Custom Search

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

North Carolina's "Human Baby Factories" Crisis: Babies For Federal Dollars

Does North Carolina Have A SERIOUS Problem With Teen Pregnancies?

Are Low Income, Unwed Black Women Being Used As Human "Baby Factories" To Procure More Federal Funding For The State Of North Carolina?

Should Birth Control Be Categorized As A Form Of Preventive Medicine Requiring Health Insurance Companies To Include It In Premiums?

Read On & Then Arrive At Your Own Conclusion.

Many Of You Know That I Personally Oppose Abortion.

Just For The Record Abortion Is NOT An Appropriate Form Of Birth Control & Should NOT Be Used As Such!

I Don't Judge People Who Do Endorse Terminating Pregnancies But I Would NEVER Do It Because Its Against My Faith.

However I'm Also Opposed To Women Having & Rearing Children At The Government's Expense, In Most Cases Minus Child Support!

Unless You (Women) Can Independently Afford To Properly Care For Children Don't Reproduce! Period!

After All We're Human Beings NOT Rabbits!

Here's My Next Thought On This Sensitive Subject.

In My Family I Have A Niece Currently Residing In North Carolina Who Could Most Certainly Benefit From The Use Of BIRTH CONTROL & Some SELF-CONTROL!

I Love My Niece Dearly So What's The Problem?

She's A 25 Years Old, Low Income, Unwed Mother Of 4 Beautiful Children!!

Wait A Minute!

Who Paid For Her To Have Those 4 Beautiful Children?


Who's Helping To Care For Those 4 Beautiful Children Even As We Speak?

That's Right TAXPAYERS!

And Yet....

She Won't Properly Use Birth Control, Nor Have Her Fallopian Tubes Tied Because She Wants To Keep Having Babies!

Since All Of Her Children Were Born Via Cesarean Sections (C-Sections) Not Only Is My Niece Being SELFISH & FOOLISH Regarding Her Health, But Her Children Are Suffering Due To Each Of Them Being So Young. (Ages 6, 4, 3, Infant)

Why Were Her Children Delivered Via Cesarean Section Versus Natural Birth, A Less Expensive Method Of Birth?

My Niece Is Physically Able To Reproduce But NOT Medically Able To Have Children Via Natural Birth.

She Tried & Almost Died! Literally!

Forcing My Niece To Have Babies Naturally Would Result In Her Death, Which Would Create A Whole New Chain Of Circumstances & Despair For Her 4 Beautiful Children.

North Carolina Social Workers Are Well Aware Of This Situation But Yet They Allow My Niece To Continue Having Babies At Taxpayers'& The Federal Government's Expense!

How Convenient I Must Say.

Despite What Anyone Else Says Or Thinks, A 25 Year-Old, Low Income, Unwed Mother With 4 Children Can NOT Properly Nurture Her Children!!

At Least NOT Emotionally!

In Fact More Often Than Not Such Circumstances Often Sets The Tone For Women Like My Niece To Commit Acts Of Child Abuse & Neglect, Either Intentionally Or Unintentionally.

(No My Niece Does NOT Physically Abuse Her Children. Thank God!)

Observing My Low Income, Unwed Niece NOT Being Able To Properly Care For Her Young Children Both Frustrates & Hurts Me Because Her Decision To Continue Having Babies Minus A Husband, Minus An Education & Minus Adequate Finances, Creates An Environment Lacking In Emotionally Stability For All Of Them.

In Most Cases Poverty Adversely Affects Young Children, Thereby Hindering Their Chances For Future Academic Success.

I Truly Love Children With All My Heart.

Especially My Niece's Children.

But A Woman's Right To Choose Should NOT Mean That Women Have The Right To Keep Having Children They Can NOT Properly Care For Via Government Assistance!!

Due To The Southern States Illegally Using Eugenics On Black Women & Mentally Retarded Women Against Their Will, Its Now Illegal For Any State To Force Any Woman To Use Birth Control Or Allow Physicians To Tie Her Fallopian Tubes.

However I Don't Agree!!

I Firmly Believe That If An Unwed, Normally Healthy Woman Living In Poverty & Receiving Government Assistance i.e., Welfare Checks (TANF), Food Stamps, Medicaid, Child Care Assistance, Section 8, etc., Refuses To Remain On Birth Control Or Get Her Fallopian Tubes Tied After 2 Or 3 Children Then Either Cut Off Their Assistance!!

