Do Republicans CAUSE abortions???

[markeverett49]

Catholic professor Stephen Schneck works for the Catholic University for America and is involved with the group Catholics for Obama. He thinks that if Romney is elected (and cuts Medicaid by 40 per cent) that abortions will increase by 6, 7, or 8 per cent. The Weekly Standard’s Jonathon Vast questions the social scientist’s data.

weeklystandard.com/articles/what-schneck_652897.html

 

[SamH]

…and is involved with the group Catholics for Obama. He thinks that if Romney is elected…

I can only imagine how this mental gymnast came to his conclusions.

 

[markeverett49]

I can only imagine how this mental gymnast came to his conclusions.

I’m not as surprised. The nature of abortion is so repellant that supporters have to posit something WORSE that makes it ‘the lesser evil’ (-in their minds, anyway.)

 

[Ranp]

I can only imagine how this mental gymnast came to his conclusions.

One can only imagine how this mental gymnast is allow to teach at a major Catholic University.

Ran

 

[JimG]

After the event I asked Schneck for a bit more detail on these numbers. I assumed he had published research on the topic. He had not. Here is how he explained how he arrived at his figures.

weeklystandard.com/articles/what-schneck_652897.html

There’s also this:
catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=35598

Stephen Schneck is also a board member of “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good” about which more can be found here:
catholicworldreport.com/Item/1537/the_catholic_con_continues.aspx

 

[_Abyssinia]

“….Schneck’s account of why Obama is the better choice from the perspective of a pro-life voter is astoundingly sloppy. Claims are made without any support. The crux of the argument is based on—at best—a naïve and uncritical reading of a dated and limited study from a group whose agenda is clearly left-leaning. Nowhere in the speech does Schneck even mention the planks in the Democratic Party’s eye on health care—like the HHS mandate or even the removal of anti-trafficking funding from Catholic Charities, the threatened removal of Medicaid funds from Texas in retaliation for the state’s defunding of Planned Parenthood, or the potential effects of the Independent Payment Advisory Board on end-of-life care.

In the end, when one looks past the posturing and the rhetoric, one sees that there are clear differences between the parties. One favors publicly funded abortion on demand as a matter of law and has used its time in power to stifle the culture of life. The other favors the protection of the unborn by law, and effects that goal to the extent possible. All that Schneck’s Democrats for Life speech tells us is that one should prefer the former if one thinks liberal social welfare policy is more important than abortion, because he does not provide any sound arguments that the two issues are related. That’s fine; it’s just not clear what work the “for Life” is doing in the group’s name if they’re sponsoring talks like Schneck’s.”

thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6271?utm_source=RTA+Fragoso+Dems+for+Life&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

Schneck’s main argument is that since one-third of all births are paid for by Medicaid and the Romney-Ryan ticket wants to cut Medicaid — women who would have used Medicaid to pay their childbearing expenses will instead obtain abortions. There are obviously lots of problems with this logic. Schneck cites no research which shows that Medicaid spending is negatively correlated with abortion rates. There is also no evidence that women respond to higher childbearing costs by obtaining abortions in greater numbers. There is no guarantee that any Medicaid cuts would be focused on prenatal or perinatal care.

Medicaid is jointly run by the states and federal government and states could respond to federal cuts by increasing spending. Finally, past Republican efforts to cut spending have not always met with much success and there is no guarantee a President Romney would actually be able to cut Medicaid.

In the past, a number of Democrats have tried to make the case that social spending will reduce abortion rates. However, there is not one peer-reviewed study which shows that Medicaid spending or any other kind of welfare spending actually reduces the incidence of abortion.

There is, however, a substantial body of research which documents the effectiveness of pro-life laws. In 2009 the Guttmacher Institute did a literature review on public-funding restrictions for abortion. Of the 24 studies they considered, 20 found that abortion rates fell after public funding was reduced. They even acknowledged the best research indicates that restricting public funding lowers abortion rates. There is also an academic literature which documents the effectiveness of parental-involvement laws and properly designed informed-consent laws.

President Obama has pursued policies which will almost certainly increase the incidence of abortion. He rescinded the Mexico City policy which had prohibited foreign aid to organizations that perform abortions. He signed an appropriations bill which provided taxpayer funding for abortions in Washington, D.C.

His administration sued to prevent Indiana from defunding Planned Parenthood and stepped up with an HHS grant when New Hampshire cut taxpayer funds for Planned Parenthood. And, of course, Obamacare poses numerous problems for pro-lifers. If abortion is listed as a federal health benefit, that could easily nullify or weaken a number of state-level pro-life laws. Obamacare also provides federal funds to insurance plans which cover abortion. The HHS contraceptive mandate could require employers to cover abortifacients and is also a taxpayer bailout of Planned Parenthood.

The pro-life movement has been very shrewd in its marketing and Democrats can see the pro-life position making gains in the court of public opinion. They also know that their support for legal abortion is hurting them with several key demographic groups including working-class whites and Catholics. It is unfortunate that instead of actually offering substantial legal protections for the unborn, Democrats insist on trotting out these tired, unpersuasive arguments every election cycle.

nationalreview.com/corner/316296/once-again-pro-life-democrats-fail-persuade-michael-new

 

[manualman]

Pathetic. By that logic, the maker of that lame anti-Muhammed film ‘caused’ the Middle East riots that have been going on.

What is it about academia that makes smart people so dumb about simple things?

