First, let me say that I started this Google group for the purpose as
listed on the site:
"A place to dialogue and organize for those opposed to George W. Bush
commandeering Calvin's 2005 Commencement"
Msytsma, who does not fall in this category, is simply taking advantage
of the opportunity to rant. There are three reasons that I have not
blocked him or anyone else from posting on our organizing site.
1) Neither he nor anyone else has been explicitly abusive to other
posters. I applaud everyone, including msytsma, for that.
2) The protest that will occur at Calvin on the day of Commencement is
about exercising the right to free speech. In that spirit, even though
his diatribe is misplaced (there are many, many message boards out
there to discuss policies and politics unrelated to organizing a
protest at Calvin), I have allowed him and anyone else who finds
him/herself on the wrong message board to post here.
3) Progressives need to learn to stand up for their values in the face
of hatred and nationalism. If we cower at the bellicose ranting of
posters like msytsma, how on earth are we going to stand up for
ourselves and for our country in front of thousands of people at
Commencement?
The majority of the posts on this forum have been very respectful of
the Calvin community, often reflecting a deep inner debate among
posters about how to express core convictions while being respectful of
the Calvin graduates.
Now, onto my second topic:
On a recent thread, tcm3crew wrote:
"I know that as a Christian, one of the best uses of my time and money
is to stand against a president who pursues policies that make the rich
richer, the poor poorer, increase the abortion rate, make greed a value
and dismiss truth-telling as a quaint idea."
mystsma wrote in response:
"...do you really believe all those statements you made. Even the most
strident liberal would only say those things in a semi-serious tone
because they know it is primarily inaccurate and mischaracterization.
Now if you could explain yourself, that might actually start a real
discussion."
It is extremely important to note that tcm3crew was right--these are
the very policies that Bush pursues. Here are just a few examples that
have been in the news lately:
"...policies that make the rich richer..." - Bush has led the
Republican Congress to pass a budget that provides $106 BILLION in new
tax cuts for wealthy people who don't need them, all while we are
piling up more and more foreign debt for which every American child,
rich or poor, will be responsible for. Look for yourself:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_spending.
"...the poor poorer..." - This new budget cuts Medicaid funding for
the poor by $10 BILLION, all while more and more Americans are losing
health insurance. Medicaid is a program to provide health care to
America's poor, and it is in a serious funding crisis-just ask your
governor! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_spending.
"...increase the abortion rate..." - The number of abortions per
year in this country, which decreased during the Clinton years, has
been rising since George W. took office. The Bush Administration is
absolutely not pro-human life, and this can clearly been seen in its
policies. Don't believe me? Look for yourself:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5.
"...dismiss truth-telling as a quaint idea...' - Can anyone say,
"WMD"? A recently declassified memo obtained by the Sunday Times,
a UK newspaper, demonstrates that although Bush and the
neoconservatives told Americans night after night on our television
sets that they wanted to exhaust every diplomatic option before
invading Iraq (and that really, they didn't want to go to war), they
had already decided that they were going to war and they were fixing
intelligence around it. Don't believe me? Look for yourself--
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR200....
Bush has yet to deny this!
Students, Graduates, Alumni, Faculty, Staff and everyone else, the
world needs to know that George W. Bush does not represent American
Christianity, especially not the thinking kind we are/were taught at
Calvin. Stand up for your values!
Thanks Jeremy. I had stopped posting for a while simply because I couldn't find out how, since the appearance of so many ranters, posting was worth while, since it always ended up in muddled conversation accusing/denying/stating/contradicting/blah blah blah. Most all of the arguments brought up so far, except for those directly related to the act of protesting, have been simply that: argumants; arguments by people interested only in arguing. For myself, as someone graduating but who opted out of the ceremony, I will be pursuing a white-armband, silent, peaceful protest downtown. I have people who have offerred to cut 100 white armbands for the occassion to help. I will update again when I know more about exactly where, when, and how. Thanks again for posting this as a moderator.
