I’ve heard of the concept, but now the concept has a name, ‘Maternity Tourism‘.

NEW YORK, June 21, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — Immigration has long been a hotly debated and divisive political issue. A recent Harris Poll sheds light on a new twist in the old debate–the question of “maternity tourism”, or birthing trips where pregnant foreigners travel to the U.S. to give birth, making any child born an automatic U.S. citizen.

[…]

This poll raises some interesting questions, yet the responses showing bi-partisan agreement across several issues and opinion statements is even more interesting. Although immigration has been a politically divisive topic, the issue of maternity tourism is slightly different – it is claimed that many foreigners participating in maternity tourism have no intention of permanently settling in the United States. Rather, they enter the U.S., obtain citizenship for their newborn baby, and then return (with the child) to their home country. While it’s unclear how widespread this practice is, this poll makes clear that Americans see it as an abuse of our system, which they would like to prevent. It will be interesting if legislators pursue this at all, or even if it can be determined how common the practice may be.

What are the motives of such an endeavor? Well, despite the notion that it’s an “abuse” of a system, the parents of these children don’t actually obtain any resident status or receive any services. In the U.S., these out-of-pocket services for traveling mothers-to-be would include medical care and hospital stays. While these women return home to their native countries, they wait and care for their American-born children until they turn 21. At 21, these children could then petition the U.S. government to allow their parents to become residents (a process not easily done and requiring quite a bit of money in your bank account). It seems like an awful lot of trouble for not much pay-off, but if this fraction of women are so desperate to have American children, what’s the problem?

The Center for Health Care Statistics estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in the United States in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available. That is a small fraction of the roughly 4.3 million total births that year.

Liked this one. Because today we don’t remember the heroic and laudable qualities of men often enough: 

The feminist movement introduced an unbelievable amount of tension into the relationships between men and women. Feminism gave us women permission to nag and criticize our husbands, which most women can do just fine without any special permission. The legacy of the feminist movement has been to turn the home, which should be the place of cooperation, into a sphere of competition between men and women. And ironically, feminism, which was supposed to be about getting beyond stereotypes, supported the most negative of stereotypes about men.

I have my own pet theory about the stereotype of men dragging their feet about getting married. The socio-biologists claim that men want to invest their seed in as many women as possible, and therefore do not want marriage. I think this is only a dim shadow of the whole truth. The whole truth must include this great fact about men: They are capable of heroic loyalty. When men finally do marry, they are capable of committing themselves to the care of their wives and children. Many men spend a lifetime working at jobs they don’t like very much, for the love of their families. When men marry, they take it very seriously. It is women who initiate most divorces. It is divorced men who commit suicide at twice the rate as married men, while divorce has little impact on the suicide propensities of women.

The Susan B. Anthony List sponsors a pro-life pledge that they ask presidential candidates to sign. That’s fine, but in some cases, these sorts of pledges are political ploys. Point proven, here. Does anyone doubt that Herman Cain is pro-life, through and through? But he won’t sign the pledge:

I support right-to-life issues unequivocally and I adamantly support the first three aspects of the Susan B. Anthony pledge involving appointing pro-life judges, choosing pro-life cabinet members, and ending taxpayer-funded abortions,” Cain said in a statement. “However, the fourth requirement demands that I ‘advance’ the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation.”

“I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues,” Cain added. “In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.”

 To this I say, way to go Herman. I’m not looking for people to sign on the dotted line, I’m looking for action, which speaks louder than words. Oftentimes the pro-life groups pushing the pledges get so caught up in the legalism of it all that they fail to see the forest for the trees. It’s not wise politics.

Kathy Shaidle asks, based on this book review of Unnatural Selection:

There is so much to recommend in “Unnatural Selection” that it’s sad to report that Ms. Hvistendahl often displays an unbecoming political provincialism.

She begins the book with an approving quote about gender equality from Mao Zedong and carries right along from there. Her desire to fault the West is so ingrained that she criticizes the British Empire’s efforts to stamp out the practice of killing newborn girls in India because “they did so paternalistically, as tyrannical fathers.”

She says that the reason surplus men in the American West didn’t take Native American women as brides was that “their particular Anglo-Saxon breed of racism precluded intermixing.” (Through most of human history distinct racial and ethnic groups have only reluctantly intermarried; that she attributes this reluctance to a specific breed of “racism” says less about the American past than about her own biases.) (…)

Ms. Hvistendahl is particularly worried that the “right wing” or the “Christian right”—as she labels those whose politics differ from her own—will use sex-selective abortion as part of a wider war on abortion itself. She believes that something must be done about the purposeful aborting of female babies or it could lead to “feminists’ worst nightmare: a ban on all abortions.”

