waiting for the bricks to fall on my head from the libs reading this right now and Jack).
And where did you get this idea that Latinos have no adequate access to social welfare programs? I think you have this severely confused. I’ve been in this country for 31 years and have seen an enormous expansion of social programs by every administration since Reagan that is driven by the influx of various immigrant groups. Where have you been Carlos not to see that? Being Latino (hispanic) in America today is a great thing, just look around.
People who think that our welfare system is not adequate and does not bend over backwards for the poor must have been absent from this nation for a while or as I said just want more and more and more.
How can anyone write such falsity about the state of our social programs I will never understand. Even as we speak, medicaid programs in many states are expanding (as a response to ACA but nonetheless).
From healthcare, to housing, to public school education to shelters to soup kitchens, etc the programs are there and just waiting to be taken advantage of. Isn’t OCare enough for you either? Anyone who spews that the US welfare system shortchanges the poor is dishonest…
“People who think that our welfare system is not adequate and does not bend over backwards for the poor must have been absent from this nation for a while or as I said just want more and more and more.”
I think that you’re deliberately misunderstanding my complaints , at least, about the “help” in the US. The problem is that social programs might “help” somewhat, but they don’t assist in actually getting out of poverty, and they don’t really target the actual issues that create poverty in the first place. I firmly believe the cultural issues that people grow up with assist in keeping people on the dole, and that just throwing money at them doesn’t help. If you’d thrown money at me when I was homeless I would have just spent it on drugs. No, what’s lacking mostly is a real targeted approach based on each individual’s personal needs. And there’s a lack of jobs that can provide a decent wage that don’t require massive amounts of schooling, we did outsource a LOT of our blue collar work and such. Detroit didn’t collapse solely because of welfare babies.
The aim of social programs is not to get you out of poverty Jack. That is your job. The aim of social programs is to prvovide an interim buffer so you can get yourself together and move on.
And I do understand the issue of welfare mothers and babies. The biggest screams heard all over the Windy City were when city council finally decided to get rid of the projects and disburse these “generational” welfare mothers elsewhere. Dependency has a way to put a hold on you where you will expect the big brother to take care of you forever. And one question: do you think that all this help these welfare mothers got helped? No it did not because it created an expectation for them not work and do things for themselves – that is the reason we heard those screams for sometime…
Jack says:
December 10, 2013 at 1:10 am
“The weird cognitive dissonance that strikes some progressives when it comes to abortion drives me crazy. The fact that minority groups are disproportionality affected by poverty, crime, abuse, lacking healthcare, etc… That’s a sign of racial inequity and needs to be examined and corrected ( I do agree with that). But when it comes to abortion it’s all “why does the race of a woman who aborts matter?” and it’s not even seen as another example of inequity? Makes no sense and drives me nuts.”
If the woman has an unwanted pregnancy and has an abortion, it really does not matter what race she is, or how far it is to a Planned Parenthood office. If she wants to end the pregnancy, it’s not because she is being “targeted.” It’s because she does not want to be pregnant/does not want to have kids, at least at that time.
It may be that she is “disproportionality affected by poverty, crime, abuse, lacking healthcare, etc,” and that those factors make a difference as far as her wanting an abortion. Who in their right mind would argue against that? But it’s not ‘progressives’ who are saying those are not factors, or that they somehow “should not be.”
It looks to me that it is the ‘conservative’ side that is saying, “in 2013 socio-economic conditions have been addressed VERY ADEQUATELY by various programs and services.
Thomas R: “Carlos I appreciate your input on my suppositions and observations of the multitude of programs that are expanding for the poor as we speak. Some will actually never think its enough so where does it end?”
My point was that it makes no sense to think that certain minorities “should have less abortions” because the gov’t does “x” amount of stuff for them. I agree – some will never think it’s enough, and I’m not saying the gov’t can solve everything anyway. I said: “Even the areas that public policy and programs can address and affect, still remain quite problematic.” There, I’m acknowledging that the gov’t can’t fix it all. The truth is the gov’t is already trying to do too much; it is unsustainable. I am not saying, “The Gov’t can fix this.” But, to say it has been “very adequately addressed” is untrue.
