S.C. DSS Fails Federal Child Welfare Standards
May 3, 2010yvonnemason
3 Votes
This is just one state- I am sure there are others.
S.C. DSS Fails Federal Child Welfare Standards
Rick Brundrett
The Nerve
READ BIOGRAPHY
Written By: Rick Brundrett
The Nerve
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The S.C. Department of Social Services failed to meet all seven federal benchmarks measuring the agency’s ability to serve abused and neglected children, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report.
A longtime Columbia children’s law attorney who was interviewed for the federal study called the results “pretty significant.”
“They (DSS) have a real hard time identifying the kids and families who truly need intervention, and the kids and their parents who could be left alone or left alone with some basic services,” attorney Jay Elliott told The Nerve when contacted last week.
Elliott, past chairman of the S.C. Bar’s Children’s Law Committee, said the federal report, known as the Child and Family Services Review, highlights the need to combine various state agencies that deal with children’s issues, including DSS’ Child Protective Services division and the S.C. Department of Juvenile Justice, into one department.
Illinois officials last month announced that its juvenile justice department would merge with its Department of Children and Family Services, he pointed out.
“I think reorganizing the state’s child welfare system to create a department of children, youth and family services would go a long way to elevating the amount and quality of services to kids and their parents,” Elliott said.
Asked why DSS failed to meet the federal benchmarks, department spokeswoman Marilyn Matheus in a written response to The Nerve said South Carolina’s performance was not out of line with the results in other states, noting the report is based on two rounds of reviews.
“No state has passed all measures on the CFSR in Round One, nor has any state passed all of the outcome measures in Round 2,” she said.
Matheus referred The Nerve to the department’s initial prepared statement last month after the final report for South Carolina was released.
In that press release, the department acknowledged: “Despite concerted efforts by the staff of DSS and sister agencies and communities across our state, our child welfare system is falling short of what we believe it needs to do. Our state has not invested the resources it needs to meet the treatment, protection and prevention needs of families where children are at risk.”
Matheus told The Nerve that in response to the federal report, the department is “in the process of developing a Program Improvement Plan to address the areas needing improvement,” adding, “We are in the midst of negotiating the terms of that plan with the federal Administration for Children and Families.”
A spokesman for the federal agency did not respond last week to written questions by The Nerve.
Not in ‘Substantial Conformity’
The federal report on South Carolina’s child welfare program found that DSS was not in “substantial conformity” in all seven “safety, well-being and permanency outcomes.”
The study, conducted the week of July 27, 2009, was based on reviews of 40 foster care and 25 in-home services cases in Aiken, Beaufort and Greenville counties, along with interviews with parents, children, foster and adoptive parents, child welfare officials and others, the report said.
The seven benchmarks that DSS failed to meet were, according to the report:
•Safety Outcome 1 – “Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.”
•Safety Outcome 2 – “Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate.”
•Permanency Outcome 1 – “Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.”
•Permanency Outcome 2 – “The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved.”
•Well-Being Outcome 1 – “Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children’s needs.”
•Well-Being Outcome 2 – “Children receive services to meet their educational needs.”
•Well-Being Outcome 3 – “Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs.”
To be in “substantial conformity” in any given category, 95 percent of the applicable cases in that group must have been rated as having been in “substantial conformity with the outcome,” according to the report.
The department was given the lowest ratings in sub-categories dealing with adoption; assessing the needs of children, parents and foster parents; allowing children in foster care to visit with parents and siblings; family involvement in case planning; and caseworker visits with parents, the report said.
The report’s executive summary said DSS’ performance was “fairly high” in one category (meeting educational needs of children) and several other sub-categories, though it didn’t meet the overall benchmarks.
It also noted that the agency met five of seven benchmarks in another part of the study that dealt with its information, staff training, licensing and community responsiveness programs.
“HHS acknowledges the hard work and progress of South Carolina in making positive changes in its practice and enhancing services to children and families served by the child welfare system,” the executive summary said.
But Elliott said those observations should not downplay the seriousness of the report’s findings.