It is telling that Ms. Hvistendahl identifies a ban on abortion—and not the killing of tens of millions of unborn girls—as the “worst nightmare” of feminism. Even though 163 million girls have been denied life solely because of their gender, she can’t help seeing the problem through the lens of an American political issue. Yet, while she is not willing to say that something has gone terribly wrong with the pro-abortion movement, she does recognize that two ideas are coming into conflict: “After decades of fighting for a woman’s right to choose the outcome of her own pregnancy, it is difficult to turn around and point out that women are abusing that right.”

Commenting on true infringements of women’s rights is something PWPL likes to do. This was always Brigitte’s domain, for no particular reason, just because she always got to it first. But since she is no longer blogging here with us, I will try to keep up, by drawing attention to the Saudi women challenging a driving ban, today.

Canadians have been exposed to photographs and giant warning labels on cigarettes for some time now, but this is all relatively new to your southern neighbors.

WASHINGTON – On June 21, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will unveil the final graphic health warnings chosen to appear on every pack of cigarettes sold and on all cigarette advertising in the United States. This represents the most significant change to cigarette labels in more than a quarter century and will affect everything from packaging to advertising. The labels combine graphic imagery with straightforward facts to make the message clear: smoking can kill you.

One of the proposed new images, found here, focuses on fetal health… I meant to say, as the package reads, your baby’s health. Because when you take away the medical cloak of harming an unborn child, it’s harming a baby.

I understand the frustration, I really do. But if an organization does harm to even one human being even when helping so many others, do we still call it philanthropic? Do we still think they work for the love of humanity? Some people think so.

I wish our opponents would stop being so judgmental and so quick to cast stones. I would like to suggest to them to do some research and become educated on exactly all that we offer and do on a daily basis, so they could make informed decisions rather than listen to all of the propaganda. […]

In the shoes that I have walked in for the past 17 years, we have tried to help people who need us by treating and educating our patients and hopefully helping them avoid having to make the choice of having an abortion.

Planned Parenthood does offer many services that I have absolutely no problem with, like breast exams. Yes, I want someone to give breast exams and preventative cancer care to those without insurance. I’m not advocating otherwise. However, abortion provider aside, Planned Parenthood also promotes many other practices that the majority of Americans and Canadians may actually find disturbing. For example, the IPPF gave China its seal of approval in 2006, despite the claims of activists that forced sterilizations and abortions were still taking place.

An article in Time magazine in September 2005 claimed that some 7,000 people had been sterilised against their will in Shandong province.

The very year China joined the IPPF, it hit record highs for sterilizations.

An aggressive, and often coercive, prevention campaign also reduced abortions. In 1983 alone, China sterilized 21 million people and fitted 17.8 million women with intrauterine devices. The next year abortions declined sharply to 8.9 million.

Is this how Planned Parenthood envisions “treating patients” in order to help them avoid abortion? And even if their employees didn’t conceal statutory rape, and even if there are fewer abortions preformed than mammograms, is it really worth the trade-off? Do we really have to settle for a shabby runner-up to handle women’s health? I think we all deserve better than that.

Anyone who had given even a cursory glance to PWPL will know there’s no strong sports fan base here.

However, I was reading in the Post about the post-Canucks loss riots in Vancouver  and had a thought. The article is called “Fans aren’t off the hook” and describes how it is ridiculous to claim that only a small criminal element is responsible for the riots. The author is right: certainly there were regular Vancouver Canucks fans looting, burning and destroying stuff. It wasn’t just career protestors.

So we know that regular Vancouver Canucks fans were among the criminals. My question is: how many married men with families were among the crowd? “Hey honey, I’m going to be late tonight. Just have to burn a police car.” I’m not saying our dwindling marriage rate is responsible for looting and violence. But marriage does, some theorize, civilize young men. I’d have to guess the numbers of family men among that crowd were low.

Just a small social theory point this morning.

Your friendly “women’s rights advocates” would never want women to actually see what, or dare I say who, they are aborting. No. That would infringe on a woman’s right to be kept in the dark. Apparently information is not power, it’s patronizing.  

I’m talking about this on Byline, Sun TV, tonight.

I’ll say.

The BBC airs an assisted suicide on TV.