Field trip…to Planned Parenthood
posted at 2:27 pm on June 13, 2007 by Michelle
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Dateline Manchester, NH:
The city school board has ordered an investigation into how an after-school program run by the YMCA with the school district ended up taking some middle school students to visit Planned Parenthood.
The vote was taken early Tuesday morning after a marathon board meeting. The board asked the district to investigate how the decision was made, recommend any necessary policy changes and determine whether anyone should be disciplined.
Meanwhile, New Hampshire Right to Life has asked for equal time with the students.
“We request that the same children be allowed to sit with an educator from New Hampshire Right to Life,” Darlene Pawlik, the group’s president, said at the school board meeting Monday night.
The YMCA’s STAY program is for students considered at risk of dropping out of school, abusing drugs or getting into trouble with the law.
A week ago, STAY workers included Planned Parenthood on a tour of several social service agencies in the city, to show the students where they could go for support, recreation and help over the summer. Several anti-abortion protesters outside the clinic spoke to the students as well.
The Planned Parenthood educator who met with the students, Anne Johnson, said she never mentioned abortion. But Pawlik said that’s no reason for denying her group equal time.
“Everybody knows Planned Parenthood performs abortions,” she said. “There were protesters outside with signs saying, ‘Babies killed here.’ There’s no mistaking that (the students) have already been exposed to the issue.”
Schools Superintendent Michael Ludwell said he would need to see a formal, written request from New Hampshire Right to Life before deciding whether a representative should meet with the students, but he questioned whether the seventh and eighth graders should be required to deal with such a sensitive political issue again.
Reason # 99,9999 to homeschool.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Reasons #1 and #2 my wife and I homeschool…my son and my daughter.
windbag on June 13, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Oy.
Matticus Finch on June 13, 2007 at 2:31 PM
well taht and to develope better math skills.
LakeRuins on June 13, 2007 at 2:34 PM
And also to develop better grammar.
Hoodlumman on June 13, 2007 at 2:38 PM
well taht and to develope better math skills.
Don’t forget spelling and capitalization.
windbag on June 13, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Reason # 99,9999 why my children go to Catholic schools – it’s worth every single penny.
TheBigOldDog on June 13, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Yet for some reason I bet all the comments will be about abortion. Planned Parenthood deals with a lot more issues than abortion.
Nonfactor on June 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Since when is the YMCA pro-abortion ?
Maxx on June 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Children, this is where you can go to get birth control without your parents’ knowledge or consent.
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
lorien1973 on June 13, 2007 at 2:45 PM
And if homeschooling gets moms to stay home…
Connie on June 13, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Look, we have ways of keeping you out of trouble. If you made a bad choice we will help you make a better one. Everything will be ok…..ok?
Stay the hella away from my grandkids.
Limerick on June 13, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Exactly. Nonfactor, yes, they do. In fact my daughter went to school – before we started homeschooling – with a girl who got birth control pills from PP at age 12. Aside from the fact that
- sexual activity at that age is illegal in every state
- the girls “boyfriend” was 19 – she bragged about it
- it’s well documented that even consensual sexual activity at that age is harmful
…aside from all that, she received no counseling on how to prevent SDTs other than “you should also use a condom.” Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.
Furthermore, I had to go in person to sign a release to get my minor daughter’s ears pierced at the mall! To give a child any prescription without her parent’s knowledge is just ludicrous. It’s illegal for any other type of medication – why should this one be exempt?
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Actually, your comment was the first that mentioned abortion.
On a related subject, I would hardly be willing to take a PP “educator” at her word that she never mentioned abortion to the kids. The people of PP have a well-documented history of lying (and encouraging minors to lie) when it comes to that particular issue.
JadeNYU on June 13, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Yeah, like birth control for minors; that’s really what public schools should be doing, getting middle school kids on hormone medicine without their parents’ approval, hormone medicine that leads to heart problems with smokers and may have a link to breast cancer.
And sure, most people think of abortion when they think of Planned Parenthood. Hmmmm…. Planned… Parenthood… now why would the words planned parenthood make anyone think of abortion???