“To say, ‘We came pretty close in two or three areas,’ obscures the fact that overall they flunked,” he said.
Consistent Failure
DSS didn’t do much better in its last federal review in 2003, failing to meet benchmarks in six of the seven categories dealing with services to abused and neglected children, according to that report.
In a double dose of bad news, the department received the latest federal report on March 5, the same day the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled in a groundbreaking opinion that S.C. DSS employees could be sued for not protecting children in foster care from mistreatment.
Elliott said part of the problem is that DSS caseworkers handling abuse and neglect cases typically are not licensed social workers, adding some of them have been transferred from other DSS divisions.
He also said although DSS Director Kathleen Hayes is “probably one of the most competent, skilled child welfare people in the country,” he believes she is not paying enough attention to the Child Protective Services division because she is “distracted” with dealing with the agency’s other large divisions, such as the welfare payments system.
Responding to those claims, Matheus said: “DSS has never wavered in its commitment to child protective services. Being a licensed social worker is not a requirement for DSS child welfare caseworkers. However, we are currently involved in a statewide partnership with all the colleges and universities in South Carolina that offer bachelor and/or master of social work degrees.”
On any given day, the agency oversees about 5,400 children in foster care and another 11,000 through family treatment services, the department said in a separate release.
Over the last fiscal year, the department cared for a total of 9,356 children in foster care and 24,713 children in family treatment services, the release said.
In calendar year 2009, the department received more than 28,000 referrals for child abuse or neglect, accepting 18,000 referrals for investigation involving more than 30,500 children, according to the release.
Abuse or neglect was found in about 7,000 investigations involving more than 12,700 children, the release said.
Preliminary department figures for last fiscal year show that 1,717 children statewide were waiting for adoption, including 677 children legally free for adoption.
As a comparison, there were nearly 100 fewer children waiting for adoption in South Carolina in fiscal year 2005, records show.
Reach Brundrett at (803) 779-5022, ext. 106, or rick@scpolicycouncil.com.
http://protectingourchildrenfrombeingsold.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/s-c-dss-fails-federal-child-welfare-standards/
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Fight to save kinship programs (and dollars) comes to Capitol
Fight to save kinship programs (and dollars) comes to Capitol
Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM by Bryan Fitzgerald in General
Grandparents gathered at the Capitol today to call on legislators to stop budget cuts to kinship caregiver programs. Current budget proposals would cut funding from $3 million to $1 million.
Advocates say that kinship programs save taxpayers money by keeping children out of foster care. According to the Office of Children Family Services, the average cost of a child in non-specialized foster care is $22,000 per year, compared to just $500 per child in a kinship program.
Kinship caregivers raise between 350,000 to 400,000 children in New York. According to the AARP, New York spends $1.5 billion on foster care a year.
“Programs that support grandparents who are raising grandchildren and other relatives caregivers cost New York State a fraction of what the state spends on foster care,” said Lois Aronstein, AARP New York State Director. “Without the essential supports and services that kinship programs provide to grandparents, more children could be forced into the foster care system at a greater cost to New York taxpayers.
The AARP also states that children who live with grandparents achieve more permanency, better well-being, and better outcomes than children in foster care.
“Kinship families are a natural resource for children,” said Gerald Wallace, director of the New York State Kinship Navigator Program. “But for their care, most of these children would be in foster care. It makes no sense to abandon the one resource we have that works for kids.”
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/26032/fight-to-save-kinship-programs-and-dollars-comes-to-capitol/
Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM by Bryan Fitzgerald in General
Grandparents gathered at the Capitol today to call on legislators to stop budget cuts to kinship caregiver programs. Current budget proposals would cut funding from $3 million to $1 million.
Advocates say that kinship programs save taxpayers money by keeping children out of foster care. According to the Office of Children Family Services, the average cost of a child in non-specialized foster care is $22,000 per year, compared to just $500 per child in a kinship program.
Kinship caregivers raise between 350,000 to 400,000 children in New York. According to the AARP, New York spends $1.5 billion on foster care a year.
