(Note: more content has been added to this post.)
Related MUST READ: WorldNetDaily - Mandatory Abortion Proposed in Holland
A health official in the Netherlands has called for a debate on the idea of forced abortion and contraception to deal with what she sees as a crisis of unwanted children.
Alderman Marianne van den Anker of the Leefbaar Rotterdam Party wants specifically to target communities of Antilleans and Arubans where she sees the biggest problems of unwanted children.
Her comments have stirred protest by a health foundation working with those communities in Rotterdam. The group, which called the comments degrading, is asking Mayor Ivo Opstelten and other politicians to distance themselves from Van den Anker's views.
Van den Anker is a mother of two children and the official in charge of Rotterdam's health and security portfolios.
In an interview in a newspaper Saturday, she said she had tried everything to prevent child abuse.
"I fail, I fail," she told the interviewer as she outlined her controversial idea for a debate on compulsory abortion and contraception.
The target groups for her program are Antillean teenage mothers; drug addicts and people with mental handicaps, she said, according to a report in Expatica.
According to the report, Van den Anker said children from these groups run an "unacceptable risk" of growing up without love and with "violence, neglect, mistreatment and sexual abuse."
Sixty years after we fought a blood war to eliminate such things, the evils of eugenics and forced sterilization raise their ugly heads in Europe again. And by the way, the Antillians and Arubans living in Holland are mostly black. Is this the way that enlightened, post-modern Europeans want to solve their problems?
Yet another sad example of the decline of Europe since the continent has largely gutted itself of Christianity and Biblical morality.
____________________________________________________
The South Dakota House of Representatives and Senate have both passed a bill that would outlaw the practice of abortion in the state, except in cases where the life of the mother was genuinely at stake. There is little reason to believe that Gov. Mike Rounds will veto the bill. Here's the story as reported in The Washington Post.
Why did this happen in South Dakota? Here are some interesting statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (affiliated with Planned Abortion Parenthood) that explain why:
• In 2000, there were 2 abortion providers in South Dakota. This represents a 100% increase from 1996, when there was 1 abortion provider.
• In 2000, 87% of U.S. counties had no abortion provider. 1/3 of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2000, 25% traveled at least 50 miles, and 8% traveled more than 100 miles.
• In 2000, 98% of South Dakota counties had no abortion provider. 78% of South Dakota women lived in these counties. In the Midwest census region, where South Dakota is located, 28% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 10% traveled more than 100 miles.
• In South Dakota, 1 metropolitan area lacks an abortion provider: Rapid City
Apparently abortion was not a goldmine operation there. And now the real fun begins. Planned Abortion Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Death Choice America, and other abortion zealots have already begun stocking up on ammunition for the anticipated lawsuits and eventual Supreme Court showdown that the South Dakota law will precipitate.
I am fighting the temptation to write at length about this law. Clearly the SD legislature and the governor have waited until now to finally pass this law because of President Bush's recent conservative picks for the Supreme Court. The state representative who introduced the bill confirms this. Will the court uphold Roe v. Wade and overturn the South Dakota law? Or will they uphold the South Dakota law and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade?
Personally I would be happy with the dismissal of Roe. Then America -- a democratic republic, the last time I checked -- would finally get the chance to openly debate the issue of abortion, and each state would have the opportunity to either call a popular referendum or introduce legislation that would legalize abortion on demand. There is no doubt in my mind that abortions performed in order to save the life of the mother would be exempted from any kind of government ban, since pretty much everyone agrees on their necessity.
And very briefly:
1) No, women do not have the inalienable "right" to terminate their unborn children on the taxpayer's dime, and
2) the arguments about "life of the mother" are generally red herrings. Some abortions may be justified due to dire medical circumstances, but studies have shown that here in the US, over 90% of abortions* were performed solely for the convenience of the mother. Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" abortion meme is simply a bunch of hooey. So is the intellectually dishonest notion of "choice." No one, even in the case of rape or incest, has the right to pronounce an automatic death sentence upon an unborn child simply because it will be a burden or because we are grossed-out by the circumstances of its conception.
This is a really big story, and it could become one of the most critical issues in the 2006 and 2008 elections. I hope the Christian church doesn't blow this one like they did with no-fault divorce in the late 1960's.
______________________________________________
* since many readers will question the accuracy of this assertion, I have included the actual study data below the page fold:
This data is from the Alan Guttmacher institute, which is operated by Planned Parenthood:
Do the math. Only 7% of abortions were performed because of rape, incest, or medical complications. 89% of abortions were performed because of personal reasons, and 4% were performed for reasons not listed. It's also worth noting that Guttmacher categorized 48% of all pregnancies as "unwanted."
I'm very happy someone is standing up to say the exemptions left out of South Dakota's bill--health of the mother, rape and incenst, to be specific--were left out justifiably. Thanks for the good posting! It's going to be interesting for me to watch this one play out, since I'm attending a notably liberal state university. Pray for your college students. Thanks again!
Erin
Posted by: Erin | February 23, 2006 at 06:08 PM