What’s your point here? Mothers aren’t the only ones who homeschool their children, and sometimes families work together on this so no one family is forced to stay at home.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Because otherwise we’re punishing kids for having sex.
Our society makes me sick sometimes.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM
A TOUR of SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES? Including Planned Parenthood, which is a euphemism for PREVENT/KILL YOUR BABY SO YOU WON’T HAVE TO BE BURDENED WITH PARENTHOOD?
To show kids what happens when “recreation” results in an unplanned pregnancy, and you are contemplating an abortion, you never even have to leave the classroom. It’s all right there on the good old internet.
STRONG CONTENT WARNING: Lesson #1.
I won’t post other URLs with even more gruesome content. Sorry for the yelling. This makes me so mad. New Hampshire Right to Life handled it just right – asking for equal time with the students.
RushBaby on June 13, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Esthier, you are so out to lunch it’s not worth dealing with.
Christoph on June 13, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Why do you consider it being “forced” to stay home?
Connie on June 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Thank you!….Family……best thing since sliced bread.
M
Limerick on June 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM
sorry hit the send button….fat fingers anyway.
M = My grandkids are doing just fine without the State screwing them up.
Limerick on June 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Pregnancy is now a punishment? And “We’re” doing the punishment? If two kids have sex, and the girl gets pregnant but an abortion is not available, how is that a punishment? Sounds more like we’re making the kids suffer the consequences of their actions. Is that a bad thing?
dalewalt on June 13, 2007 at 3:21 PM
It’s about time we stopped stigmatizing abortion. As I’ve said before, more abortions would reduce poverty. For a public school (or in this case a YMCA program in a public school district) to educate children about birth control and abortion would be ABSOLUTELY RESPONSIBLE. What’s NOT responsible is putting young girls in a situation where they feel that they MUST bear children when they’re not prepared. Educating them about abortion is not a bad thing – it’s a good thing.
But I suppose most of y’all think it would be better to keep your little rays of sunshine in the dark about abortion and birth control because your children’s perceived loss of innocence is too much to cope with. Look, since YOU’RE not going to tell your kids about condoms and abortions, SOMEONE has to. There’s nothing wrong with middle schoolers understanding the consequences of their actions and how to deal with those consequences.
Enrique on June 13, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Dude, I thought *I* was an a-hole. You’re really saying it’s appropriate punishment to force a girl to have a baby she’s not ready for to teach her a lesson about consequences? Never mind that a girl having a baby out of wedlock is almost certainly going to live in poverty the rest of her life. Funny “culture of life” you got there, social cons.
Enrique on June 13, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I don’t consider it forced. I just meant that people can homeschool without needing to stay home.
What did you mean by your statement about keeping mothers home?
Gee, you can’t even be bothered to be specific? What have I written anything here that others haven’t agreed with already? Or is everyone on this site out to lunch?
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I would think if they are not ready for children then they are not ready for sex…oh and as far as what people teach their children its up to the parents and not the schools.
EnochCain on June 13, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Michelle, you’re a homeschooling Mum I gather? What crazy fortunate kiddos! We do to, just curious what curricula you use? We use Seton and love it.
And as someone who worked at the Y during my last year of college, this story is very disheartening. On the whole though, I think Roe v Wade is on life support. Just a matter of time now. But we still need to pray for the hearts and minds, not just law.
Schweggie on June 13, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Who says we aren’t? They know ALL about it. My grandkids are told straight up the issues. Here is the difference….it is the family who guides them, not some stranger who ‘knows what is best for them’……Liberal busy body BS is your position…..stay the hell away from my grandkids.
Limerick on June 13, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Don’t argue with me. It isn’t my opinion. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.
This is simply how the pro-kids-getting-on-birth-control-without-parental-consent crowd explains their argument.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:28 PM
As much as I support the Armed Forces or various hunting clubs, I don’t see me taking students there…
1. without parent approval
2. without school approval
3. without considering my “true” motivations for doing so.