“Programs that support grandparents who are raising grandchildren and other relatives caregivers cost New York State a fraction of what the state spends on foster care,” said Lois Aronstein, AARP New York State Director. “Without the essential supports and services that kinship programs provide to grandparents, more children could be forced into the foster care system at a greater cost to New York taxpayers.
The AARP also states that children who live with grandparents achieve more permanency, better well-being, and better outcomes than children in foster care.
“Kinship families are a natural resource for children,” said Gerald Wallace, director of the New York State Kinship Navigator Program. “But for their care, most of these children would be in foster care. It makes no sense to abandon the one resource we have that works for kids.”
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/26032/fight-to-save-kinship-programs-and-dollars-comes-to-capitol/
Minnesota Taxpayers: Abortions Are Done on Your Dime at Planned Parenthood
Minnesota Taxpayers: Abortions Are Done on Your Dime at Planned Parenthood
by Bill Poehler
May 10, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Bill Poehler is the communications director for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. This op-ed originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Last week's announcement that Planned Parenthood will build a large new abortion center in St. Paul's Midway neighborhood brings to light the contentious issue of government funding of elective abortions. While it is true that Planned Parenthood will use private donations of approximately $18 million to construct its new complex, its day-to-day operations will continue to rely heavily on taxpayer funds.
Many Minnesotans still do not realize that they fund abortions every day simply by paying state taxes -- sales tax, income tax and other taxes. This is the result of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1995 Doe vs. Gomez decision, in which the court "found" a right to taxpayer-funded abortion in the state Constitution.
Since the ruling, abortion centers have been reimbursed with $15.6 million for 50,000 abortions, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Services. In 2008, the most recent figures available, taxpayers paid $1.5 million for 3,754 abortions. Roughly 99 percent of these abortions are elective, meaning they are performed for reasons other than to save the mother's life, or in cases of reported rape or incest.
In addition to direct abortion funding, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's largest abortion business, received a staggering $349 million in taxpayer dollars in the form of federal and state government grants and contracts in 2007 (latest figures). Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota received $5.26 million from federal, state and local governments in 2008.
Abortion providers are poised to receive even more federal funds under President Obama's new health care overhaul, which PPFA hailed as "a huge victory."
Not only does the law subsidize health plans that cover abortion, it also opens the door to direct federal funding of abortions at community health centers, or CHCs. The law appropriates $11 billion over five years to approximately 1,250 different CHCs; on its website, Planned Parenthood says that 850 CHCs are run by Planned Parenthood affiliates.
There are no restrictions to prevent that money from paying for abortions, according to legal experts, including Columbus School of Law Prof. Robert A. Destro, who is an authority on abortion funding, who helped to write the amicus brief filed by 218 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Harris vs. McRae (1980), and who has written: "The history of abortion funding litigation since Roe v. Wade in 1973 demonstrates conclusively that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] will be forced by the courts to pay for abortions with the CHC money appropriated by the Senate health care bill."
This is true, primarily because the CHC funds are a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself and will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. These funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which only prohibits use of annual HHS appropriations to fund abortions.
Indeed, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project have produced an "administrative billing guide" to help CHCs integrate abortion into their practices within the confines of federal and state restrictions.
The sad truth is that this will lead to more abortions performed on low-income and vulnerable women. Statistics show that when public funding of abortion is instituted or expanded, the numbers of abortions increase very significantly. A study by the Guttmacher Institute, a prochoice research organization, found that the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was more than twice as high in those states that publicly funded abortion through Medicaid.
The bottom line is that abortion is about money. Abortion, which ends the life of a developing human being, is now the most common surgical procedure in the United States. It has become an enormously profitable enterprise, marketed to ethnic and immigrant populations in their native-language newspapers; to students and young people as the solution to the "problem" of pregnancy, and to women everywhere as their absolute "right" without regard for the life that is destroyed.