Thomas R: At some point personal responsibility kicks in don’t you think? or do we just promote a welfare state to the extreme? (I am waiting for the bricks to fall on my head from the libs reading this right now and Jack). And where did you get this idea that Latinos have no adequate access to social welfare programs? I think you have this severely confused. I’ve been in this country for 31 years and have seen an enormous expansion of social programs by every administration since Reagan that is driven by the influx of various immigrant groups. Where have you been Carlos not to see that? Being Latino (hispanic) in America today is a great thing, just look around. People who think that our welfare system is not adequate and does not bend over backwards for the poor must have been absent from this nation for a while or as I said just want more and more and more. How can anyone write such falsity about the state of our social programs I will never understand. Even as we speak, medicaid programs in many states are expanding (as a response to ACA but nonetheless). From healthcare, to housing, to public school education to shelters to soup kitchens, etc the programs are there and just waiting to be taken advantage of. Isn’t OCare enough for you either? Anyone who spews that the US welfare system shortchanges the poor is dishonest…
I said nothing that would lead you to this line of argument. A Hispanic-sounding name, and apparently you conjure up quite an agenda of thoughts on my part….
“Personal responsibility.” Well, maybe – is that what it really is? I think that at the end, there has to be incentive, and for some people that means that if they don’t do something, then they starve. The system has to be able to “call their bluff” up to that point, and ours in general is not doing that. I don’t think the policy would be popular, at all. At least not now.
“I think that at the end, there has to be incentive, and for some people that means that if they don’t do something, then they starve. The system has to be able to “call their bluff” up to that point, and ours in general is not doing that. I don’t think the policy would be popular, at all. At least not now.”
Well then you get stuff like poverty-influenced crime. If you can’t support your family working full time on minimum wage (you can’t, in many areas) and there aren’t jobs that pay a better wage available, if that gap of what you need can’t be filled by something legitimate, you’re going to fill it with something illegitimate.
Jack, it’s sad to me that working full-time won’t necessarily enable one to support their family.
You’re right that people will look for other means, including crime, sometimes. Just as there has to be incentive to work, there also has to be incentive to remain within the law – it’s human nature. And I know that the law and social policy still won’t guarantee anything.
I think the system has to accept that there will be some sad stories. Really, a lot of them. The gov’t cannot fix it any other way, not for the long run. Didn’t old JC say that we’re always going to have the poor? Not that we should not bother helping the poor, but that we cannot change the fact of their poverty. I think, looking at human nature, that that is common sense.
Are we ideologues, or are we looking at what is possible, at what can practically be done? If I say that due to our country’s finances, we cannot maintain things as they are, not for more decades, will you accept that? What do we do when we can’t always be making things “better”?
Well… I always think that a living wage being required for full time work might help somewhat. I don’t see how it helps the economy if we’re basically subsidizing employees so businesses can pay them less and more of the profits stay at the top. Seriously, MOST people on assistance (if they aren’t elderly or disabled) are working poor. I don’t see how it makes sense to pay out tax money so these people can afford to eat, why are we allowing employers to set it up so we basically pay their employees so they don’t have to? How does that make any sense at all?
I do think there will always be poor, but there’s got to be a better way of taking care of this then there is now.
I don’t think that people have a good understanding of “living” wage. We have not been able to catch up to inflation for more than a decade. Your boss raises you 50 cents but that 50 cents is already eaten up by the increase in gas or whatever. Most businesses would go bankrupt if they offered raises on par with inflation.
And truly, when one considers the tenets of the employment world – does the “living” wage equate with one’s qualification for the job or is employment driven by what you bring to the table?
There is a reason we have minimum wage requirements. And, sorry to report, they are not driven by individual needs but economic realities.
I see that many here have an issue with my assertion that “in 2013 socio-economic conditions have been addressed VERY ADEQUATELY by various programs and services.”
My point for all the liberal-mided who may read my words is this:
– it is simply your idea of what constitutes inadequacy of the social policies we have at the state and federal levels. Social programs are not meant to be the solution for you for life. Social programs are there to assist you in time of need.
The issue is how you define need? Do you think that everyone is “entitled” to be “carried” for an undetermined period of time or do we need to have some guidelines that define actual need?
There are social programs at every level of gov’t that address people’s economic/employment/ healthcare/nourishment needs. There are programs specifically tailored for minority groups exclusively (its called the democratic party btw).
I would so hope some revisit their defintion of “adequate.” America is sinking because some want to remain at the trough forever.