This supposed teacher had an agenda, plain and simple and would ultimately pay the price for it had my child been in her “care”.
This is wrong, especialy without prior #1 and #2 in writing
CBarker on June 13, 2007 at 3:28 PM
So would hobo hunts.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Would you consider it a good thing to educate them about adoption?
RushBaby on June 13, 2007 at 3:32 PM
No we couldn’t have that you would put the poor girl through the discomfort of childbirth.
EnochCain on June 13, 2007 at 3:34 PM
The young girls need to get used to the idea and get to play with the equipment, that way murdering their children will be an easier decision.
Planned Parenthood and the Y team, promoting abortion. Why am I not even surprised?…yet the Boy Scouts are evil??
Hening on June 13, 2007 at 3:34 PM
You’re right… it’s only the murder of an unborn child we’re talking about.
No, I’m saying that you’re considering it a punishment for someone to deal with the consequences of their actions. What you want is to insulate the girl… telling her it’s okay to have sex if she wants, if she happens to get pregnant she can just get rid of the little annoyance.
And “almost certainly going to live in poverty”, huh? Hmm, I was just under 18, and my then-girlfriend was just over 18, when she got pregnant. We could’ve taken the easy way out and rid ourselves of the little annoyance. Instead, we decided to keep the child, worked that much harder to make a good life for him. Today, my now-ex-wife is a GS-11 working in finance at a major military base. I’m a manager for a software company. And, we took *absolutely no* help from either my family or hers; we both scratched and scraped to get where we are today. Having a baby, even out of wedlock, doesn’t mean you’ll ‘live in poverty’.
dalewalt on June 13, 2007 at 3:34 PM
Yea, but they murder babies. It doesn’t matter how much good you do when you do that much evil. Nothing is ever going to wash the blood of the tens of millions of babies they murdered off of their hands. PP is the reason that people who support abortion need to pray that there is no god, because if there is a god the weight of the blood of those tens of millions of babies they supported murdering is going to force them down to the lowest most foul and agonizing depths of hell.
doriangrey on June 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM
My mistake… and my apologies.
dalewalt on June 13, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Indeed. Selfish, heartless me.
RushBaby on June 13, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Hunger problems in third world countries? Don’t send Sally Struthers, just send a nuke or three.
dalewalt on June 13, 2007 at 3:37 PM
I consider this a good example of how an organization like Planned Parenthood truly betrays both its supposed intentions and the well being of those it might (in at least some capacity) genuinely help by posturing itself so strongly as partisan political entity.
Abortion aside, “at risk” kids are those who I’d most like to see being given some special instruction on the avoidance of unwanted pregnancy. But because “Planned Parenthood” has chosen to all-but necessarily also entail “DNC Propaganda,” we’re left wondering what else these kids were “taught.” And Planned Parenthood has nothing to blame for this but itself.
Blacklake on June 13, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Here is the ‘deal’ Enrique……if my grandkid gets pregnant and is unable to care for the child WE WILL. Too draconian for ya? Too wild a concept? Too insensitive of her ‘feelings’ for ya? Abortion is murder. I would much rather hurt my grandkids ’self-esteem’ then allow her to murder.
Limerick on June 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Perhaps we should make them mandatory for poor people, like seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.
If a conservative ever said that, he or she would be accused of racist codespeak within seconds of finishing the sentence.
rw on June 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM
And how many teen girls who have abortions do you suppose remain in poverty?
The stats of poor people and abortion are far worse than poor unwed teens. The stats for black people and abortion make the wet dreams of the founder of Planned Parenthood a reality.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Ironic considering the woman who founded Planned Parenthood said it openly.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Esthier is on fire!
jdpaz on June 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM
And then one day when she gets AIDS because she was told she could have sex without consequences…
Pregnancy isn’t even the only concern here. Sex isn’t something to be messed with.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Racist!!!!!! If more mothers stay at home that means fewer jobs for “undocumented Americans” who are just trying to do jobs that other americans won’t. Why not have the “hard working illegal immigrant” homeschool your child. Think of the pride you will have when your 4 year old can speak Spanish like a native. Why by age 8 he will think Cinco de Mayo is the real Independence Day and July 4th is just a kewl reason to blow off fireworks.