Abortion providers are poised to receive even more federal funds under President Obama's new health care overhaul, which PPFA hailed as "a huge victory." Not only does the law subsidize health plans that cover abortion, it also opens the door to direct federal funding of abortions at community health centers, or CHCs. The law appropriates $11 billion over five years to approximately 1,250 different CHCs; on its website, Planned Parenthood says that 850 CHCs are run by Planned Parenthood affiliates.
There are no restrictions to prevent that money from paying for abortions, according to legal experts, including Columbus School of Law Prof. Robert A. Destro, who is an authority on abortion funding, who helped to write the amicus brief filed by 218 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Harris vs. McRae (1980), and who has written: "The history of abortion funding litigation since Roe v. Wade in 1973 demonstrates conclusively that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] will be forced by the courts to pay for abortions with the CHC money appropriated by the Senate health care bill."
This is true, primarily because the CHC funds are a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself and will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. These funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which only prohibits use of annual HHS appropriations to fund abortions.
Indeed, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project have produced an "administrative billing guide" to help CHCs integrate abortion into their practices within the confines of federal and state restrictions.
The sad truth is that this will lead to more abortions performed on low-income and vulnerable women. Statistics show that when public funding of abortion is instituted or expanded, the numbers of abortions increase very significantly. A study by the Guttmacher Institute, a prochoice research organization, found that the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was more than twice as high in those states that publicly funded abortion through Medicaid.
The bottom line is that abortion is about money. Abortion, which ends the life of a developing human being, is now the most common surgical procedure in the United States. It has become an enormously profitable enterprise, marketed to ethnic and immigrant populations in their native-language newspapers; to students and young people as the solution to the "problem" of pregnancy, and to women everywhere as their absolute "right" without regard for the life that is destroyed.
The bottom line is that abortion is about money. Abortion, which ends the life of a developing human being, is now the most common surgical procedure in the United States. It has become an enormously profitable enterprise, marketed to ethnic and immigrant populations in their native-language newspapers; to students and young people as the solution to the "problem" of pregnancy, and to women everywhere as their absolute "right" without regard for the life that is destroyed.
http://www.lifenews.com/state5084.html
by Bill Poehler
May 10, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Bill Poehler is the communications director for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. This op-ed originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Last week's announcement that Planned Parenthood will build a large new abortion center in St. Paul's Midway neighborhood brings to light the contentious issue of government funding of elective abortions. While it is true that Planned Parenthood will use private donations of approximately $18 million to construct its new complex, its day-to-day operations will continue to rely heavily on taxpayer funds.
Many Minnesotans still do not realize that they fund abortions every day simply by paying state taxes -- sales tax, income tax and other taxes. This is the result of the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1995 Doe vs. Gomez decision, in which the court "found" a right to taxpayer-funded abortion in the state Constitution.
Since the ruling, abortion centers have been reimbursed with $15.6 million for 50,000 abortions, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Services. In 2008, the most recent figures available, taxpayers paid $1.5 million for 3,754 abortions. Roughly 99 percent of these abortions are elective, meaning they are performed for reasons other than to save the mother's life, or in cases of reported rape or incest.
In addition to direct abortion funding, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the nation's largest abortion business, received a staggering $349 million in taxpayer dollars in the form of federal and state government grants and contracts in 2007 (latest figures). Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota received $5.26 million from federal, state and local governments in 2008.
Abortion providers are poised to receive even more federal funds under President Obama's new health care overhaul, which PPFA hailed as "a huge victory."
Not only does the law subsidize health plans that cover abortion, it also opens the door to direct federal funding of abortions at community health centers, or CHCs. The law appropriates $11 billion over five years to approximately 1,250 different CHCs; on its website, Planned Parenthood says that 850 CHCs are run by Planned Parenthood affiliates.
There are no restrictions to prevent that money from paying for abortions, according to legal experts, including Columbus School of Law Prof. Robert A. Destro, who is an authority on abortion funding, who helped to write the amicus brief filed by 218 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Harris vs. McRae (1980), and who has written: "The history of abortion funding litigation since Roe v. Wade in 1973 demonstrates conclusively that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] will be forced by the courts to pay for abortions with the CHC money appropriated by the Senate health care bill."
