The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies ANS

This is a good summary of how inconsistent the Regressives' position on babies is (or appears to us).  But it's also fiscally stupid. 
Remember, psychologically, they support fetuses because they are innocent, but don't support babies because they have original sin, so they aren't innocent anymore.  We learned that in a previous post -- if you've been paying attention, and remember such details.... I bring this up, because there really is some internal logic to the Regressives' position, it just doesn't make much sense to Progressives because our viewpoint is very different. 
Find it here:   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html?_r=1   
--Kim

Op-Ed Columnist

The G.O.P.'s Abandoned Babies

By CHARLES M. BLOW


Published: February 25, 2011

Republicans need to figure out where they stand on children's welfare. They can't be "pro-life" when the "child" is in the womb but indifferent when it's in the world. Allow me to illustrate just how schizophrenic their position has become through the prism of premature babies.
Enlarge This Image
 

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Charles M. Blow

Go to Columnist Page »


Multimedia

 Graphic

Preterm Infants and Mortality

Of the 33 countries that the International Monetary Fund describes as "advanced economies," the United States now has the highest infant mortality rate according to data from the World Bank. It took us decades to arrive at this dubious distinction. In 1960, we were 15th. In 1980, we were 13th. And, in 2000, we were 2nd.

Part of the reason for our poor ranking is that declines in our rates stalled after premature births ­ a leading cause of infant mortality as well as long-term developmental disabilities ­ began to rise in the 1990s.

The good news is that last year the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the rate of premature births fell in 2008, representing the first two-year decline in the last 30 years.

Dr. Jennifer L. Howse, the president of the March of Dimes, which in 2003 started a multimillion-dollar premature birth campaign focusing on awareness and education, has said of the decline: "The policy changes and programs to prevent preterm birth that our volunteers and staff have worked so hard to bring about are starting to pay off."

The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. The budget proposes:

• $50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that "supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs."

• $1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support "lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth."

• Nearly $1 billion in cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its preventive health programs, including to its preterm birth studies.

This is the same budget in which House Republicans voted to strip all federal financing for Planned Parenthood.

It is savagely immoral and profoundly inconsistent to insist that women endure unwanted ­ and in some cases dangerous ­ pregnancies for the sake of "unborn children," then eliminate financing designed to prevent those children from being delivered prematurely, rendering them the most fragile and vulnerable of newborns. How is this humane?

And it doesn't even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion ­ more than the proposed cuts to the programs listed, programs that also provide a wide variety of other services.

This type of budgetary policy is penny-wise and pound-foolish ­ and ultimately deadly. Think about that the next time you hear Republican representatives tout their "pro-life" bona fides. Think about that the next time someone uses the heinous term "baby killer."

•

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (192) »