No we do not need stay at home moms or homeschooling, it would just be too devastating for the economy.
/Geraldo says so
LakeRuins on June 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I wonder when the Y is doing the turkey basting seminar? Probably after the kids view Broke Back Mountain for movie time?
YMCA nap time grab bags for the kiddies including Barbie dental dams for the lassies and GI Joe butt plugs for the laddies.
I wonder what the “C” stands for these days?
Hening on June 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I’m against abortion, but there is at least some kind of argument to be made for a grown woman making an informed decision to have one. I still think it’s wrong, but the argument can be made.
On the other hand, a minor child, taking prescriptions and having surgery without the knowledge or consent of her parents, especially when she may well have been victimized resulting in the pregnancy to begin with, is indefensible. (And don’t give me that one in a million circumstance where she’s been molested by a family member or raped – in those cases, social services could and should already step in.)
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Enrique on June 13, 2007 at 3:25 PM
So for which crime are you executing the baby? Giving birth when pregnant isn’t punishment; it’s the way humanity reproduces. You have to have a really sick and twisted mind to believe that it’s ok to murder an innocent person in order to excuse anyone’s irresponsibility.
Time to face reality, we live in a universe dominated by one incontrovertible and intractable law, it is called causality. No one and nothing in this entire universe escapes it. Cause always precedes effect, nobody escapes cause and effect, once events are set into motion there is no stopping the consequences. Trying to stop cause and effect is a foolish endeavor at best and just plain insane at worst.
Taking one bad decision and attempting to correct it with an even worse decision isn’t going to mitigate cause and effect. The consequences are not going to go away, they are going to only get worse.
doriangrey on June 13, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Bailed back to the Xbox
Limerick on June 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Paging Ace of Spades, paging Ace of Spades!
Bad Candy on June 13, 2007 at 4:58 PM
4H should be good enough sex education for most kids; animals hump, then one gets big and fat, then a baby animal pops out (often with pain and complications)… Cause and effect. Take the kids to a farm.
The only redeeming part of showing middle schoolers where PP is is to show them where to get free condoms and BC so THEY HAVE NO EXCUSES to need an abortion. Somehow it doesn’t work like that, though, and Laura’s 12 year-old-getting-bc story is the most prevalent situation. Another disgraceful use of taxpayer money.
NTWR on June 13, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I love how libs prove time and time again how much they have in common with Adolf Hitler. They always argue that it’s better to be dead than poor. I disagree. But then again, I have nothing against the poor. They also always accuse conservatives of not talking to their children about sex and consequences but do you think there are more conservatives/religious young people who wind up with unwanted pregnancy or non-religious people who wind up with unwanted pregnancy? And I would be curious about which party gets more votes from people who suffer from STDs. I would bet a large sum of money that most Americans who suffer from AIDS and Herpes vote Democrat – but I have no scientific data to back that up.
foxforce91 on June 13, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Okay…I don’t vote solely on the basis of a candidate’s stance on this… It will ALWAYS be legal SOMEWHERE, so arguing about it is counterproductive, politically speaking.
With that said…there is no excuse under the sun, aside from maybe severe deformity, that makes right the murder of a baby. Period.
It is not like we don’t know how they are created. Which is why I can’t excuse a single young girl (or guy) from the consequences of sexual activity.
(You’re PUNISHING them if you make them carry the child to term?? Enrique, you’re an idiot.)
Everyone must learn in this life that there are consequences to ones actions. And adoption is ALWAYS a better option than murder. ALWAYS.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 5:34 PM
To be fair, Enrique isn’t a liberal.
He’s definitely conservative.
He’s also an atheist and does not (from what I can tell) consider abortion to be murder. I’d be interested as to what point (if any) he considers the fetus developed enough to qualify as human and therefore worthy of protecting [I couldn't find a way to write that which didn't sound potentially catty, but it is an honest question, and not meant to be a snotty slam.]
