Had Planned Parenthood executives read Homer, they might have avoided the sirens' song which has corrupted them. They may never have accepted the 'golden handcuffs' associated with taxpayer funding. Every new administration can declare services illegal only because taxpayer funds pay the piper and politicians call the tune.
Most charities, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Family Services, and others vie for taxpayer funds and find they, too, must play the government's tune regardless of their stated missions.
When my daughters were young, I wrote checks to Planned Parenthood because I believed strongly in birth control and I advised teenage girls about free or very reasonable services at Planned Parenthood. It was win-win.. no one was forced to pay for Planned Parenthood services (thru taxes) and those who didn't agree with those services were not forced to use them. No one was coerced and all transactions were voluntary--close to a libertarian's Utopia.
But then the government wheedled their way into the process by making 'gifts' using taxpayer dollars (the only resources available to government.) Eventually Planned Parenthood hired lobbyists instead of those effective fundraisers who once tapped into the social conscience of women and like minded men (the Buffetts of the world/and Nebraska Furniture Mart's Mrs. B.) 'Society' lost an independent source for women's health and informed choices to government control for a handful of golden coin.
Society is not government and government is not society. No law can be written, regardless of ideology, that is caring or thoughtful and without unintended results, some catastrophic for our society.
Following WWII, 75% of black children were born into 2 parent families, and most of the rest lived in extended families and caring communities. Then our federal government created AFDC, only for women with children instead of a millenniums-tested family dole. Young dads found their meager paycheck competing with a check from Uncle Sam and public housing for their families. Young women 'in trouble' were whisked off to high rises or projects to raise their children in a female dominated environment. If an unemployed dad attempted to stay with their families and be a father to their children, they were driven out as 'cheaters' and their family might be tossed into the street. After many generations of this kind of nonsense, the 'sperm donor' was born.
Margaret Mead stated, and I paraphrase, that women's role in parenting is largely biological while men's role is largely social. And if we deny men that social role, we will play hell bringing the dads back. Senator Patrick Moynihan [D,NY] understood and worked on Welfare reform with President Clinton trying to reverse social decay.
Some see me as uncaring because I don't support taxpayer funded programs over private charity but why is hard to understand that our social planners good intentions created scores of millions of fatherless children who have suffered the consequences. Moms are like the Lioness. We protect our kids from what we perceive as danger or extreme excitement. Dads roughhouse (studies now showing the importance to children's development,) or start pillow fights at bedtime and then say 'Okay, time to settle down' or 'You are not going out dressed like that. Go change.' Dads parent differently. Is it better parenting or worse to toss a child in the air when you greet them? How many moms do that versus dads?
I will be scorned by many on both sides for my views. I will be scorned by many for thinking, had Planned Parenthood not played footsie with the government in the first place, they could still be providing the services Sanger hoped they would. But I feel compelled to speak.
It seems that if Planned Parenthood could have continued to support its services through voluntary donations it would have done so. Clearly the growth in service provision outstripped the ability of donors to fund the organization. And since PP provided a needed public health service are Solons in Congress felt Government aid was appropriate.
ReplyDeleteMIO makes the statement that "our social planners good intentions created scores of millions of fatherless children" as though this were an established fact. No significant studies are cited to support MIO's view . Even though this is one person's blog that statement is so sweeping as to demand evidentiary material if the poster wants to be taken seriously.
It seems to this observer that the arbitrary assignment of causes MIO does not support to effects she equally does not favor arise out of her libertarian ideology and not an analysis of complex and dynamic and social situations.
"No law can be written, regardless of ideology, that is caring or thoughtful and without unintended results, some catastrophic for our society." Here MIO is essentially saying the human beings lack the capability through government to address and improve the lives of individuals and of the community. It is an argument for doing nothing and as such is unacceptable. Moreover, the argument is wrong headed. Most laws express care and concern for the human and his/her predicament. They dont sound caring when read granted but their effects often lead to the improvement of life as we know it. Yes there are negative unintended consequences that arise from caring laws. MIO says dont pass such a law in the first place, this observer says when the unintended consequence rears its ugly head fix it.
"Clearly the growth in service provision outstripped the ability of donors to fund the organization." Planned Parenthood no doubt had good intentions expanding their services past what donations provided and accepting funding from the government, but they gave up independence. When an admin changed, often they found their choices limited by zealots.
DeleteI read a piece written by a Catholic Bishop or Cardinal about Catholic Charities acceptance of funds from government changing the methods they had been able to use in their services. This was before Bush and they already received over 50% from government sources.
Google 'golden handcuffs'
I was a project manager for a consortium of social service agencies during the Clinton administration when welfare reform was passed. One of the agencies had an employee who was kept on because he played golf and befriended State officials. Social service agency executives, Gov Ben (cornhusker kickback) Nelson, head of NDSS and United Way met to divvy up the block grant. Can you imagine how political that became?
"not an analysis of complex and dynamic and social situations." I don't hate government or what people try to accomplish, I just know life is 'too complex and dynamic' for laws to be written to solve social ills. In mid 1960's, my friend was living with her mother, going through a divorce and attending college. She had hired another young mother (in process of divorce) to babysit. I was visiting when the babysitter called to say she couldn't work and get assistance, so her attorney told her to quit. Was that the goal of passing assistance? encourage young women to quit jobs? I doubt it.
I don't know how old you are, but there were literally police raids at night on the 'projects' looking for men living with their families. Black children born into two parent families after WWII was near 75%, now its closer to 25%. Will social planners do a study showing how they literally drove fathers from the families by NOT using the sane alternative, a millennium tested FAMILY dole, instead of single parents only? Answer no. The tax code is used for social engineering and we know if you want more of something, you subsidize it. Then govt subsidized single moms and the term 'sperm donor' was the result.
Of course everyone has good intentions. No one breaks up families on purpose or leaves them living under an overpass, but many of the problem begin with government. A large house owned by a widow may once have operated as a boarding house. Without a bathroom in every bedroom or an outside exit, its illegal to rent rooms. Is it better the people live under the bridge?
In New Orleans there are billions left in rebuilding dollars but college grads were sent in to complete the paperwork and many failed. Laws cannot be caring. They just can't be; only people can be caring. Society owes something to the less fortunate but writing it into law isn't the best way.
You say persons who wish govt would stay out of social issues are not caring, but was it caring to build Cabrini Green (in Chicago) and create literally a sewer of crime for those families? Our north side is full of kids who are scarred for life, some functionally illiterate and some violent felons. Is that what social planners wanted to create in the future? I think it was arrogant to remove young women in a family way from their support systems, emancipate them and move them to a high rise. Sadly scores of millions never knew a dad, *be it grandpa or uncle* to give them horsey rides.
What does MIO mean?