This is true, primarily because the CHC funds are a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself and will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. These funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which only prohibits use of annual HHS appropriations to fund abortions.
Indeed, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project have produced an "administrative billing guide" to help CHCs integrate abortion into their practices within the confines of federal and state restrictions.
The sad truth is that this will lead to more abortions performed on low-income and vulnerable women. Statistics show that when public funding of abortion is instituted or expanded, the numbers of abortions increase very significantly. A study by the Guttmacher Institute, a prochoice research organization, found that the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was more than twice as high in those states that publicly funded abortion through Medicaid.
The bottom line is that abortion is about money. Abortion, which ends the life of a developing human being, is now the most common surgical procedure in the United States. It has become an enormously profitable enterprise, marketed to ethnic and immigrant populations in their native-language newspapers; to students and young people as the solution to the "problem" of pregnancy, and to women everywhere as their absolute "right" without regard for the life that is destroyed.
Abortion providers are poised to receive even more federal funds under President Obama's new health care overhaul, which PPFA hailed as "a huge victory." Not only does the law subsidize health plans that cover abortion, it also opens the door to direct federal funding of abortions at community health centers, or CHCs. The law appropriates $11 billion over five years to approximately 1,250 different CHCs; on its website, Planned Parenthood says that 850 CHCs are run by Planned Parenthood affiliates.
There are no restrictions to prevent that money from paying for abortions, according to legal experts, including Columbus School of Law Prof. Robert A. Destro, who is an authority on abortion funding, who helped to write the amicus brief filed by 218 members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Harris vs. McRae (1980), and who has written: "The history of abortion funding litigation since Roe v. Wade in 1973 demonstrates conclusively that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] will be forced by the courts to pay for abortions with the CHC money appropriated by the Senate health care bill."
This is true, primarily because the CHC funds are a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself and will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. These funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which only prohibits use of annual HHS appropriations to fund abortions.
Indeed, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project have produced an "administrative billing guide" to help CHCs integrate abortion into their practices within the confines of federal and state restrictions.
The sad truth is that this will lead to more abortions performed on low-income and vulnerable women. Statistics show that when public funding of abortion is instituted or expanded, the numbers of abortions increase very significantly. A study by the Guttmacher Institute, a prochoice research organization, found that the abortion rate among Medicaid recipients was more than twice as high in those states that publicly funded abortion through Medicaid.
The bottom line is that abortion is about money. Abortion, which ends the life of a developing human being, is now the most common surgical procedure in the United States. It has become an enormously profitable enterprise, marketed to ethnic and immigrant populations in their native-language newspapers; to students and young people as the solution to the "problem" of pregnancy, and to women everywhere as their absolute "right" without regard for the life that is destroyed.
The bottom line is that abortion is about money. Abortion, which ends the life of a developing human being, is now the most common surgical procedure in the United States. It has become an enormously profitable enterprise, marketed to ethnic and immigrant populations in their native-language newspapers; to students and young people as the solution to the "problem" of pregnancy, and to women everywhere as their absolute "right" without regard for the life that is destroyed.
http://www.lifenews.com/state5084.html
Planned Parenthood Annual Report: Abortion Totals, Government Funding Increase
Planned Parenthood Annual Report: Abortion Totals, Government Funding Increase
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 8, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has released its annual report for fiscal year 2007-2008. The document shows the nation's largest abortion business is getting bigger as it showed an increase of five percent more abortions and increased taxpayer funding.
According to Planned Parenthood's latest report, abortions increased to 305,310 abortions up from 289,750 in 2006.
That 5.3 percent increase came at a time when the Alan Guttmacher Institute, it's former research arm, showed abortions were at near-historic lows.
Thus, while abortions were on the decline in the United States, and while Planned Parenthood sought to distance itself from its abortion business, Planned Parenthood did more abortions than it has done in years.