I am so thankful for the Republican Party…
“I don’t think that people have a good understanding of “living” wage. We have not been able to catch up to inflation for more than a decade. Your boss raises you 50 cents but that 50 cents is already eaten up by the increase in gas or whatever. Most businesses would go bankrupt if they offered raises on par with inflation.”
So basically there’s no solution, if you think this is the case. Unless we can drastically alter the economy so there’s no such thing as inflation, this problem will simply get worse and worse. We’re already like 30% below what minimum was in the sixties when adjusted for inflation, and what’s worse is we lost a lot of the blue collar jobs, that people working minimum wage now would be working if they weren’t gone. So basically, we have to fix it so you can provide for yourself on full time work, or we’re going to have to keep subsidizing people’s full time employees when they can’t eat and get necessities on their wages. People can’t not eat or have somewhere to live, they just have to. And even education doesn’t help, all the time. We’re already getting higher rates of unemployment even for people with college degrees, because of so many people going back to school to try and get a better job, which floods the market with people with college degrees. And not everyone is cut out for college anyway, and we still need service workers and other types of jobs that don’t require education. But how can we sustain anything if these people don’t get paid enough to sustain themselves? It’s a total mess.
Jack: “ I don’t see how it makes sense to pay out tax money so these people can afford to eat, why are we allowing employers to set it up so we basically pay their employees so they don’t have to? How does that make any sense at all?”
Jack, this really gave me pause – I agree that it wouldn’t make sense, on the face of it. I don’t see it as that employers are really setting it up… A lot of what is going on is just the reality of the marketplace. Many of the low-paid jobs would not exist in the US if wages for them rose substantially, they’d go overseas or at least out of the country.
I agree with Carlos – we can’t prevent all the sad stories. In what has amounted to rank vote-buying, we’ve gone a long way down that road already, and we’re fast running out of rope, so to speak. While I don’t say it’s a total mess, yet, it’s certainly “a mess” because we’ve pretty much shot our wad as far as giving governmental help to people.
There’s really no fixing things so there’s no inflation. The gov’t debt has settled that. It’s a miracle that our currency hasn’t lost more value than it has. I think that day is coming, though, a massive day of reckoning when foreign countries see that the jig is up. Not gonna be fun.
An aside: it amazes me how many people who are truly poor smoke cigarettes.
Thomas R: I see that many here have an issue with my assertion that “in 2013 socio-economic conditions have been addressed VERY ADEQUATELY by various programs and services.” My point for all the liberal-mided who may read my words is this: – it is simply your idea of what constitutes inadequacy of the social policies we have at the state and federal levels. Social programs are not meant to be the solution for you for life. Social programs are there to assist you in time of need.
TR, they have not been addressed very adequately. We can discuss if it’s even possible that they would be, and/or if the gov’t should be in the business of trying to do it, in the first place, but they just plain haven’t been so addressed, regardless.
I am so thankful for the Republican Party…
Why? The Republican party in no way is ‘conservative,’ financially. Sure, they might end up having a little more money go to the relatively wealthy defense contractors, for example, versus the Democrats having a little more go to private citizens below certain income levels, but Republicans have been huge on running red ink, in general.
Go back 40+ years, and every time a Republican administration has followed a Democratic one, it’s not like the deficits have been substantially cut. It’s not even like they have been maintained at the same level. Every single time, the Republican administration has increased the deficits a lot.
Hi Doug this is Jack.
“I don’t see it as that employers are really setting it up… ”
Some of it is. Somehow places like Costco manage to have higher than average wages and still make plenty of profit. A lot of those large places are really top heavy.
“Many of the low-paid jobs would not exist in the US if wages for them rose substantially, they’d go overseas or at least out of the country. ”
Well depends on what jobs you’re talking about. Food service workers, nursing assistants and other low level healthcare workers, construction workers, security guards, retail workers, etc… You can’t really outsource that kinda stuff.
I don’t actually understand economics all that much, but some thing just seem ridiculous to me. People have to eat and live somewhere. If they can’t provide that for themselves legitimately then they’ll go on the dole or commit crimes. Doesn’t make sense to have the jobs available for the lower class not even be able to cover basics.
I think the cigarette thing is a cultural thing, most people I know who smoke did so from a really young age. I’ve kicked both heroin and nicotine (well I occasionally smoke if someone gives me a cigarette but I don’t buy them), and I think nicotine is harder in some ways to quit.
