A note to our dear readers: One of the things I will begin highlighting in our rundowns in reference to anti-choice legislators will be whether they have a personal history of adopting or fostering children in need.
On any given day, there are nearly 428,000 children in foster care in the United States.
Unfortunately, there are simply not enough families willing or able to provide homes for these children.
Legislating women’s bodies does nothing to help children in need.
Oddly, nearly all of the white, wealthy, highly privileged men who make laws limiting what women can do with their reproductive organs under the guise of being “pro-life” have never adopted or fostered an actual child.
It strikes me as not only hypocritical, but also as a supreme moral failure from a group of Christian men who speak so passionately about the value of an embryo’s life and fight relentlessly to preserve it. Interestingly, anytime I try to find something positive one of these “pro-life” men has done for children in need after they’ve been born, I come up with … nothing.
These men possess what many would consider to be idyllic, successful, traditional nuclear families: both a mother and father present for their children, a safe neighborhood in which to live, comprehensive health care, financial means, and access to good education. The perfect circumstances in which a child could thrive — at least according to the conservative values to which they subscribe.
The vast majority of these men have the ability to “save” at least one child directly from the foster care system or adopt the child of a woman who would have otherwise chosen abortion.
They are almost always the “proud fathers” of biological children — sometimes, many biological children. Clearly, they are not averse to parenting.
So the fact that they’ve actively chosen not to “save” actual living and breathing children who need homes, parents, love, and access to good health care and educational outcomes should give us all pause. Additionally, the fact that they usually have no history of providing direct, meaningful support to women who experience unintended pregnancies should give us pause as well.
The absence of these actions is glaring proof of their actual intent — which is NOT to save children, protect or even nurture “life,” but to control and punish women who have sex without the intention of procreation.
My goal is to remind you, every time I write about what they’re doing, that the “pro-life” title these men have proudly christened themselves with does not materialize in any real, impactful way in their personal lives, other than their legislating women’s bodies and choices.
- Ever wonder why “pro-life” isn’t synonymous with pro-refugee? This article from Rolling Stone (from 2015 but very relevant to recent events in 2017) explores this hypocrisy. (Rolling Stone)
- The attendance of the inauguration for the orange-colored man with tiny hands and an oversized ego paled in comparison to the attendance of the Women’s March. Very, very bigly. (NYT)
- If you’re curious about how repeal of the Affordable Care Act could affect Arizona specifically, be informed that some of the biggest losers in this will be children. Sad how many “pro-life” legislators support this repeal, isn’t it? (PBS)
- The future of HIV treatments is also uncertain after repeal of the ACA. (Gizmodo)
- The governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, who is so “pro-life” he has
no history of adopting or fostering any children in need, signed a bill effectively outlawing abortion after 14 weeks. There are no exceptions for rape or incest and it includes a clause that allows a woman’s spouse or parent to sue an abortion provider. (The Daily Beast)
- What would happen if Roe v. Wade eventually fell? Hint: nothing good. (NY Mag)
- Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, has not had the opportunity to rule on abortion in his career as a jurist. However, Gorsuch has taken a “pro-life” stance publicly. Mr Gorsuch, who is so “pro-life” he has no history of adopting or fostering any children in need, ruled twice on the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage requirement, both times siding with the challengers, who argued that it violated their religious freedoms. (Politico)
- Cervical cancer kills more women than previously thought. Please get your young daughters vaccinated! (USA Today)
- How hard is it to get an abortion in each state? (NY Mag)
- Donald Trump, who is so “pro-life” he has no history of adopting or fostering any children in need (but instead had five kids with three different women), reinstated the global gag rule. Not a shock but it still sucks, as does he. (Slate)
- What can science teach us about transgender people’s brains? (The Daily Beast)
- What happens when lies and “fake news” about abortion becomes the law? Hint: nothing good. (NY Mag)
- In fact, “fake news” has negatively impacted the reproductive rights of women for YEARS. (The Week)
- Congressional Republican from Virginia, Dave Brat, who is so “pro-life” he has no history of adopting or fostering any children in need, is mad that women angry about his support of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act are “up in his grill” about the issue when he’s out in public. Wow, the “Brat” surname really fits him, doesn’t it? Here’s an idea — stop trying to impede our access to health care and zero-copay contraception, and keep your legislation out of women’s uteri. And in return, we will GLADLY stay out of “your grill,” Dave. #MmmkayBye (Mother Jones)
- Chuck Schumer is totally the petty uncle every liberal wants to sit next to at the family cookout. He trolled mega-hypocrite Mitch McConnell in the best possible way regarding Trump’s crappy cabinet picks. Remember the childish tantrums the GOP threw over President Obama’s cabinet picks in 2009? Well, the Democrats feel it’s their right to emulate those very actions — to the letter — now that the tables have turned. Karma’s a b*tch, Mitch. (Esquire)
- For women with breast cancer, mammograms have the potential to harm more than they help. (PBS Newshour)
- Paul Ryan, a wuss of epic proportions (who is so “pro-life” he has never adopted or fostered any children in need!), had the cojones to strip millions of Medicaid patients of the right to seek care at Planned Parenthood, but had to have guards protect him from the petitions of our supporters. (Cosmopolitan)
- Sixty percent of Planned Parenthood patients use federal insurance programs, such as Medicaid, to obtain Pap smears, breast exams, contraception, and STD testing and treatment. Fifty-four percent of our clinics are in areas that do not have other health care options for women. The loss of our federal funding would be a colossal one. This, coupled with the possibility that the zero-copay contraception mandate (which has saved American women move than $1 BILLION) could disappear would spell doom for millions of American women. This cannot be overstated! (NY Mag)
- We have a president, a vice president, and a Republican-led legislature that is feverishly hostile to reproductive rights. As you know, almost NONE of them have adopted or fostered any children in need, but they constantly give worthless lip service and platitudes about being “pro-life.” These “pro-life” individuals are committed to doing everything possible to ensure women are forced to give birth under any and all circumstances. They have recently supported barring Medicaid recipients from receiving preventive health care and contraception from Planned Parenthood. By and large, they do not support (paid or unpaid) parental leave policies. They have sat idly by, refusing subsidies or other intervention as the costs of childcare have grown astronomical — despite the fact that “access to high-quality care for young children can help parents increase their employment and earnings,” and that parents who have childcare options are better able to work and to work more hours. Parents, children, and our country’s working infrastructure suffer as a result. When will this end??? (WaPo)