I read an article today noting that many of the people who voted for Trump are
now feeling voter’s remorse. They feel
Trump lied to them and misled them. Too
many of the comments and responses from
my fellow liberals amounted to a lot of name-calling and blaming, implying that Trump voters were
all ignorant racists. Some of
them may be uninformed or misinformed, and some may be hate-filled racists, in fact many of Trump’s supporters seem
to make an effort to prove that point with
hateful racist comments, and worse, directed at anyone who is of a different ethnic group,
nationality, or religion.
But I have met quite a few people who didn’t
vote FOR Donald Trump as much as they
voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton. The people I’m referring to for the most
part are not racists, they are not ignorant, but they are devout Christians,
and the reason they give for voting against Clinton is that she “believes in
abortion” or is “pro-abortion.” It does little good to point out to them that
Clinton is pro-choice, which is very different from being pro-abortion. Trump made some of these dog-whistle charges in an October 19, 2016 debate, when he said, “I
think it's terrible if you go with what Hillary is saying . . . In the ninth
month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just
prior to the birth of the baby.”
Clinton responded to these scare tactics by stating, “You should meet
with some of the women that I've met with—women I've known over the course of
my life,” she said. “This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman
and her family has to make. And I do not believe the government should be
making it. . . I’ve been to countries where governments either forced women to
have abortions like they used to do in China or forced women to bear children
like they used to do in Romania, And I can tell you the government has no
business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance
with their faith, [and] with medical advice and I will stand up for that
right.” Despite the rhetoric from her
political opponents, she does support a ban on late-term abortions and has held that position consistently for
years. In an Oct. 8, 2000, debate, Clinton said: "I have
said many times that I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including
partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is
protected. I’ve met women who faced this heart-wrenching decision toward the
end of a pregnancy. Of course it’s a horrible procedure. No one would argue
with that. But if your life is at stake, if your health is at stake, if the
potential for having any more children is at stake, this must be a woman’s
choice."
When I tell these
people that I wish they were as concerned about protecting children after
they’re born as they are in protecting the unborn, they note that rather than
being aborted, babies can be adopted by loving families. But information compiled by childrensrights.org indicates that
on any given day, there are nearly 428,000 children in foster care in the United States.
In 2015, over 670,000 children spent time in U.S. foster care. According to recent statistics, there are 107,918 foster children eligible for
and waiting to be adopted. In 2014 50,644 foster
kids were adopted — a number that has stayed roughly consistent for the past
five years. The average age of a waiting child is 7.7 years old and
29% of them will spend at least three years in foster care.
Every year, about 23,000 children age out of foster care
without finding a permanent
family. Only 2% of children who age out
of foster care will go on to get a college education, and 80% of the prison
population comprises adults who were in the foster care system at some point on
their childhood. (Source:
http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a35860/adoption-statistics/)
And then there are the children who are abused: In 2012,
U.S. state and local child protective services (CPS) received an estimated 3.4
million referrals of children being abused or neglected. CPS estimated that
686,000 children (9.2 per 1,000) were victims of maltreatment.
Of the child victims, 78% were victims of neglect; 18% of
physical abuse; 9% of sexual abuse; and 11% were victims of other types of
maltreatment, including emotional and threatened abuse, parent’s drug/alcohol
abuse, or lack of supervision.
(Source:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/datasources.html)
Then there are
the equally alarming statistics on child hunger and poverty. 13.1 million children lived in food-insecure
households in 2015. Twenty percent or more of the child population in 22 states
and D.C. lived in food-insecure households in 2015, according to the most
recent data available. In 2015, the top
five states with the highest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were
Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, Alabama, and Arizona. Most of the time, these families shield children from
hunger. The adults will go without meals so the kids can eat. Still, the
government says there were about 274,000 households in 2015 in which children
went hungry at some point during the year. As bad as that was, it was the
lowest level since before the Great Recession and a big decline from 2014 —
when 422,000 families reported that their children went hungry at some point.
And yet these voters
put a man into office who, along with other Republicans in Congress, has
voiced an intent to cut the very services that provide a safety net to these vulnerable children and their
families. And those families are not, despite the hateful rhetoric, lazy
do-nothings. Many of those receiving
SNAP (food stamp) benefits are people
with disabilities, the elderly, and the working poor. According to the USDA ,
55 percent of SNAP recipients, are bringing home wages. The problem is, those
wages aren't enough to actually live on. Even more startling is that in 2014
more than $84 million-worth of food stamp benefits were spent at military
commissaries, indicating that there are active and retired military members who need food stamps in order to
make ends meet and feed their families.
This, in a nation with the highest military budget in the world.
If we’re really pro-life, let’s make sure that we take
care of the children already born. Let’s make sure they have enough food to
eat, that they have educational opportunities to pursue their dreams, that they
have shelter, and clothes to wear, and
medical care, and that they receive love and attention. There are many who say this is the responsibility of parents, not the
government. But in a society where the middle class has been steadily shrinking,
where median income has been declining, where poverty has been growing and
where there is a large level of income inequality, it is imperative that the
government take steps to combat poverty by providing a safety net for its citizens.
The Center for American Progress
notes that economist Harry Holzer of Georgetown University found that
poverty costs our economy 4 percent of gross domestic product per year, or
more than $500 billion as a result of low productivity and earnings, poor
health, and high levels of crime and incarceration among adults who grew
up poor. They also report that
,”Similarly, Brandeis University professor Donald Shepard and his colleagues
have calculated that hunger costs our nation at least $167.5 billion per
year in lost economic productivity, public education costs, avoidable
health care costs, and food charity. Public investments in the safety
net—specifically, programs that target poor children—have been shown to
generate exceptionally high returns that benefit all Americans. For
example, University of Virginia professor Chloe Gibbs; University of
Chicago economist Jens Ludwig; and University of California, Davis,
economist Douglas L. Miller estimate that Head Start produces a benefit-cost
ratio of more than 7-to-1”
(Source:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/03/31/86693/the-safety-net-is-good-economic-policy/).
Providing that safety net can also help insure that parents are not so stressed, so overworked and so
worried about making ends meet that they don’t have quality time to spend with
their children.
And let’s make sure that women have access to reliable,
affordable birth control. Abortion rates have been steadily declining. In 2014 the
abortion rate was 19%, the
lowest abortion rate since the supreme court handed down Roe v Wade in
1973, and the number of abortions
between 2011 and 2014 also fell, by 12%.
Researchers have found a strong link between the lower rate of abortions
and the wider availability of very effective contraception. If plans to
repeal the Affordable Care Act are
successful, that availability will be in peril.