JadeNYU on June 13, 2007 at 5:38 PM
You know, that came off harsh. I apologize. I should have said that that was an idiotic thing to say.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Is he? I mean I can see him being a libertarian who begrudgingly latches onto conservatives for the power in number thing, but he frequently attacks people here.
And I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how killing poor people is a conservative thing. We may get into the idea of a Reagan-zombie ax-murdering hippies during a hippie forrest love fest, but we’re not that serious about it. We’d never support policies that favor it or make the public pay for it.
We tend to think that people put themselves in and out of poverty, not the unwanted children they produce.
But I’m sure I’m glossing over all his good points.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 5:53 PM
LOL!
it actually is well documented that when women become empowered to make choices regarding their bodies in developing countries (whether it be birth control, abortion, or even just being able to choose who they marry) it helps alleviate poverty. I believe its called the demographic transition or something…as a country becomes developed its birth rates go down, and then stabilize. This is simply part of being a member of the the developed world. Whoever said the argument is Hitler-esque…read something on third world politics.
crr6 on June 13, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Killing a whole large group of people to “solve” a problem IS a hitleresque thing, crr6. You should look up “genocide”. This is infanticide to solve Poverty…same diff. It’s moral relativism, based on your wants, not based on what is right. Murder is murder.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 6:21 PM
That’s certainly how you’re coming across.
Kensington on June 13, 2007 at 6:22 PM
And THIS is not a third world country.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 6:22 PM
And as for “poverty”…you cannot compare poverty in this country to anywhere else. Here, poverty is not a static state, unless you choose to stay that way. Hell, a lot of our “poor” have cars and cell phones.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 6:25 PM
exactly. We’re a developed country. We let women make decisions about their bodies.
crr6 on June 13, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Yes, yes we do…and many choose to murder, rather than adopt out. Oh, we are the paragons of virtue and intelligence. Good point. /sarc
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I already stated that I don’t argue about making it illegal. Not my pig, not my meadow. It’s always gonna be legal somewhere.
But you can’t argue that there are virtues in murder.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 6:28 PM
This isn’t even that applicable to the argument, but once again, read up. Upward mobility in America isn’t all its cracked up to be.
crr6 on June 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM
But not children – or we shouldn’t, anyway. That’s what parents are for.
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 6:33 PM
And when did infanticide become the appropriate response to poverty? God forbid that children should grow up without a hi-definition television in his bedroom! Kill it!
Kensington on June 13, 2007 at 6:35 PM
It most certainly is… We have every opportunity in this country to make successes of ourselves. Where people need help sometimes, there’s help (both private AND public), and all it takes is to educate yourself (also private and public) and try.
That negative bs doesn’t fly with me, and it certainly doesn’t fly with all those LEGAL immigrants that come here and make successes of themselves.
And it WAS on topic, since the original statement was about abortion cutting down on the population of Poor. Try the f again.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Good point. I was sloppily using ‘conservative’ when what I really meant was simply ‘non-liberal’ (and those two are definitely not the same thing).
JadeNYU on June 13, 2007 at 6:40 PM
One of our trolls is back…yay. :/
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 6:43 PM
I agree. The reason I posted is because people were making questionable statements about third world politics…
Uh huh. So explore that logic a little further. If it is so easy to escape poverty in America…why is it that so few do? Why are the bottom and top quintiles of America virtually static? Is it because the poor just don’t take enough initiative? That they’re lazy and so they all conveniently have sunk to the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder? Even assuming this is correct you have to make another pretty terrific leap of ignorance…that lazy people have lazy kids. Because poverty continues for the most part generationally it must mean that lazy people just have lazy kids right? Otherwise poor people would often have kids who ascend out of poverty.
crr6 on June 13, 2007 at 7:14 PM
Don’t bet on it. Enrique is a hit-and-run commenter, he rarely returns following the usual and expected blasting of his more insipid comments. More abortion equals less poverty? That’s what they began saying in 1968 when the push towards legalization began. An average of nearly 4,000 murdered infants PER DAY over the 24 years since Roe v. Wade, and poverty is far greater than it ever was.
