How Does Your State Handle Reproductive Rights

reproductive rights by state

With all the talk about “the war on women” and associated topics, I thought this article may be of interest.

While most Americans are aware of the national political debate over birth control and abortion, many are uninformed about the status of reproductive health and rights in their own state. In the interest of an informed public debate, the Population Institute is releasing a report card that gives an overview of what’s happening in the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Find out if your state is making the grade.

reproductive rights by state

Click here to find out the details for each score. While Liberals considers these factors to be negatives, I think Conservatives will see the scores in a different light.




A New Definition of Poverty


There has been a presumed “poverty” line – but this article would seem to indicate the government is getting more creative about how they define or characterize “poverty”. But I have to admit that when I look around subsidized housing complexes and I see very nice cars, kids in expensive clothes and shoes and most people moving in with big screen TVs – I have a hard time rationalizing that they need a rent that is subsidized by taxpayers…. what do you think??

Government Defines Poverty Upward, Media Don’t Notice the Trick

While the reliable and original formula for the government to calculate who lives in “absolute poverty” is still in place, another measure has been introduced that enables the government to determine how many people live in “relative poverty,” a term often used to describe the concept of “income inequality.”
According to Mickey Kaus of the Daily Caller website, this new “supplemental” concept is “an audacious, slimy bait-and-switch by liberal activists inside the government anti-poverty bureaucracy.” And, as would be expected, it’s gone almost totally unnoticed in the establishment left-wing press.

Kaus added that the new system is “a complicated measure produced by formulas that are barely understood by poverty experts” and includes millions of people in a new “near poor” category, a  loaded term designed to “suggest to most people a level of material hardship that doesn’t exist.”

Of course, “the regular old, still-official poverty line is simple and understandable,” Kaus stated:

It is the level that bought a minimal market basket of food in 1963-4, adjusted for subsequent inflation and multiplied by three. As such, it measures what people think a poverty line measures — how many people fall below certain absolute living standards, whether basic human needs are being met.

“We’ve been using it for decades,” he added, “so while it may be too high or too low, people have a rough feel for what it is and what it isn’t.”

“For most Americans, the word ‘poverty’ suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter,” said Robert Rector of the National Review

“But only a small number of the 40 million persons classified as poor under the government’s current poverty definition fit that description,” he added. Most of America’s poor live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable, or even well-off, two generations ago.

However, Kaus stated that the new formula has resulted in sensational headlines across the country stating that the number of people in poverty has suddenly mushroomed, an indication that “new” does not necessarily mean “better.”

For example, the reporter pointed to a story run online with an opening paragraph that read:

As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, new statistics on America’s poverty rate indicate that nearly 50 million Americans, more than 16 percent of the population, are struggling to survive.

Also, veteran federal poverty analyst Richard Bavier stated on the Brookings Institution website that the new program is “carefully designed so that the public will think it is one thing when it really is something else.”

Kathleen Short, a U.S. Census Bureau economist, recently produced a report on the new formula and noted in a news release that “there are several important differences between the official and supplemental poverty measures.”

Among those differences are the “value of in-kind benefits,” such as food stamps, and deducting the cost of several “necessary expenses,” including taxes and medical care.

“The current poverty measure counts absolute purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy,” Rector noted. “The new measure will count comparative purchasing power — how much steak and potatoes you can buy relative to other people.”

“Under the old line, ‘poverty’ could be eliminated as society got richer — an achievable and widely shared goal,” Klaus stated. “But the new poverty line will rise as society gets richer (‘adjust for rising levels and standards of living’).”

As a result, “the newly measured poor will always be with us in substantial numbers.”

In fact,  Rector indicated, the only way to reduce poverty under the new, relative measure is to have those at the bottom gain income faster than anyone else, an unlikely trend.

“Maybe it’s just me, but the Census’s deception seems more flagrant than anything Susan Rice did in the wake of the Benghazi attacks,” Klaus added. “They can’t say they were badly briefed. It’s their report. Like General Petraeus, they know what they did.”

It’s clear to me that this new “supplemental” system is an attempt to expand the role of the government in the lives of people who are mostly doing well without this kind of help. Once the foot is in the door, federal officials can slowly phase out the simpler, more reliable system and replace it with something they can point to when calling for bigger government.

Read more:

Photo From –

Racism Claims Remind Me of the Boy Who Cried Wolf

We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf…

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, “Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!”

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

“Don’t cry ‘wolf’, shepherd boy,” said the villagers, “when there’s no wolf!” They went grumbling back down the hill.

Several times he cried wolf and they came running. But they stopped believing him – so when a real wolf showed up, they ignored him.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, “Wolf! Wolf!”

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn’t come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn’t returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

“There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, “Wolf!” Why didn’t you come?”

He learned a valuable lesson that day — if you keep crying “wolf” when there is nothing wrong, when there is a real problem, no one listens.

Seems to me — that is a lesson liberals and democrats need to learn. If you keep crying “racism” when it doesn’t apply, then it dilutes people’s perspective of racism and when there is a real instance of racism or racial bias no one will pay attention.

This is a lesson that Representative Clyburne (among many others) needs to learn. Last week he said,

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., says that the attacks on Rice have gone beyond her job performance. When asked about Rice on CNN’s Starting Pointon Tuesday, Clyburn said that words like “lazy” and “incompetent,” which have been used to describe black members of the administration, including Rice and President Obama himself, are reminiscent of language used to undermine minorities in decades past.

 “You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”

Now I don’t know about you, but when I call someone “lazy” or “incompetent” its not based on their race, gender, financial status, religion, or any other criteria like that. And I’m pretty clear about what I mean – there is no need to search for “code words”. To me, lazy means the person doesn’t work or has no motivation or ambition. And imcompetent means the person lacks the skills for a job and should be replaced. But that could just be me. That could be a man, a woman, a child, an adult, or a person from any ethnic background – the definition is the same.

Conservatives, white people, Southerners, Republicans, Tea Party members and others are frequently stereotyped as being racist or sexist – if they dare to disagree with another person. There is no question about why they disagree, just the assumption that the person is a racist or sexist. On the other hand – those same groups of people are frequently accused of stereotyping all people of a specific gender or ethnic group in a negative way.

Ummmm – seems like there is a real double standard at work….

What do you think? And if you think I’m wrong, please feel free to share your thoughts…

Article About Clyburne –

Picture by Richard A. Bloom

Boy Who Cried Wolf –