 

[_Abyssinia]

“….Schneck’s account of why Obama is the better choice from the perspective of a pro-life voter is astoundingly sloppy. Claims are made without any support. The crux of the argument is based on—at best—a naïve and uncritical reading of a dated and limited study from a group whose agenda is clearly left-leaning. Nowhere in the speech does Schneck even mention the planks in the Democratic Party’s eye on health care—like the HHS mandate or even the removal of anti-trafficking funding from Catholic Charities, the threatened removal of Medicaid funds from Texas in retaliation for the state’s defunding of Planned Parenthood, or the potential effects of the Independent Payment Advisory Board on end-of-life care.

In the end, when one looks past the posturing and the rhetoric, one sees that there are clear differences between the parties. One favors publicly funded abortion on demand as a matter of law and has used its time in power to stifle the culture of life. The other favors the protection of the unborn by law, and effects that goal to the extent possible. All that Schneck’s Democrats for Life speech tells us is that one should prefer the former if one thinks liberal social welfare policy is more important than abortion, because he does not provide any sound arguments that the two issues are related. That’s fine; it’s just not clear what work the “for Life” is doing in the group’s name if they’re sponsoring talks like Schneck’s”

thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/09/6271?utm_source=RTA+Fragoso+Dems+for+Life&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

Schneck’s main argument is that since one-third of all births are paid for by Medicaid and the Romney-Ryan ticket wants to cut Medicaid — women who would have used Medicaid to pay their childbearing expenses will instead obtain abortions. There are obviously lots of problems with this logic. Schneck cites no research which shows that Medicaid spending is negatively correlated with abortion rates. There is also no evidence that women respond to higher childbearing costs by obtaining abortions in greater numbers. There is no guarantee that any Medicaid cuts would be focused on prenatal or perinatal care.

….In the past, a number of Democrats have tried to make the case that social spending will reduce abortion rates. However, there is not one peer-reviewed study which shows that Medicaid spending or any other kind of welfare spending actually reduces the incidence of abortion.

There is, however, a substantial body of research which documents the effectiveness of pro-life laws.

…. The pro-life movement has been very shrewd in its marketing and Democrats can see the pro-life position making gains in the court of public opinion. They also know that their support for legal abortion is hurting them with several key demographic groups including working-class whites and Catholics. It is unfortunate that instead of actually offering substantial legal protections for the unborn, Democrats insist on trotting out these tired, unpersuasive arguments every election cycle

nationalreview.com/corner/316296/once-again-pro-life-democrats-fail-persuade-michael-new#

 

[SamH]

What is it about academia that makes smart people so dumb about simple things?

Perhaps they are not that smart to be begin with.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not as surprised. The nature of abortion is so repellant that supporters have to posit something WORSE that makes it ‘the lesser evil’ (-in their minds, anyway.)

Isn’t this what Republicans do (say they are pro-life and abortion is the worst possible evil) to justify their less-worse wars?

Yet people forget that it took a Republican-appointed Supreme Court under a Republican President to make abortion legal in the whole country after another Republican got the ball rolling in California.

Personally I see the abortion level staying where it as at 1.2 million per year, no matter what. Medicare probably won’t be expanded to cover pregnancies.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

If the Republicans actually cared about outlawing abortion they would’ve done it when they controlled the entire Congress and executive branch during Bush’s first term.

 

[Rence]

Abortions are caused by a lack of morals, not by Republicans or Democrats, or anything else.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

If the Republicans actually cared about outlawing abortion they would’ve done it when they controlled the entire Congress and executive branch during Bush’s first term.

May I remind you of a little event that happened on 9/11/2001?

Also, the people’s elected representatives are not going to do something that goes against the prevailing public sentiment. Regardless of which party is in power, the Congress has to work with we, the people, because if they don’t, they won’t be re-elected. There HAVE been many local and state ordinances passed which help restrict and constrain abortion, and these are being successfully defended in courts of appeal, for the most part. I do believe that eventually, abortion will again be illegal and babies will be saved, and God will rejoice for our sake.

 

[Dubay]

Catholicism is a big tent and all opinions are welcome, even those well off base.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Catholic professor Stephen Schneck works for the Catholic University for America and is involved with the group Catholics for Obama. He thinks that if Romney is elected (and cuts Medicaid by 40 per cent) that abortions will increase by 6, 7, or 8 per cent. The Weekly Standard’s Jonathon Vast questions the social scientist’s data.

weeklystandard.com/articles/what-schneck_652897.html

Oh me, another bit of disinformation designed to make the faithful forget about the real issues of this campaign: The abysmal state of the economy and the incompetence of the incumbant President, and his anti-Catholicism, vis a vie Obamacare!
Although a proclaimed Catholic, I wonder how much he gets paid to violate the basic principles of his faith?

 

[ManOnFire]

Catholic professor Stephen Schneck works for the Catholic University for America and is involved with the group Catholics for Obama. He thinks that if Romney is elected (and cuts Medicaid by 40 per cent) that abortions will increase by 6, 7, or 8 per cent. The Weekly Standard’s Jonathon Vast questions the social scientist’s data.

weeklystandard.com/articles/what-schneck_652897.html

Wow. So let’s just willfully ignore all the liberal behaviors that occurred before they arrived at the point of considering abortion.

 

[markeverett49]

If the Republicans actually cared about outlawing abortion they would’ve done it when they controlled the entire Congress and executive branch during Bush’s first term.

They couldn’t have done that. The Congress cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling, only the Court can overturn the Court!

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that threads discussing political parties or candidates are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.