Group Maternity Homes or Naughty Girl Segregation?

[intheflow]

Is anyone else freaked out by this little bit of scary rhetoric from Dubya? Force women to have babies because abortion is illegal, then ship them off, away from pure youngsters and society at large.

First off, who's going to pay for it?

Private charities? They did so well during the turn of the last century, the orphanages and sanitoriums.

Oh, Faith Based Initiatives? Isn't that using public tax dollars to support "those immoral women"? And what government agency decides who qualifies as a faithful church to get those funds?

And we get the added bonus of ripping apart families and other support networks. In most cases, this will be sure to screw the woman up psychologically. Of course the baby will have to be given up for adoption. Could we trust such a harlot to raise a child?

I have a friend who thinks they want to overturn Roe to be assured of enough poor to have soldiers for Perpetual Empire.

The whole thing sounds creepy to me. Like something out of The Handmaid's Tale.

[havocmom]

1. Racing back to the 50s again

OK, lock the young ladies away, so long and the lads get their weenies whacked for their part in things... fair is fair </sarcasm>

[Eye and Monkey]

2. There's some angle on privatization, as well as a faith-based slush fund

Another way to divert tax-payer dollars into BushCo's pocket and reward the "faithful".

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Lebensboren, U.S.A. Wilkommen meine Damen!

[Lerkfish]

4. absolutely horrifying. I said to my wife, and will they be called dachau?

internment camps?

I find that the most frightening of what he said tonight. He said it before, others have mentioned, but I thought it might have been a gaffe. To hear him say it again, resonates a horror.

As I've suggested before, it would appear that anti-abortionists are misogynists.

[meg]

5. When I was a teenager there were 'homes for girls'

and I knew that they were homes to hide away those girls in shame.

[intheflow]

8. Check out the movie

Saved. Just watched it last night. About a "good girl" who literally gives it up for Jesus and gets pregnant. Her pastor wants to send her off to a home. No discussion about what was to happen to her and her baby after giving birth at such a place.

BTW, I got pregnant in HS (early '80's) and was kicked out because it was thought my "condition would be disruptive" to the other students. Of course the father could stay, as his "condition" didn't change, apparently.

[cosmicaug]

6. Olasky's compassionate conservatism.

jinuu wrote:

Is anyone else freaked out by this little bit of scary rhetoric from Dubya? Force women to have babies because abortion is illegal, then ship them off, away from pure youngsters and society at large.

First off, who's going to pay for it?

Private charities? They did so well during the turn of the last century, the orphanages and sanitoriums.

Just what the hell do you think Marvin Olasky's compassionate conservatism concept is all about? Havocmom has it all wrong: they do not want to take us back to the 50's; that's about 5 decades short of their actual goal.

[Technowitch]

7. Go read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale"

...and then you'll know precisely how Shrub and his friends want us women to be.

Servile, pregnant, and completely under the domination of men.

Or, just take a look at this photograph (LINK). This was when he signed the so-called 'partial birth abortion ban' -- which has no exceptions for the life or health of the mother.
[br />Not a single uterus on that stage. NOT ONE.

[intheflow]

12. That is the scariest picture

of letcherous old men I have ever seen. :wow:

[allalone]

9. made me angry as well

the 50s hell, try the 1800s. When did girls start getting pregnant on their own? What part do the males play in this plan to create a subgroup of children? I call them a sub group because the next part of the plan is probably take the kid away from the mother (breeder) have the state raise it and when old enough, send it off to the endless war this bunch of sickos have planned. The people in power right now are old white men. They don't seem to understand that women aren't the same as we were in the olden days. We have, at least I do, a fuck you factor built in. Take you fucking coat hangers and use them on yourselves. We won't go back. End of rant!

[Cats Against Frist]

10. I hate Bush and the GOP, but this is ridiculous

I worked in a group maternity home in Seattle, and nothing of what you suggest was either the inspiration for the home, nor the purpose.

These homes are set up for disadvantaged girls, between the ages of 18-22. They can stay in the home up to two years, but they either have to be 1. pregnant or 2. have a child 3 years of age or younger.

The home provided stability, a warm place for what may have otherwise been homeless teens and young women. There was no religious agenda for the place, and if girls got pregnant while they were there (which would happen), the counselors helped them explore ALL options, including abortion.

These homes were not places for "shipping off" girls a la the 50s. These are places for teens with unstable homes in the first place, and perhaps, nowhere to go.

That said, I can see how it might be dangerous to combine this with faith-based initiatives, becaue the program could get out of control with some whack-a-mole dogma and rhetoric, or any of the other sick things that religious people do to impressionable kids when no one is watching.

The group home that I worked in, however, was secular, and a part of the social service system in Washington State. And I think it was probably a good thing for those girls.

[allalone]

14. then was then, this is now

[intheflow]

15. Civil vs. Private is key

I absolutely applaud your work in WA. You are working for the civil social safety net, which I whole-heartedly support. And I'm even going to school to be a minister!

But I am most worried that the kind of service you are talking about is far different from what Bush envisions. I see it as a debate between private, faith-based "reform" homes and publicly funded, secularly run homes for girls who don't have other options. In the Bush world, I fear, it really is about control over women's bodies.

And if he gets Roe overturned, there will be a lot more women having children which will be a huge financial strain on the social safety net, both public and private.

[Nobody]

11. Not one word about contraception

And how do we prevent pregnancies so that we don't have to have as many abortions?

What about rapists? Abstinence doesn't work when rape is involved.

[Nobody]

13. Dupe post

Had some problems posting. Sorry about the dupe. Mods, feel free to delete.

[aquart]

16. Anti-abortion is de facto white slavery.

Young girls, outcast, disgraced, at the mercy of predators, and I include infertile couples whose money will buy the children. But, mostly, these girls, with no education or money, will become prostitutes. Playtoys for middle-aged legislators.

A man who wants young women to be desperate is a man who needs them to be desperate.