Great column. I too am concerned that this reasonable solution of helping pregnant women won’t take hold. It hasn’t thus far, that’s for sure. This might be because for a very small but vocal minority, abortion constitutes helping a pregnant woman and absent this purportedly neutral choice, they see no wholeness/wellness for women. Sad.
On that note, expect a survey at some point this summer (for frequent readers–or anyone who would like to participate) on how/where PWPL can be more helpful. More soon.
by 
My concern with the government getting involved with helping pregnant women is that this is yet another intruding of the “nanny state” into people’s lives. We have become so used to the government providing services for us, that we actually think this is the way things should be done and that it is the best way to do things.
However, once the govt becomes involved, any such organizations who would be providing services would find themselves severely watched and curtailed by the restrictions imposed on them by the govt. Staffing, policies, everything would come under govt regulation and there would be no end to what they would require. One can imagine the type of situations that would arise.
Also, it is documented that the more freebies we get from the govt, the less individuals give to charity. So we have more and more of the “nanny state” getting involved in our lives and ultimately controlling them.
Much as I like what Cardinal Ouellet had to say, when he made that statement, my antennae went up and I balked at the idea. I think it would be a Pandora’s box that we would regret opening. Better to allow charitable organizations such as churches much more leeway in offering help without the govt red tape and make it easier for such groups to operate. It would be better in the long run to have the help coming from the goodness of people than having it come from the coffers of the govt which would stipulate how the resources were used. With an abortion-friendly govt in place, one can imagine how such places would have to be run; they would most likely be mandated to provide abortion referrals along with offering pregnancy help. You can’t have it both ways.
I agree with you Julie. The way I see it, the need for more early childhood government programs and the increasing number of abortions are related: they stem from the demise of fatherhood. It seems to me that a young, frightened pregnant woman needs more than counselling and government incentives; she needs a loving husband committed to being a responsible father. If the government wants to play a role in reducing abortions, it will have to do so by somehow promoting virtue in young men. It certainly will not help the situation by attempting to usurp the father’s role.
This may seem a bit simplistic. But I think if we’re talking about prevention, we have to consider not only the difficulties of the pregnant woman but also the responsibilities (or lack thereof) of the one who impregnated her.
I agree, Julie. I grabbed hold of the idea that we should help women have their babies. But in my mind I was thinking through private charity, not government programs.
I’m not sure I completely agree. In Ireland, their is an ‘unmarried mother’s allowance’ (their term not mine), and I believe rent support pays 90-95% of their housing as well. This system is becoming more regulated, as abuses have taken place (as they do with any social program), but Ireland houses all of its residents and that’s something to be applauded.
It hasn’t led to the detriment of charity, as Ireland typically gives more per capita than most other countries. Perhaps this is the religious demographic of the country, but I’d like to think it’s also got something to do with people helping people.
I’m all for private charity, but I do think the government has a role in this somewhere. Maybe I’m wrong about such a system being universal?
Dave, that is the real crux of the problem. Men have been shut out of the picture, emasculated by women and the media, there is not much to support men as fathers and supportive partners to their women.
How can this be corrected? with so many kids being brought up without full-time dads, their role models have disappeared.
While I don’t believe it’s women that have emasculated men so much as men have emasculated themselves, this article is changing my mind a little about the government role, it’s very good.
“Overlooked by society, irrelevant to employers, unwanted by women who can raise families on benefits without their help, the man who has no work or a series of short-term jobs is a problem. Without steady work, he will struggle to acquire a family: unemployed men are less likely to marry or cohabit than employed ones. Without a stable relationship, he is less likely to grow into a good family man and raise good sons. The taxpayer has become the father: one in four mothers is single and more than half live on welfare [in the UK]. A lot of these women describe the real fathers of their children as “useless” or worse. The men have no role.” Camilla Cavendish, Times Online (source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article7138520.ece)
The link above doesn’t work with the parentheses, so here it is again:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article7138520.ece
Britain seems to have this problem of single parents at a peak. Here in Canada, we would be well advised to see the pitfalls they have fallen into, in order to avoid them ourselves.
Isn’t this what the Promise Keepers was about and the Million Man March? the fact that men had fallen down in their responsibilities as fathers and husbands?
Well, yes and no. The Million Man March was a reaction to black people, especially black men, being misrepresented, not necessarily ‘falling down’. Historically, black men had been portrayed as lecherous sexual predators. In the contemporary context of 1995, black men were still struggling to overcome media misrepresentations and define their cultural values for themselves. It was a call for black men to carry themselves with dignity. “… the search for cultural identity is more than just a middle-class campaign for personal affirmation, as it is often caricatured-though it can easily descend to that level. It is an essential identity quest for people crippled by 250 years of chattel slavery and 400 years of white supremacy.” -Salim Muwakkil, In These Times.
It could be said that for pro-life women this is also true, we are fighting to define our values for ourselves against a current of misrepresentation telling us what exactly it is to be female.
While I’m generally not in favour of government hand-outs either, I think in this case I would go for it, because:
1. abortions are paid for, so this might help to ‘level the playing field’ a bit;
2. haven’t they heard about the ‘demographic winter’ – we need all the new babies we can get.