Jack, you are right that many jobs cannot be outsourced. Also, Costco is a good example, their higher pay translates into much less employee turnover and also almost surely a lot less employee theft. The bottom line, there, may actually be in Costco’s favor.
That does not directly mean that we could simply decree a higher minimum wage and have it be good, overall. Higher wages means that some things would have to cost more, to make up for them, and thus to some extent we have a diminishing-returns thing going on. At some point, a higher minimum wage would mean that that phenomenon, plus the fact that some jobs would leave, resulting in people out of work, period, would mean a net loss for us in our economic system as a whole.
Between where we are now, and that point, it may be that raising the minimum wage would be a net gain. There is also unemployment to think about, and the fact that as wages go up, the number of people employed goes down. My gut feeling is that a buck or two more would likely work all right – it’s been about 4.5 years since the overall rate went to $7.25.
As for being “top heavy,” in this day and age it’s rough to be that way, be profitable, and continue it. However, even if we say a place is top heavy, as long as it’s going along, then so what? Those near the top are not going to be on the floor stocking shelves or digging in the fields, but they spend money just like everybody else, and are part of the economic system.
Cigarettes, yeah, very hard for a lot of people to quit. Heh – I remember people saying they were going to quit when the price got to 50 cents a pack. Now, places like NYC and Chicago add almost $6 per pack, just in state and local taxes. The last couple decades, the taxes have really gotten piled on.
Doug I would have to disagree on blaming the Republicans for deficit increases. In my lifetime as a voter (well over 27 years) I have seen the dems go wild as well. I think I may have a deja vu as I talked about the same thing with Ex-GOP. This is kind of evenly split in my opinion – only that Republicans do it for very good reasons and the dems just because :)
“That does not directly mean that we could simply decree a higher minimum wage and have it be good, overall. Higher wages means that some things would have to cost more, to make up for them, and thus to some extent we have a diminishing-returns thing going on. At some point, a higher minimum wage would mean that that phenomenon, plus the fact that some jobs would leave, resulting in people out of work, period, would mean a net loss for us in our economic system as a whole..”
I realize we can’t just be like “everyone needs more money” all willy nilly like that, there are things to consider as you pointed out. But I think there is definitely room for improvement. Our minimum wage hasn’t kept up, comparatively it’s 30% less than it was in the sixties, I think was the last number I read. It’s becoming unbearable and unsustainable (if you look at how many working poor have to rely on food stamps and other assistance) to have lower class wages as they are. There has to be some type of improvement, soon.
”As for being “top heavy,” in this day and age it’s rough to be that way, be profitable, and continue it. However, even if we say a place is top heavy, as long as it’s going along, then so what? Those near the top are not going to be on the floor stocking shelves or digging in the fields, but they spend money just like everybody else, and are part of the economic system. ”
I read an article that I’m having trouble finding now that pointed out that money is tending to stay put when it goes to the “top” as it were. Supply side economics have its critics. Like I said I don’t understand economics that well, but I don’t think it’s a “so what” type of thing. If an organization has that big of a disparity where the workers rely on federal and state assistance just to survive, while there is a humongous amount of revenue and profit and salaries for the top, that just doesn’t work for me (I’m thinking of places like Wal-Mart and such). Like I said, I can’t see how it’s sustainable to allow companies that are pushing other small companies out (because lower prices), while their employees basically have to be subsidized by the government just to live. It’s madness! I’m not saying that government intervention or whatever is the answer, but I just don’t see this going anywhere good. We’re already having wage strikes, and the way I’ve heard people talking lately we’re going to end up with riots (sounds like hyperbole but I don’t think it’s that farfetched). I just think it’s really messed up.
“Cigarettes, yeah, very hard for a lot of people to quit. Heh – I remember people saying they were going to quit when the price got to 50 cents a pack. Now, places like NYC and Chicago add almost $6 per pack, just in state and local taxes. The last couple decades, the taxes have really gotten piled on.”
Nicotine may be a slower death than heroin and the like but I did read some studies that say it’s actually physically as addictive than anything but meth. And it’s so much easier to get hold of than street drugs and more socially acceptable, (kinda) so it’s much more difficult to get rid of, especially the lower class where everyone smokes. No one ever believes me when I tell them that I found drugs easier to quit! Even ridiculously high prices can’t stop an addict sometimes.