The annual report showed more government funding heading to the abortion business even if the taxpayer funds did not directly pay for abortions.
The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million.
Looking at Planned Parenthood data from 1997 to the present, the increase in government funding corresponds with an increase in the number of abortions. (See image)
In 1997, Planned Parenthood did about 160,000 abortions and received approximately $160 million in total taxpayer funding from various levels of government. Both the number of abortions and the amount of money received from government, supposedly for family planning to reduce abortions, has double since then.
In previous annual reports, Planned Parenthood had been criticized for a lowering of the number of adoption referrals and then leaving the referral number entirely out of its previous annual report.
This new document boasts that the number of adoption referrals provided by Planned Parenthood increased by over 100 percent from 2,410 referrals in 2006 to 4,912 referrals in 2007.
However, the total number of adoption referrals still amounts to a number equal to only one-third of the increase in the number of abortions done by Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Planned Parenthood also says it helped just under 11,000 women in 2007 with prenatal care and pregnancy help services.
Yet, prenatal care and adoption referrals resulted for only 5 percent of the total services provided to women in 2007 while abortions accounted for 95 percent of the services that year, according to Planned Parenthood's own figures. (See image)
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4978.html
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 8, 2009
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has released its annual report for fiscal year 2007-2008. The document shows the nation's largest abortion business is getting bigger as it showed an increase of five percent more abortions and increased taxpayer funding.
According to Planned Parenthood's latest report, abortions increased to 305,310 abortions up from 289,750 in 2006.
That 5.3 percent increase came at a time when the Alan Guttmacher Institute, it's former research arm, showed abortions were at near-historic lows.
Thus, while abortions were on the decline in the United States, and while Planned Parenthood sought to distance itself from its abortion business, Planned Parenthood did more abortions than it has done in years.
The annual report showed more government funding heading to the abortion business even if the taxpayer funds did not directly pay for abortions.
The total government grants and contracts received by PPFA affiliates from government sources including state, local and federal governments, increased from $337 million to $350 million.
Looking at Planned Parenthood data from 1997 to the present, the increase in government funding corresponds with an increase in the number of abortions. (See image)
In 1997, Planned Parenthood did about 160,000 abortions and received approximately $160 million in total taxpayer funding from various levels of government. Both the number of abortions and the amount of money received from government, supposedly for family planning to reduce abortions, has double since then.
In previous annual reports, Planned Parenthood had been criticized for a lowering of the number of adoption referrals and then leaving the referral number entirely out of its previous annual report.
This new document boasts that the number of adoption referrals provided by Planned Parenthood increased by over 100 percent from 2,410 referrals in 2006 to 4,912 referrals in 2007.
However, the total number of adoption referrals still amounts to a number equal to only one-third of the increase in the number of abortions done by Planned Parenthood affiliates.
Planned Parenthood also says it helped just under 11,000 women in 2007 with prenatal care and pregnancy help services.
Yet, prenatal care and adoption referrals resulted for only 5 percent of the total services provided to women in 2007 while abortions accounted for 95 percent of the services that year, according to Planned Parenthood's own figures. (See image)
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4978.html
Babies Movie Shows No Child Deserves Abortion, a Motion Picture Instead
Babies Movie Shows No Child Deserves Abortion, a Motion Picture Instead
by Maria Vitale
May 10, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Maria Vitale is an opinion columnist for LifeNews.com. She is the Public Relations Director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and Vitale has written and reported for various broadcast and print media outlets, including National Public Radio, CBS Radio, and AP Radio.
I've often thought that the babies of the world need their own PR campaign -- they seem so often unappreciated in today’s culture.
Now comes a film which gives the planet’s youngest citizens the recognition they deserve. "Babies" by filmmaker Thomas Balmes paints a captivating portrait of four babies, each of whom has a unique place in the world.
Ponijao lives near Opuwo, Namibia; Bayarjargal is from Bayanchandmani, Mongolia. Mari hails from Tokyo, Japan, while Hattie is a native of San Francisco in the United States. There is no narration; instead, the real-life story tells itself through the eyes of the little stars.