But, such minds cannot think beyond a simple zero-sum equation, so it SEEMS to be eminently logical from a numeric standpoint that fewer people means less poverty. Nothing could be further from the truth in an advanced, technologically capable nation. Poverty has nothing to do with the density of our population.
The vast majority of people “in poverty” are there through their own choices. Of course there are exceptions, and those are the only poster-faces we see during an election cycle, the “unfortunate homeless mother of 3 who never did anything wrong in her life”. But she IS the exception.
Bottom line, no other issue justifies murder, and abortion is murder. Every single time.
Freelancer on June 13, 2007 at 7:38 PM
This is untrue. Thomas Sowell regularly studies and reports on such statistical trends, and always finds the same conclusion, that most adults who spend some time in the lower 20% of income earners early in their life rise into the top 20% later on. Those who remain in poverty, whose children remain in poverty, make bad choices. It cannot be blamed on government, society, or the playground bully who took their lunch money when they were 8.
Freelancer on June 13, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Glad I don’t live in that desolate negative hellhole you live in, crr6. And those that have that same defeatist attitude deserve whatever they receive.
And yes, many are lazy. Many drop out of school. Many start on drugs, or decide to have sex and get pregnant. Many based on choices. This is not poverty of finances..it’s poverty of character. And I’m sorry that I don’t feel sorry for that. I will, however, focus time and energy on helping those that CAN and WILL help themselves with a leg up.
And again, I wouldn’t call a large part of OUR “Poor” actually poor.
Now, with all that said…I am arguing AGAINST murder…not against the POOR.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Actually, since the welfare reforms of the 90s (which I am well acquainted with, having been on welfare back then) most poverty is situational, not generational. Could be those quintiles are static because the middle class is growing, and because we keep importing more poor people.
Also, please keep in mind that poverty is not at all the “going hungry” type poverty we tend to think of.
That’s why illegals come here – our poor are at least as well off if not doing better than their middle class.
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Thanks for the mention of Sowell, Freelancer… I think our buddy there actually lives in Victorian England, not in modern USA.
Bleakhouse anyone?
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 7:54 PM
And thanks Laura for that breakdown. I wonder what the numbers would look like if we only counted the ones without food, shelter or clothing.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Even knowing that our poor are mostly just lazy and bad choice makers, we don’t vote to kill them through abortion, Libbies!
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 8:03 PM
There are too many NGOs and too many civil servants invested in the poverty industry for that count to occur, unfortunately. Which is not to say that actual poverty doesn’t exist – before I got on welfare, I experienced it. I was widowed, pregnant, out of work, no phone, no electricity, living off of Ramen noodles, evicted from my apartment… it happens. But it’s far from the norm for people under the poverty line.
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Yes, yes, there’s an “industry” for everything that holds the negative liberal worldview together. How DO these people get out of bed in the morning living in that desolate world with no hope?
Laura, sorry you were ever in that position, but sooooo glad you got out. :)
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 8:14 PM
This is untrue. Thomas Sowell regularly studies and reports on such statistical trends, and always finds the same conclusion, that most adults who spend some time in the lower 20% of income earners early in their life rise into the top 20% later on. Those who remain in poverty, whose children remain in poverty, make bad choices. It cannot be blamed on government, society, or the playground bully who took their lunch money when they were 8.
crr6 on June 13, 2007 at 8:17 PM
annnd i screwed up the quotes…sorry about that.
crr6 on June 13, 2007 at 8:18 PM
So would hobo hunts.
Esthier on June 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Is it hobo season yet? Got a new AR-15 and I’m dying to BZO it.
seejanemom on June 13, 2007 at 8:18 PM
haha i would say the negative worldview is the one which assumes all the poor are stupid and lazy…geez.
crr6 on June 13, 2007 at 8:19 PM
AHhh…Christian school. The OTHER, OTHER alternative education.
seejanemom on June 13, 2007 at 8:22 PM
THREAD WINNER!!!