Congratulations Class of 2005. If you are feeling anything like I did at the end of four years at Calvin you are exhausted and ready to get the hell out of there. But here you are attending to difficult questions of faith and protest that you neither anticipated nor chose for yourselves. I'd be more than a little resentful. Know that you are supported by many alum, like myself, who are proud to know that Calvin students and faculty are not simply letting this event happen. Your conversations, actions and protests are sending a significant meesage about the embattled defintion of what it means to be a Christian in our country today. When I left Calvin in 1996 I was very discouraged about the Christian faith. Your efforts sends a strong message that Christianity cannot be co-opted by a Republican agenda. You have changed the way I perceive Calvin and my time there. For the first time in years I am can say that I am proud of my affilitation with Calvin College. Thank you and peace to you all.
Thanks, moderator, for explicitly getting this board back on track.
Thank you also for allowing people "against us" to post here. It would have been wrong, I think, to exclude someone like the most prominently antagonistic and "against us" msytsma, even though he is often openly disrespectful and insulting. I don't think it's been enough to warrant "blocking" him, and I agree at least some of your reasons why the group should as open to new guests as it does. I believe it would be wrong because it would be willfully neglectful of open disagreements. I have actually appreciated writing back and forth to msytsma here. I'm inclined to avoid arguing with people over political or other such disagreements--it makes me anxious. But this message board, which was so civil when it started, endeared me to its members, and since his arrival I've had the luxury of carefully typing my responses to some things he's said, and learning that arguing isn't as agonizing a thing as I'd thought it to be.
Your pardon, msytsma, for talking about you like you aren't here. I'm mainly addressing the guy who started this topic, but it's open for everyone else to read too, including you, and I really don't understand forums enough to know if that's a breach in ettiquette. You have challenged me to think here, and I appreciate that. All I wish is you wouldn't be so insulting. Though you aren't the only people who have been insulting here. I don't think people "against" (or annoyed by, confused by, etc.) this cause OR "for" it should attack people with insults here or anywhere else. It's impossible for us people to avoid being condescending and insulting all the time, for sure, but I still don't like it that us humans do it. I disagree that ALL you've done here is rant; I think you've said a few valuable things, and I wouldn't mind if you kept on postin'.
So back to you, religion b.a. '04: take this post as a testimony to the goodness of not doing away with voices of disagreement in a forum like this one.
And to Raleigh, welcome back! I'm glad to read from you here again.
And to Sara Moslener, I'm astounded that people's efforts at calvin to respond critically to the president at the time of his visit as guest speaker for commencement could change your attitude so much about Calvin College and encourage you in some way! I'm happy to hear it. Thanks to you for sharing.
Congratulations, class of 2005! Whatever you decide to do to make known your views about President Bush's visit, you make me almost proud to say I'm a Calvin grad.
In response to the "increasing abortion rates," I did look at Dr. Stassen's article, was concerned, and contacted Right to Life of Michigan to see what they had to say. Please note their response:
The article you referred to has been in circulation for a bit. Below is a response from Right to Life of Michigan.
Also, it was recently reported from The Alan Guttmacher Institute that U.S. abortion rates continued to decline in 2001 and 2002, although the rate of decline has slowed since the early 1990s. The Institute estimates that 1,303,000 abortions took place in the United States in 20010.8% fewer than the 1,313,000 in 2000. In 2002, the number of abortions declined again, to 1,293,000, or another 0.8%. The rate of abortion also declined, from 21.3 procedures per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2000 to 21.1 in 2001 and 20.9 in 2002.
I hope this helps.
Pam Sherstad Right to Life of Michigan
Information from Right to Life of Michigan:
Dr. Stassen attempts to argue that the economic and social policies of the Bush Administration have resulted in the increase in abortions from 2001 to 2003. Dr. Stassen makes several spurious associations between social phenomena and abortion (like falling marriage rates), that render his implications about President Bush's policies inaccurate at best, and deceptive at worst.