What struck me was the preciousness of it all. Whether peeling a banana, dancing, crawling, smiling, or even throwing a temper tantrum, these children of vastly different nationalities and cultures were so precious. Why then do we destroy such preciousness 1.2 million times a year through abortion?
It would be interesting to take a poll of those who go to see the film -- both before and after a screening. I'd like to know what they thought of abortion before viewing the movie—and what they thought afterward. It’s mind-boggling to think that our society routinely discards human beings in the name of “choice.”
I would also be interested in finding out what prompts people to attend “Babies.”
Have they experienced the love of babies through their own family experiences, or do they go out of curiosity, to find out what can be so fascinating about human beings who are completely dependent on others for their survival? Do they come to re-live the joy they once had, or to discover what they've missed?
One reviewer I read said that, of those children who appeared in the film, the happiest seemed to be those from Namibia. They also seemed to be physically closest to their mother and to other children. They did not seem to have much in terms of material goods, but they were rich in love.
I found that “Babies” left me wanting more.
Spoiler alert: During the credits, you are able to catch a glimpse of what the babies look like, now that they're toddlers. I wanted the camera to follow them for another hour and a half, to see what they're up to now.
Every life is worthy of a major motion picture, whether the person is born into luxury or abject poverty. Every person is needed on the planet, to fulfill a specific and unrepeatable role. When an abortion occurs, the story line is tragically altered, destroying an important piece of human history. Time marches on, but even one abortion greatly impoverishes us all.
Related web sites:
Babies - http://focusfeatures.com/film/babies
http://www.lifenews.com/int1538.html
by Maria Vitale
May 10, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Maria Vitale is an opinion columnist for LifeNews.com. She is the Public Relations Director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and Vitale has written and reported for various broadcast and print media outlets, including National Public Radio, CBS Radio, and AP Radio.
I've often thought that the babies of the world need their own PR campaign -- they seem so often unappreciated in today’s culture.
Now comes a film which gives the planet’s youngest citizens the recognition they deserve. "Babies" by filmmaker Thomas Balmes paints a captivating portrait of four babies, each of whom has a unique place in the world.
Ponijao lives near Opuwo, Namibia; Bayarjargal is from Bayanchandmani, Mongolia. Mari hails from Tokyo, Japan, while Hattie is a native of San Francisco in the United States. There is no narration; instead, the real-life story tells itself through the eyes of the little stars.
What struck me was the preciousness of it all. Whether peeling a banana, dancing, crawling, smiling, or even throwing a temper tantrum, these children of vastly different nationalities and cultures were so precious. Why then do we destroy such preciousness 1.2 million times a year through abortion?
It would be interesting to take a poll of those who go to see the film -- both before and after a screening. I'd like to know what they thought of abortion before viewing the movie—and what they thought afterward. It’s mind-boggling to think that our society routinely discards human beings in the name of “choice.”
I would also be interested in finding out what prompts people to attend “Babies.”
Have they experienced the love of babies through their own family experiences, or do they go out of curiosity, to find out what can be so fascinating about human beings who are completely dependent on others for their survival? Do they come to re-live the joy they once had, or to discover what they've missed?
One reviewer I read said that, of those children who appeared in the film, the happiest seemed to be those from Namibia. They also seemed to be physically closest to their mother and to other children. They did not seem to have much in terms of material goods, but they were rich in love.
I found that “Babies” left me wanting more.
Spoiler alert: During the credits, you are able to catch a glimpse of what the babies look like, now that they're toddlers. I wanted the camera to follow them for another hour and a half, to see what they're up to now.
Every life is worthy of a major motion picture, whether the person is born into luxury or abject poverty. Every person is needed on the planet, to fulfill a specific and unrepeatable role. When an abortion occurs, the story line is tragically altered, destroying an important piece of human history. Time marches on, but even one abortion greatly impoverishes us all.