Especially If Its Obvious Those Unwed, Normally Healthy Women Want To Continue Having Children To Keep A Boyfriend Or To Use As Pawns For More Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Welfare Payments, etc.,

Unfortunately North Carolina Is A State That Appears To Encourage Low Income, Unwed Mothers To Continue Having Children.

i.e., Human "Baby Factories"


For 2 Reasons:

Reason No. 1) To Procure Large Sums Of Federal Dollars Of Which Only A Very Small Amount Is Distributed To Those Low Income, Unwed Mothers Being Used As "Breeders".

i.e., Slave Chattel "Breeders"

The Rest Is Used By Our Governor & State Legislators To Provide A Higher Mode Of Living For North Carolina's Wealthy WHITE Citizens.

i.e., Better Roads & Highways, Nice Neighborhood Parks, Nice Business Establishments Versus Chicken Joints & ABC Stores, Nice, NEW Public Schools, NEW City Transit Buses, etc.,

So Instead Of Using Federal Funding (TANF) Allocated Specifically To Help Educate & Train Low Income, Unwed Mothers So They Can Become Productive, Self-Sufficient Residents Of North Carolina (Mostly BLACK) State Officials Award Wealthy White Citizens Who Pay Very Little State Income Taxes But That's Another Story For Another Day.

Reason No. 2) To Place THOUSANDS Of BLACK Children From Low Income Homes Headed By Single Mothers In FOSTER CARE Until They Are 21 For The Sole Purpose Of Getting Even More Federal Dollars To Spend On North Carolina's Wealthy WHITE Citizens.

Requiring Low Income, Unwed Mothers Who Rely On Government Assistance To Use Birth Control Or Lose Access To Government Assistance Would Prohibit States Like North Carolina From Profiteering Via Using Such Women As Human "Baby Factories", Thereby Eliminating The Horrible Practice Of Trading Babies For Federal Dollars.

Mainly BLACK Babies!

If You Think I Am Exaggerating About North Carolina's "Human Baby Factories" Crisis, Upon Reading The First Article Below You Will Learn That North Carolina Has One Of The HIGHEST Teen Pregnancy Rates In America!

Thus I Do Agree W/ The Obama Administration's Medical Advisory Panel's Recommendation That Contraceptives SHOULD Be Covered By Health Insurance Companies.

In Fact HIV Testing, HPV Vaccinations & Birth Control Should ALL Be Covered Because They Are Forms Of Preventive Medicine.

i.e., FREE! Completely Covered By Health Insurers!

This Includes MEDICAID Not Just Private Health Insurers.

If Health Insurance Companies & Medicaid Were To Allow Their Plan Premiums To Include Birth Control As Preventive Medicine For Female Patients, States Like North Carolina Would NOT Be Able To Encourage Low Income, Unwed BLACK Women To Breed Babies Like Animals.

Breeding Babies Like Animals To Obtain FAT Checks From The Federal Government!!

I Repeat: A Woman's Right To Choose Should NOT Mean That Women Have The Right To Keep Having Children They Can NOT Properly Care For Via Government Assistance And....

Abortion Is NOT An Appropriate Form Of Birth Control!

So Should Birth Control Be Categorized As A Form Of Preventive Medicine Requiring Health Insurance Companies To Include It In Premiums?


Just My Opinion.

N.C. teen birth rate above national average

U.S. teen birth rates rose sharply in 2006, according to figures released Wednesday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ending a 14-year decline.

While U.S. teen birth rates remained the highest in the industrialized world, the long decline had amounted to a 45 percent reduction since 1991.

According to the figures for 2006, the latest year for which data are available, birth rates for teens ages 15-19 rose by 3.5 percent. This increase marks the largest growth in teen birth rates since 1989-90.

Analysts at liberal and conservative teen-pregnancy awareness groups had begun to notice the declines leveling off in recent years. Though dismayed, they weren't surprised by the upward spike.

The 2006 increase for teens 15-19 was from 40.5 per 1,000 to 41.9. The increases were greatest through the South and Southwest, and lowest in the Northeast.

Mississippi had the highest birth rate: 68.4 births per 1,000 teens ages 15-19. New Mexico and Texas trailed close behind.

New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts had the lowest birth rates. The only states with declines in teen birth rates from 2005 to 2006 were North Dakota, Rhode Island and New York.

North Carolina's rate was nearly 19 percent higher than the national average, according to the report. Like most states, North Carolina's teen pregnancy rate dropped from 1991 to 2005. But the number did grow 2 percent between 2005 and 2006 to 50 births per 1,000 teenage girls in the state.

North Carolina's 2007 official vital statistics showed even higher rates than the CDC report.

Statewide there were about 19,615 teen pregnancies, or 63 per 1,000 girls, according to the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics.

That snapshot put the teen pregnancy rate for New Hanover County at 49, Brunswick County at 67 and Pender County at 51.

