Letters to the Editor
-
Anti abortion terrorist
Not sure it's a good idea to open up the adoption to those anti abortion protesters,(terrorists) as they appear to be a pretty unbalanced bunch.
There is nothing surprising about NARAL not protesting this legislation. It does not violate the right to reproductive choice, and most adoption referrals come from Planned Parenthood.
-
Wrong about Sanger
Margaret Sanger did not advocate abortions. Sanger advocated women have have access to contraception and the right to use it as a means to not only plan a family, but to prevent women from using abortion as a method of birth control.
Many claim she was a racist, but when she speaks of race it has nothing to do with the color of your skin, but the country you live in.
-
pro-lifers don't consistently refuse pre-natal testing...
I don't know many that are against it per se. What they ARE against is aborting on the basis of the results.
I don't know any pro-lifer, religious or not, who is against parents finding out their kid has Down's or spina bifida or what have you through pre-natal testing. Some want to know so that they have more time to make preparations necessary for a special-needs child, and some (especially women who have miscarried before) do not want to take the risk of an amnio.
It's not that different from parents wanting to know if it's a boy or girl before it's born--just like pro-choicers, some pro-lifers want to know, some don't.
-
@ lapsang souchong: Regarding Rosemary Kennedy
Thank you for clearing this up. It always dismays me when I see the patently wrong story about her "congenital disability."
Her "congenital disability" was, in fact, that she was born with a brain, thought for herself went against the Kennedy (male) Clan, creating an embarrassment for "Fitz" and the boys.
-
re: I myself am not sure how long I could stand to look Brownback in the eye.
Perhaps if he'd just allowed a woman to drown while he drunkenly swam off to avoid responsibility - that might make you feel better about him...
-
Re: A link for you
Canuckistan Bob, I've seen that chart before, and it's such a great reminder of what this debate is really about. Anti-choicers positions are entirely inconsistent with valuing human life, and entirely consistent with wanting to punish women for having sex.
-
Tactics
I'm sure this group will use the same technique used by the fake "crisis pregnancy centers" - delay the woman, possibly with lies, until it's legally too late for her to have an abortion. "We don't have anyone for you right now, but we get new clients all the time - just be patient." Yeah, right.
Does anyone know, what happens if you want to put a baby up for adoption, but there's no one waiting and willing to adopt the baby? I know some states have the sanctuary laws, 3 days, no questions asked.
These are the answers I want to know.
-
Why only Down's
Why is Down syndrome the only genetic disorder referred to when the issue of pregnancy disability diagnosis and termination is brought up? I terminated a pregnancy after a diagnosis of anencephaly. There are many fatal defects that women choose to terminate for. This bill is a thinly veiled attempt to chip away at parental choice, and I'm sad to see abortion rights supporters fall for it. Secondly, why don't we fund adoptions and the foster care system as is before we start adding children with high medical needs? Republicans refuse to fund children's health programs that are preventative care, do you really believe they will care for all these babies they have "saved" ?
-
Are there contracts?
My reading of this article, I haven't gone to the source, was that the registry was to show people that someone was willing to take babies with this defect. One of my neighbors a move or two ago adopted a Down's baby, it was admirable to see all the work she put into him. She had a Down's brother and knew what she was getting into. She also had two healthy boys of her own already. It may not occur to many parents that someone else would want their baby.
I think that this legislation expands parental choices, it would be hard to abort a Down's baby because of the range of outcomes from near-normal to severely disabled. To have a choice to have the baby and let it go to a home where it was wanted would be better than not to have that choice, even if you end up deciding to abort anyway.
I know that there is consternation in the community of Down's Syndrome parents that the genetic testing is getting so much more available and widely used even by young mothers now. I've heard there are fears that eventually there won't be enough Down's people for them to get the services they need, they won't be a large enough constituency to affect the politicians. If I were them, I'd also be worried that the public perception would change from sympathy for an affliction, to a perception that they had made a choice that they should pay for themselves, so that public help was less available.