Related web sites:
Babies - http://focusfeatures.com/film/babies
http://www.lifenews.com/int1538.html
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CPS/DPSS/DFS/HRS
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST CPS/DPSS/DFS/HRS
CPS manufactures multiple nonexistent/fictitious abuse case scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information.
CPS concurrently processes these children from foster care to Adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form of bonuses.
CPS provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts (Judges, psychologists, visitation monitors, court mandated behavioral class instructors, court appointed legal counsel, etc...), in order for them to financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system they themselves perpetuate.
CPS victimizes innocent financially challenged families, and draws them into a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for this corrupt child commerce.
CPS is utilized by family court officials and attorneys as an adverse tool to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to "parental alienation syndrome," where in truth, the CPS caseworkers are the ones initiating the alienation of these children from their own birth parents. Caseworkers are never allowed to testify in court under the cloak of "CPS Authority" due to possible misuse or conflict of interest related to right to privacy laws (Very convenient)
CPS utilizes unlawful & coercive measures to persuade vulnerable parents to submit to statements of nonexistent abuse, forcing desperate parents to "plea bargain" to a CPS fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster care.
CPS fabricates false allegations and most of their "investigations" to purposely mislead or misdirect a case.
CPS intentionally fails to prosecute Parents accused of child abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been committed. However, CPS continues to claim a crime has been committed, as THEY abuse/neglect the children.
CPS knowingly abandons children into the foster care system, conscious that some individuals in these homes physically and/or sexually abuse those in their "protective" custody. CPS ignores crimes committed in foster care through failure to investigate.
CPS fails to question these individuals for their abusive conduct, whereby, if it were a birth parent or not a foster care parent, these individuals would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in criminal court.
CPS represents themselves in positive personas by omitting, altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well being of children.
The Police should determine if children need protection from their own parents, since child abuse is a Criminal offense.
fightcpscalifornia@gmail.com for more information about the lawsuit.
CPS manufactures multiple nonexistent/fictitious abuse case scenarios to offset true statistical abuse case information.
CPS concurrently processes these children from foster care to Adoption, in order to obtain perverse monetary incentives in the form of bonuses.
CPS provides a market to neighboring agencies and the courts (Judges, psychologists, visitation monitors, court mandated behavioral class instructors, court appointed legal counsel, etc...), in order for them to financially benefit from the foster care/adoption system they themselves perpetuate.
CPS victimizes innocent financially challenged families, and draws them into a corrupt system to utilize their children as pawns for this corrupt child commerce.
CPS is utilized by family court officials and attorneys as an adverse tool to extricate children from one parent to the other, with reference to "parental alienation syndrome," where in truth, the CPS caseworkers are the ones initiating the alienation of these children from their own birth parents. Caseworkers are never allowed to testify in court under the cloak of "CPS Authority" due to possible misuse or conflict of interest related to right to privacy laws (Very convenient)
CPS utilizes unlawful & coercive measures to persuade vulnerable parents to submit to statements of nonexistent abuse, forcing desperate parents to "plea bargain" to a CPS fabricated crime, for the return of their children from foster care.
CPS fabricates false allegations and most of their "investigations" to purposely mislead or misdirect a case.
CPS intentionally fails to prosecute Parents accused of child abuse, since in the majority of cases, no initial crime has been committed. However, CPS continues to claim a crime has been committed, as THEY abuse/neglect the children.
CPS knowingly abandons children into the foster care system, conscious that some individuals in these homes physically and/or sexually abuse those in their "protective" custody. CPS ignores crimes committed in foster care through failure to investigate.
CPS fails to question these individuals for their abusive conduct, whereby, if it were a birth parent or not a foster care parent, these individuals would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in criminal court.
CPS represents themselves in positive personas by omitting, altering, and falsifying documents, so as to mislead the public and or government of their true actions as listed above. Thereby publicly grandstanding, displaying an inaccurate social martyrdom for the well being of children.
The Police should determine if children need protection from their own parents, since child abuse is a Criminal offense.
fightcpscalifornia@gmail.com for more information about the lawsuit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)