Thursday, June 11, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods No Place on Tennessee GOP Agenda for Keeping Babies Alive
Posted by Jeff Woods on Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM
"Some of these cuts are personal. The House spent two months talking about abortion this year, and now we've got a budget cut to eliminate the infant mortality money. That borders on being hypocritical as to what you believe in, whether you are pro-family or pro-life. It's a study on infant mortality. It's a study on how to keep these babies alive. I've got zip codes in my hometown with infant mortality rates of Third World countries. We've got to figure out how to stop that and we don't need to wait until we've got a budget surplus to do it."
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
like
dislike
The problem with the Dumbocrats is they fail to understand one important fact: we don't need another "study", otherwise known as a lucrative job for a politically connected individual.
We already know how to reduce infant mortality.
Watch the amazing Carmen as he saves the State 1.5 million dollars by magically predicting what the study would say.
These women who are at risk need to eat right, go to the doctor, and maybe take it easy in the third trimester. Possibly it's a good idea to cut back on binge drinking and chain smoking.
Stop wasting my money, Jim Kyle. The reason you have third world infant mortality rates in your district is because these people are the dregs of society. Carmen would like to wave a wand and make them reasonable, intelligent people who take responsibility for themselves, but my magic only goes so far.
So, that's the winning argument the Republicans have settled on? Women who lose their babies deserve it because they can't behave.
You make some pretty good points here, Joe. But shouldn't we at least try to do something about it? From a pure fiscal standpoint, it seems a lot better to help kids when they're young than pay so much more for extra schooling, health care, perhaps prison when they grow up. I agree that it's hard to help the families you describe. But if you don't step in early, and step in hard, we're all pretty much screwed once the kids reach middle school age.
Pete, you're trying to find common ground with a man who's blaming women for the deaths of their babies. And I know you're new to the area and it can be hard to accept, but honest to god, in this state, when folks start talking bad about "Memphis" it's how they talk bad about black people without having to look too racist.
So, all Joe Carmen is saying here is that he doesn't want the state to waste his money on the dregs of society, who live in Jim Kyle's district--i.e. black people.
Who the hell cares about finding common ground with someone with that attitude?
I don't know, B. He makes a good point about all the money we've blown trying to help people who don't want to be helped -- at least in the way we want to help them. And he has a very good point about government studies being an expensive placebo for action. (I'm also a little gunshy about throwing racial motives here, though admittedly I'm not fluent in the code.)
I guess my point is that, whether it's via basic compassion or pure fiscal prudence, it's way better to help these kids early than late. My sister-in-law used to teach Head Start in rural Minnesota. You'd be amazed at the stories of parental neglect, or just parental stupidity. So I think even Joe will agree that early intervention is the better financial play. What's the annual cost to keep someone in prison? Something like 50 grand?
Pete, come now. You think that women who lose babies lose babies because they don't want to be helped?
I know you don't believe that.
Is a study a waste? Only if it's not backed up by action. Would I prefer they skip ahead and do what Barbara Clinton was recommending last year? Yes.
But you know, the fact that programs like Clinton's exist across the state (and across the South) is proof that these communities know there's a dire problem and are desperate for help.
I was thinking of the babies lost to addiction, not to the lack of pre-natal care. What's wrong with you, B? Can't you read my mind?
Yes, but the hours of "Cleveland Rocks" get to me and I start to tune out the rest of what you're thinking. Apparently I'm missing the interesting stuff.
I meant that to be funny, but upon re-reading, it sounds a little bitchy. And not in a funny way. Apologies.
Take heart, my good liberals, the mandate to save the babies of crack whores is already very well-funded. Rejoice that no crack baby in America needs to perish for want of legislative grandstanding!
When your local TV news has a story on yet another malnourished, addicted newborn with AIDS, you can sigh and say, "Thank God I was born in America, where we take care of our own."
But everyone who has read my rant knows I'm in favor of fiscal prudence. Instead of blowing 1.5 million dollars on a feel-good study that tells us nothing new, let's put the money toward saving half a crack baby!
Aunt B., I'm starting a party called the Tell It Like It Is Party. We all get together and talk about how bad Memphis is.