"It's a large number that we see throughout the year," Ellen Harrison, New Hanover County's school health supervisor, told members of the county's health board Wednesday.

Michael Carrera, the director of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs at the Children's Aid Foundation in New York City, blamed economic stagnation among low-income families, which, he said, led to indifference about contraception.

"It is one thing to know about contraception, but to want to use it, you must also have knowledge of a good life," he said.

Carrera and other teen-welfare specialists who favor sex education and contraception also think the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Bush administration invested in abstinence-only programs would have been better spent on their approach.

The school systems in Brunswick and Pender counties offer abstinence-only curriculums.

New Hanover County's schools have an abstinence-only curriculum as well as a more comprehensive sex education program, which includes discussion about birth control, as an elective for middle school students.

Janice Crouse, executive director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, an alliance of conservative women, faulted an atmosphere of sexual tolerance, especially on campuses, where teens are "under the influence of peers, and under pressure to drink."

Panel Recommends Coverage for Contraception

A leading medical advisory panel recommended on Tuesday that all insurers be required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge as one of several preventive services under the new health care law.

Obama administration officials said that they were inclined to accept the panel’s advice and that the new requirements could take effect for many plans at the beginning of 2013. The administration signaled its intentions in January when Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, unveiled a 10-year program to improve the nation’s health. One goal was to “increase the proportion of health insurance plans that cover contraceptive supplies and services.”

Administration officials, who say they hope to act on the recommendations by Aug. 1, are receptive to the idea of removing cost as a barrier to birth control — a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.

But the recommendations immediately reignited debate over the government’s role in reproductive health. Women’s groups and medical professionals applauded the recommendations while the Roman Catholic Church raised strenuous objections.

The recommendations came in a report submitted to Ms. Sebelius by the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. The new health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them. Ms. Sebelius will decide on a minimum package of essential health benefits, and her decision will not require further action by Congress.

The panel said insurers should be forbidden to charge co-payments for contraceptives and other preventive services because even small charges could deter their use. The recommendation would not help women without insurance.

The administration asked the Institute of Medicine, a nonpartisan, nongovernmental arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to help identify the specific services that must be covered for women.

“This report is historic,” Ms. Sebelius said on Tuesday in accepting the document. “Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventive care did not exist. These recommendations are based on science and existing literature.”

In addition to contraceptive services for women, the panel recommended that the government require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; and counseling and equipment to promote breastfeeding, including the free rental of breast pumps.

The panel also said all insurers should be required to cover screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits. Such visits could include prenatal care and preconception care, to make sure women are healthy when they become pregnant.

Defending its recommendations on contraceptive coverage, the panel said that nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, and that about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Thus, it said, greater use of contraception would reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, teenage pregnancy and abortion.

The chairwoman of the panel, Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said, “We did not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in our deliberations.”

But the panel’s report says that “contraception is highly cost-effective,” averting unintended pregnancies that would be far more expensive than contraception.

To reduce unintended pregnancies, the panel said, insurers should cover the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as sterilization procedures and “education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”

This recommendation would require coverage of emergency contraceptives including pills like ella and Plan B, panel members said.

Under rules issued last year, many health plans are already required to cover numerous preventive services like blood pressure and cholesterol tests, colonoscopies and other cancer screenings, and routine vaccinations. A provision of the law drafted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, requires coverage of “additional preventive care and screenings” for women.

Most private insurance provides contraceptive coverage, but co-payments have increased in recent years, the panel said.

The report touched off a fierce debate Tuesday. Obstetricians, gynecologists, public health experts and Democratic women in Congress hailed the recommendations.

“We are one step closer to saying goodbye to an era when simply being a woman is treated as a pre-existing condition,” Ms. Mikulski said. “We are saying hello to an era where decisions about preventive care and screenings are made by a woman and her doctor, not by an insurance company.”

Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, said the recommendations would remove cost as a barrier to birth control — and in hard economic times like these, she said, cost can be a formidable barrier.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and some conservative groups, including the Family Research Council, denounced the recommendation on birth control.

“Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition to be suppressed,” said Deirdre A. McQuade, a spokeswoman for the bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. “But the Institute of Medicine report treats them as such.”

Ms. McQuade expressed deep concern about requiring coverage of surgical sterilizations and contraceptive drugs and devices.

Jeanne Monahan, the director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, said: “Some people have moral or ethical objections to contraceptives. They should not be forced to violate their conscience by paying premiums to health plans that cover these items and services.”

One panel member, Prof. Anthony Lo Sasso, a health economist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, filed a dissent, saying the committee did not have enough time to conduct “a serious and systematic review” of the evidence.

The report, he said, includes “a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”

View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, Dr. Phil, MSNBC, NY Times, Star News Online, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

No comments: