| Author | Message | ||
     las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1560 Registered: 10-2003 |
HHS Approves California Plan to Expand Coverage to Unborn Children http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060328.html I find the title of this press release repugnant. Downright revolting! I have been searching for local/state/national policy/law/regulation pertaining to the education of our foster children and to date I have found zero. That means our most vulnerable children can grow up without educations, live in poverty and then be entitled to receive coverage for their "unborn children". Brilliant social planning. Stupendous! Coverage for unborn children? What about coverage for living children? In my world care for pregnant ladies is called pre-natal. Jeesh! | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1207 Registered: 2-2004 |
I think it's great that they're expanding prenatal healthcare coverage. Lack of such coverage leads to myriad large scale health problems among the poor. I agree that the compassion of the Bushistas tends to be confined to the womb, but helping pregnant women have healthy pregnancies is a very good thing. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1561 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes, I agree, Joe. The prenatal care is imperative. I take issue with calling the fetuses children when there are actually living, breathing children who are completely left out of public policy. That is shameful. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4730 Registered: 5-2001 |
I wonder why they can't do it without using hot-button code-words? It seems to be disguising the fact that it also will help adults -- the pregnant mothers -- too. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2878 Registered: 5-2004  |
Tom, because that way they can energize their base, piss off the Left, and still be able to say "You oppose prenatal care?" if someone objects. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1943 Registered: 3-2004 |
I believe that if the administration could restrict prenatal care to the fetus and could say "to hell with the mother," it would do so. And that would fit nicely into the agenda of the SBC interest groups who make up a lot of the admin's base. IMHO. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1231 Registered: 10-2005 |
las- It seems the only times the pro-choice crowd cares about foster kids is when their own aborton views are in question. By the way, how many foster kids do you sponsor? -SLK | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1104 Registered: 10-2004  |
SLK - I believe your statement to be a blatant falsehood. Please show us the data that shows pro-choice proponents do not support foster childrens issues. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1662 Registered: 5-2001 |
What about the rights of the preconceived? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2880 Registered: 5-2004 |
"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1235 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops- I have no data because it is an observation. I never hear pro-choicers ever talk about foster children unless it is to strengthen their pro-choice beliefs. I am sure some pro-choicers do sponsor foster kids but I am willing to bet my last dime that a majority of them don't. Come to think about it, I never hear pro-choicers, or at least the ones I know (many) talk about adoption either. If pro-choicers care so much about the fate of foster children then why don't they promote adoption more? -SLK | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3166 Registered: 5-2001  |
SLK - this board is full of posts conveying intelligence, passion, insight, wit, and sincere curiosity. Yours is not among them. The suggestion that people who are pro-choice do not care about foster children is completely devoid of sense. There is a large and obvious overlap between the pro-choice crowd and "liberals" and it is clearly liberals who display, via their votes and their checkbooks, more concern for providing healthcare and other assistance to those who would otherwise not have it, such as foster children. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1664 Registered: 5-2001 |
SLK, Walk around lefty Maplewood and you might notice quite a few adoptees. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1562 Registered: 10-2003 |
By the way, how many foster kids do you sponsor? Sponsor? With money? Zero. With time? Lost count a few dozen babies ago. Oh, then there's that Master's Degree I've been paying for out of my own pocket for four and half years that will enable me to advocate for their education. But technically, that is money spent on me, no one else. By the way, SLK, how many foster kids do YOU sponsor? -Lynn | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1738 Registered: 10-2004 |
las: you got oil SLicKed. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 893 Registered: 12-2003 |
I would venture to say that las sponsors as many kids as SLK has had abortions. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1566 Registered: 10-2003 |
You don't have to venture to say anything, Madden. I said it myself in my last post. I don't sponsor anyone. I just spend my time with babies who don't have families. There are never enough volunteers so feel free to p/l me if you want contact information. | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1946 Registered: 3-2004 |
SLK always seems to inject the SBC tone of "personal responsibility and salvation" into his posts. You're supposed to feel inadequate if you don't have the same prepared answer that he has, I suppose. That is, he'll always ask: How many orphan kids do you sponsor? or How many internal combusion engines have you rejected today? or How many times have you run for President? or How many times have you answered the call to defend your country? or How many times have you threatened someone with bodily harm who throws chewing gum, cigarette packs, matches, cigarette butts, coffee cups, sandwich wrappers, banana peels, cherry pits, old newspapers, and ice cream bar wrappers, onto the train/subway/bus/commuter airline/jitney/whatever platform? Nice questions, all of them, and I am sure that SLK has an authentic good answer for each one. But, just as patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, questions that sidetrack discussion seem to be the province of our friend Scrotey. IMHO. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1742 Registered: 10-2004 |
I like Scrotey as a nickname. Oddly enough won't permit us to call him Scroetum (had to mispell it to get it past the curse filter). But we can call him Scrotal, as we found out in another thread. I think it has a nice ring to it. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13649 Registered: 1-2003  |
How about if we compare the percentage of pro-choicers who sponsor foster children with the percentage of the entire population who sponsor foster children? That would approach fairness. My guess is that the percentages would be about the same, but that's pure speculation. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1568 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks Innis. For a moment I felt inadequate. Now I indeed know what it feels like to be SLicKed. For anyone who has interest: I have not been able to find a piece of legislation on the federal, state or local levels* that pertain to the education of our foster children, other than a comment in one NJ statute that states foster parents will make efforts to enroll the child in the local school soon after placement. So when these children get placed in another home, there is no one responsible for forwarding their school records (other than a form the caseworker submits to the school) or to ensure s/he gets the accommodations necessary to learn. However, someone(s) at the federal level had the gall to insert the phrase "unborn children" into legislation. Changing defined terms in any document takes time, time costs money. Yet our children, if they are going to school, are likely far behind their peers, and have a significant chance of failure. Sometimes I get floored by things. *Have not yet reviewed policies from individual advocacy centers. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1239 Registered: 10-2005 |
(the sound of SLK's last post going right over everyone's head...) | ||
| Innisowen Citizen Username: Innisowen Post Number: 1949 Registered: 3-2004 |
SLK is the expert in unfounded, undocumented, free-wheeling assumptions with little or no grounding in fact or reality. His motto is: when in doubt or in a corner, make a wild assumption, or "when in danger or in doubt, run in circles; scream and shout." His modus operandi consists of attempting to make a connection between unrelated factoids, supported by unsubstantiated side comments. But he never gives up, which is why I like him. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1156 Registered: 9-2004 |
DO I have this right---- how many times have you kissed a liberal who never talks about their Foster child while promoting adoption while walking down Maplewood Avenue? Nevermind. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1244 Registered: 10-2005 |
Nice try people. But here is your chance to prove my mere observation wrong. Fess up to all the foster children you care for, both directly and indirectly and I will shutup. Let me offer you a perspective on how your position looks from the outside. "Them goshdarn Republicans, if they let us just kill the little bastards then we don't have to worry about them NOT caring for em..." Sounds a little messed up, don't you think? -SLK | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1245 Registered: 10-2005 |
Oh, I forgot, I love you too Innyboy!  | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2890 Registered: 5-2004 |
I would hazard a guess that the two groups that adopt and care for foster children the most are the religious (Right and Left) and areligious liberals. I would guess moderates and non-religious Conservatives would have the lowest representation. But I have not found any data on the religious or political leanings of foster parents. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1165 Registered: 9-2004 |
My observation is that I Know one lady who has taken on 3 foster children. I think she adopted all 3. She is a "LIB". Bless you Sharon. I dont know of any Conservatives who have adopted or taken on a Foster child. Which doesn't mean a damn thing, because I do not knowingly associate or socialize with Conservatives. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1247 Registered: 10-2005 |
FOJ- "I do not knowingly associate or socialize with Conservatives." This is a bizzare comment. What would you do if you did find out that one of your chums was,eureka, that them one of those conservative types, stop being friends? -SLK | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1248 Registered: 10-2005 |
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports from Highland Heights, Ky: A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening. NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials. . . . Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police. Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes. "I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said. . . . She said she was infuriated by the display, which she saw as intimidating and a "slap in the face" to women who might be making "the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion.' " . . . "Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged," Jacobsen said. It doesn't sound as though Jacobsen and her students are very confident in their own views, does it? | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1581 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged," Jacobsen said. Sounds like the lady from Park Slope who was hurt by a boy's hat. | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 339 Registered: 6-2001 |
OK, Scrotis, I'll take your bait. Between us, my neighbors and I have adopted 3 foster kids. And we're pro-choice, lesbian feminist liberals. | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1250 Registered: 10-2005 |
ina- I am sorry you see my asking legitmate questions as "bait." I think it is great that all you took in three foster children. I never said that no "pro-choice, [lesbian feminist] liberals" take in foster children and I am sure many do. My point is to illustrate the hypocrisy behind those who use the foster children argument against pro-lifers only to strengthen their pro-choice beliefs. I have observed over the years that the first person to use such an argument are the last ones to sponsor a foster child in any way, shape or form. Also, I never see any hard data over the claim that pro-lifers don't help foster children. Congratulations again for doing what so many people wouldn't. And Happy Holidays! -SLK On another note, I am just curious but do you always label yourself "pro-choice, [lesbian feminist] liberals"? Labels are so self-restricting... | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1586 Registered: 10-2003 |
There's really not a lot out there on the demography of foster parents. I've been able to find an April 1999 survey of foster parents by CASA (DC) that notes: * Studies have consistently shown that most foster parents are in the low to lower middle income ranges. * Studies show that only 7.2% of foster parents want to foster as a way to increase their families' income. | ||
| Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 321 Registered: 8-2005 |
'I am sure some pro-choicers do sponsor foster kids but I am willing to bet my last dime that a majority of them don't' Nor would I imagine a majority of anti-choicers sponser foster kids either. How does that prove anything? | ||
| ina Citizen Username: Ina Post Number: 340 Registered: 6-2001 |
SLK you'd be surprised what a motley crew we pro-choice lesbian feminist liberals are! | ||
| mtierney Citizen Username: Mtierney Post Number: 923 Registered: 3-2001 |
I am a Conservative Pro-Life person with three adopted children. Incidentally, under the what's in a name category, pro-life is the correct term. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13705 Registered: 1-2003 |
Also under the what's-in-a-name category, you're what I would call admirable and respectable.  | ||
| The Notorious S.L.K. Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1253 Registered: 10-2005 |
las- Thanks for the statistics which only strengthens my position that the belief that pro-lifers do nothing for children once they are born is just an empty assumption. -SLK | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1602 Registered: 10-2003 |
a) Scrotis, you know there were no references to personal beliefs of the foster parents in that study - only income; b) Whatever. c) Still working on pinning down NJ state policy re educating our foster kids. There is a department in the Foster Care Association that provides scholarships for kids who age out of foster care to go to community college. There is also a Bill of Rights for foster children that assures they are guaranteed an education. But it seems no one is actually responsible for making that happen in our state (hence my getting bumped around in the DoE and DYFS all day). I still have to get my paws on and review the text of the Child Placement Act of 1977, but I have finally realized my limitations and emailed the librarian for assistance. There has got to be a policy somewhere, I must not looking in the right place. Oh the irony. People on other threads are crying about loss of civil liberties with the smoking limitations, whereas under the law all children are guaranteed FAPE* yet we have an entire population that seems to have fallen through the cracks. Priorities. *Free Appropriate Public Education |