Dr. Stassen is correct in saying that hard economic times do push some women to choose abortion out of a sense of financial insecurity. The recession that began in early 2000, with its accompanying job losses, clearly did impact some women's abortion decision. Our economy took another huge blow with the 9/11 attacks.
The false correlation that Dr. Stasssen makes is that these events are the fault of President Bush's policies. They are not! Bush inherited the recession from the Clinton administration. The President responded to the recession by stimulating both consumer spending and investment through tax cuts. He lowered the tax burden on families by raising the child credit to $1,000 and lowering the bottom tax bracket to 10%. A greater number of low income Americans pay ZERO federal income taxes under Bush's policies than before his administration. That bears repeating... the tax burden on families with children and low income Americans is lower under President Bush. President Bush and his policies did not cause the recession or the job losses, so his policies could not have caused the increase in abortion.
Dr. Stassen also mentions the lack of healthcare as a reason more women would choose abortion. This claim has no basis in fact. No pregnant woman in America without employerbased health insurance has to go through pregnancy without insurance and prenatal care. Any woman with an income level of up to 200% of the poverty level qualifies for Medicaid, with full coverage for prenatal care and birth expenses. In addition, President Bush expanded coverage of the Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP) to cover unborn children. Thus, a pregnant woman with no insurance can sign up for coverage while she is pregnant and get care for herself and her child.
Dr. Stassen attempts to correlate decreasing marriage (due to unemployment) to increasing abortions. He shows that 3 of the 16 states in his analysis had more marriages and fewer abortions. He conveniently fails to mention that in at least two states where marriages went down, abortions also went down. That renders his correlation spurious, as abortions went down in five states, with marriages going up in three states and down in two states. Stassens offer no explanation as to why abortions went down in 5 of 16 states while presumably jobs were lost in those 5 states. Dr. Stassen also provides no information on why marriages went up in 3 states if job losses are to blame for fewer marriages. Did jobs also rise in those 3 states? Or is that an additional spurious correlation?
The three indicators that Dr. Stassen has choosen are not indicators at all. One wonders if he was searching for evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. Furthermore, citing a temporary (cyclical) rise in abortion as a basis for portraying the President's policies as fostering abortion is irrelevant to the overarching question of whether a candidate believes that unborn children deserve the protection of law. Unborn children are the poorest of the poor. They possess nothing. All they have to rely on is our commitment as a society to protect them and give them an opportunity at life. President Bush believes in protecting the first and fundamental right for the unborn the right to life without which all other rights are meaningless.
I hope you find this information reassuring, as I did. I personally applaud President Bush's efforts on behalf of both unborn AND underpriveleged Americans. We, former recipients of WIC and government surplus foods, who have benefitted from the increased child tax credit, and consider ourselves part of "the working poor," have a hard time understanding where the left gets it's picture of President Bush not caring about the working man.
katrinalgasinger, thank you for setting the record straight on abortion and the Bush admininstration.
As usual, the liberals statements amount to "black is white and up is down". They try to blame Bush, a good Christian who is doing his best to reduce and eliminate abortions and to create a culture of life, for any abortions that they promote and allow.
Just think if Gore or Kerry or Hillary were to get in..the result would be an immediate reversal of the policies of Bush...they would immediately use tax payer dollars to fund abortions in the US and around the world...and they would put liberal judges on the bench that would make the same mistakes...creating new law from the bench, like Roe v. Wade, instead of letting the legislative and democratic process work.
Thank God Priscilla Owen got on the bench today, she is a good judge who will interpret the law and not make new law from the bench. It is about time she got confirmed.
Thanks again katrinalgasinger and keep up the good work saving the lives of the unborn from the Democrats and their supporters, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, National Abortion Federation, NOW, The Democratic Party, Emily's List, and so on. See the details and linkages at http://www.discoverthenetwork.org
There's spin everywhere, and anti-abortion groups use it, too. This response from the pro-life author concerning anti-abortions groups' attacks on him shows that it's just not a simple thing. I still haven't seen a response from the anti-abortion groups on this article. Please remember that the author of this article is pro-life.
(Reply to anti-abortion groups from Glen Stassen) More pro-life than thou?: Responding to critics
by Glen Stassen
Randall K. O'Bannon and Laura Hussey are correct that I say "state abortion data from 2001, 2002, and 2003 show a clear pattern of increase over figures from 2000 and earlier." And they agree when I note "correctly, that there were about 1,610,00 abortions in 1990 and...1,313,000 in 2000, representing an overall decline of 17.4% for the decade. Pretty much on the mark." This is a decrease of about 300,000 abortions per year in the 1990s. The question is whether I am right that the decisive decline in abortions in the 1990s has reversed in recent years.
Because my wife and I know from the experience of amazing, gracious help raising our son David, damaged by the German measles that my wife had when pregnant, we know that believing you can raise your child, and getting help in doing so, is hugely important in refusing to have an abortion. It is because of this firsthand experience that we know support for prospective mothers is crucial in preventing abortions. This is no "twist in logic," as they suggest. This is our life experience. Perhaps they have not raised such a child. Perhaps this is why they do not understand. My wife also worked as a nurse and teacher of healthy practices in a high school for pregnant teenagers that enabled them to bring their babies to school, to get their medical exams there, to get training in nutrition and healthy mothering there, so they would not have abortions. And they did not have abortions. They raised healthy babies. We know support for prospective mothers is crucial in preventing abortions. This is experiential reality. The data I analyzed are simply a supplement to what anyone who assists pregnant women should know intuitively: Support for prospective mothers and their babies is crucial.
An advantage of citing actual data publicly is that other persons can check the numbers to see if an error crept in. An honest person admits errors when they are found in this process and makes corrections. O'Bannon and Hussey have worked hard to refute what I have shown, and they are right that I made an error in tallying South Dakota and Wisconsin. These two states experienced a decrease rather than increase, totaling 510 abortions. Correcting that error, and narrowing my study to only the year for which we have consistent data, 2002, means that the increase in abortions in the 16 states was 6,202. Hence if the trend in these 16 states holds for the 50 states, the total U.S. increase in abortions that year was about 20,200. Had the average annual decrease in the years prior to Bush continued, we would have instead expected a decrease of 28,000 fewer abortions. Hence about 50,000 more abortions took place in 2002 than expected.
They then raise the possibility that Colorado and Arizona increases may or may not be caused by better reporting. But there are also two countervailing possibilities. The very underreporting that they speculate on is more likely to occur in most states in the most recent years of 2002 and 2003 because some providers are late in getting their reports in. This underreporting may be corrected later when they do report. Hence the actual increase in abortions may be greater than the numbers I found. Further, in more recent years, quoting them, "RU486, the abortion pill, which went on the market in late 2000," may have resulted in abortions that were not reported because they did not take place in reporting clinics. This, too, probably means the increase in abortions in later years was greater than the numbers I found. Had I estimated these possibilities of over-reporting and underreporting, surely speculation and bias could have crept in. Therefore, I reported all the data that I could find, as it came from the state health departments, and did not omit any data one way or the other, in order to be as objective as I could. Selective reporting according to whether the data fit one's conclusion would bias the results. For example, O'Bannon and Hussey confirm my report that Illinois abortions increased in 2002, but then they report that they found data for Illinois in 2003, in which the number of abortions then decreased. Yet when they point to Wisconsin's 2002 decrease, they fail to report that in 2003, abortions in Wisconsin actually increased. Such selectivity looks like trying to defend against the truth and support a preconceived notion rather than accepting all the data in a consistent way. I sought to be objective by counting all the data the health departments reported.
O'Bannon and Hussey seek to give George Bush Sr. the credit for the decrease in abortions in the 1990s, and to take it away from Bill Clinton. They say CDC data show that "The decline was strongest in the first half of the decade, which began with George H.W. Bush in office, but slowed during Bill Clinton's term." I had not raised this partisan point, referring only to the 1990s, and not mentioning names of presidents. They are not only being partisan, they are in fact being deceptive. According to the CDC Web site, the abortion rate stayed flat during Bush's years, and declined dramatically during Clinton's years. During the senior Bush's four years (1989-1992), the abortion rate was 24, 24, 24, and 23. In Clinton's first year (1993) it was still 23. But by 1994 it had dropped to 21, and by 1997 it had dropped to 17, where it stayed through 1999. I have sought to be as objective as I can with the data; truth is a very important commitment for me. I ask whether this distortion in O'Bannon and Hussey's reporting suggests their focus is not on what can reduce abortions, but what can defend Bush-senior and junior.
O'Bannon and Hussey rightly state that I say the data show "if jobs are lost, abortion increases." But they call this speculation. It is surely more than that. I cite the following four sets of confirming facts:
1) Two-thirds of women who have abortions say they do not see how they could afford to raise the child. When unemployment is up, affording to raise a child is harder.
2) Half of women who have abortions say they do not have a reliable mate. Data from the Children's Defense Fund clearly indicate that men without jobs do not usually marry. So increased unemployment in the last three years predict fewer marriages and fewer reliable mates, and therefore more abortions. I checked this for the 16 states. Marriages in fact were down. Only three states had more marriages in 2002 than 2001, and as a group, their abortions actually decreased. Thirteen states had fewer marriages in 2002, and as a group, their abortions increased. Nicer confirmation is hard to fine.
3) Black and Latina women tend to be poorer and more unemployed. Their abortion rates are two to three times higher than white women.
4) The 30-year trend confirms it. Abortion rates move in tandem with unemployment rates of women over the last 30 years. From 1973 to 1980, women's unemployment increased from approximately 6% to 7.6%, and the abortion rate increased from 16 to 29 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 45. (Of course, these were the first years after Roe v. Wade, which surely also contributed mightily to the increase in abortions.) But then abortions did not keep increasing. From 1980 to 1992, unemployment decreased from 7.6% to 5.5% briefly, and then rose briefly to 7%. During this period of slow decrease in unemployment, the abortion rate slowly decreased from 29 to 26. During the Clinton administration, unemployment dropped nicely to 4.5%, and the abortion rate dropped significantly to 21. (I am getting my numbers from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, who clearly explain why their numbers are slightly higher than the CDC's numbers). During the present administration, women's unemployment increased above 6%, and the abortion rate appears to have increased to 22.
O'Bannon and Hussey say I look at only one year for my conclusions. In fact, as noted above, I have looked at 30 years, but could report only one part of what I saw in a 700-word article. Looking at only the years of the Bush presidency, the 10 states for which I have the data in 2000 handy had their abortions increase not only in 2002, but also in 2001. Their abortions increased by 4,067 in 2001, just about exactly the same proportion as I reported in 2002. And in 2003, I have data for five states. Compared with 2000, their number of abortions increased by 5,651. The Z-test of statistical significance is greater than 99.999999% significant.
Furthermore, a Z-test of statistical significance of the 16 states for the one year that I reported, representing about 30 million women of child-bearing age, suggests greater than 99.9999% confidence that they represent the 50 states. In non-technical language, the polls in the presidential race sample 500 or 1,000 prospective voters and extrapolate to 50 million voters; I have the actual reported results - not an opinion poll - for states with 30 million prospective mothers in them, and am extrapolating to about 100 million prospective mothers in all the states. This is almost infinitely better than the usual polling methods.
O'Bannon and Hussey err when they say I signed a statement in 1977 supporting Roe v. Wade. That was a statement on academic freedom. Along with very large numbers of Christian ethicists, I signed a statement at the annual meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics supporting academic freedom for Christian ethicists and moral theologians who take varieties of positions on these issues, and who were under pressure in some
...
|
