Can’t even say what they’re ‘ter­mi­nat­ing’

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

The two au­thors who each stated their sides of the teen preg­nancy “so­lu­tion” both por­trayed the nat­u­ral con­di­tion of teens who are ex­pect­ing a child to be. . . not ex­pect­ing a child.

Pro-lif­ers need to force­feed the press and every­one else about just ex­actly what it is that teens are preg­nant with: a hu­man baby. Un­for­tu­nately, nei­ther Jan­ice Shaw Crause of Con­cerned Women for Amer­ica nor Ce­cile Richards of Planned Par­ent­hood gave ba­bies or moth­er­hood any re­spect.

“Teen preg­nancy,” “un­in­tended preg­nan­cies,” “health and safety,” and “teen birthrates” are an­ti­cep­tic and outdated ter­mi­nol­ogy. Why didn’t they men­tion adop­tion?!

Ms. Richards beats us over the head with the Planned Par­ent­hood chant, “teach­ing our teens about sex is how they learn about preven­tion”; while Ms. Crause pa­rades names and num­bers from gov­ern­ment wel­fare poli­cies that have noth­ing what­ever to do with the plight of in­no­cent ba­bies.

My so­lu­tion is loosen up Amer­ica’s adop­tion sys­tem be­cause it is up­tight. Hire a top-notch ad firm to pro­mote tran­sra­cial adop­tions — most chil­dren who need to be adopted are non­white while most par­ents wait­ing to adopt are white.

Tax pay­ers are forced to pay Planned Par­ent­hood $305 mil­lion an­nu­ally for this hate speech to­ward ba­bies and moth­er­hood. Nina Rhea Ed­u­ca­tion and Out­reach Pre­cious Chil­dren of Port­land Port­land, Ore­gon

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.