::who is STILL about to wet her pants howling::
seejanemom on June 13, 2007 at 8:27 PM
In my experience, you can’t put it down to one or two reasons, but I certainly saw laziness, poor judgement, bad values, and a lot of self-induced problems brought on by lack of hope and of vision. But hope and vision can’t be distributed by an agency, and in the end it was better to force people off the system.
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 8:30 PM
THREAD JAG:
So how do y’all feel about the bastard cousin of Planned Parenthood, the Progeny-At-Any-Price INFERTILITY INDUSTRY?
Those TWO sets of sextuplets artificially born to Christians who say that they are “miracles”? I think I have more ire stashed for ego maniacs like these than for a one time murderer. If that’s possible.
seejanemom on June 13, 2007 at 8:33 PM
But to get back to PP, and abortion – most women do not report finances as being the main reason for it. (Only 23% say lack of money is the problem.) Scroll about halfway down for the chart/data.
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 8:33 PM
LAURA>>>
You are one of the brave and strong. I admire your struggle to use the system as it was INTENDED. Not as a hammock. Good on you. I lurk at your blog. I think you are amazing.
seejanemom on June 13, 2007 at 8:35 PM
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Okay…I’ll be the EVIL conservative/libertarian here and go on record.
I do not have time in my life to care a whit about people who don’t care enough about themselves to TRY and make good choices.
Here’s where I’m all for natural selection.
There! Evil enough for you, Libbies. Can’t make me care about the losers…but I DO however care about the babies – who have whole lives ahead of them.
tickleddragon on June 13, 2007 at 8:41 PM
What logic. Translation: Kids should not have to live a life of poverty, so let’s kill them before they are exposed to it.
Is it a good thing for unborn children? Evidently, life is not sacred to Enrique, just personal convenience.
januarius on June 13, 2007 at 9:02 PM
I have to defend the Y here, even though this was absolutlely a bad move on their part. However, I worked for several Y’s over the years and I ended up running after school programs.In one program in Brooklyn there were kids around 11-12 who were already sexually active, most of the sexually active were abused. The state child welfare agencies in NY are all about “reunification” meaning that our programs were full of kids whose parents were abuse, on drugs and often both.
I wouldn’t have made this descision, but coming from non-profits i can tell you that the majority of the people are well meaning, but not cream of the crop professionals. The director of the Y should have stepped in and ensured that STAY had parental consent before hand, but taking a bunch of kids to PP some of whom, if NH is anything like NYC, will likely have to choose between having their crack addicted mothers dealers baby or an abortion isn’t the worst thing they could have done. It ain’t the best by a long shot, but at least they’re trying.
If everyones full of better ideas all the Y’s need volunteers…
Rob Taylor on June 13, 2007 at 9:36 PM
It’s time to stop dancing around and hiding in semantics and definitions …
Call “abortion” what it is -> murder.
AZ_Redneck on June 13, 2007 at 9:48 PM
seejanemom – you’re too kind. :-)
Tactfully put… if we’re not willing to put our money (and more importantly, our time) where our mouth is, then we’re no better than PP – in fact, worse, because as wrong-headed as they are, they are at least willing to work for what they believe in.
Laura on June 13, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Snipped from the article:
“The Planned Parenthood educator who met with the students, Anne Johnson, said she never mentioned abortion.”
Planned Parenthood services listed on their main web page:
Nonfactor,
I am aware that Planned Parenthood deals with “birth control,” and related issues.
I, myself, frequently use the term “Planned Murderhood” as a substitute for the term “Planned Parenthood” because they are the largest single committer of dismemberment-slaughter-termination of new, innocent human beings’ lives in the United States of America. They earn the monicker “Planned Murderhood” fair and square.
I also know that, due to the heavy weight of their services invovled with preventing parenthood, and due to a large number of their clients using their services to prevent parenthood and to kill innocent babies, Planned Parenthood can hardly be called “Planned Parenthood.” It would be more like “Planned Evasion of Parenthood.”
William
William2006 on June 14, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »