America's Pro-Life Movement Gaining Steam

There is little doubt that abortion is a complex and multifaceted issue. With divergent viewpoints and a muddled “middle ground," it is common for public opinion polls to yield seemingly contradictory results.

Despite the perceived difficulties in definitively determining abortion perspectives, recent developments expose a public that is steadily growing warmer to the pro-life point of view. If this trend continues, there will be intriguing social and political implications, especially considering the surprising stance Millennials are taking on the issue.

One could argue that the nation's ongoing abortion debate re-fueled and intensified following President Obama's controversial speech at the University of Notre Dame in May 2009. Since the widely publicized event, journalists and researchers have attempted to qualify recent polls that corroborate an increase in pro-life sentiments. In May 2009 Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC News, wrote, abortion is “a highly fraught subject—and one of those on which a single polling number does not begin to describe the complexity of Americans' attitudes.”

Langer says that the majority of Americans are actually pro-life and pro-choice simultaneously. For instance, some people may believe that abortion should be legal, but only in specific cases (i.e. rape or if the woman's life is in danger). In this case, the stance calls for legal abortion (pro-choice sentiment), but only in very specific circumstances (pro-life sentiment). In either case, an individual who subscribes to these beliefs is essentially aligning him or herself with both poles of the abortion debate—albeit, to different degrees.
Interestingly, Langer is not alone in his conclusions. In May 2009, New York Times journalist Dalia Sussman urged readers to be cautious when jumping to the conclusion that America may actually be embracive of pro-life tenants. According to Sussman, “[Asking if someone is “pro-life” or “pro-choice”] creates absolutes, when in reality, abortion really represents an issue in which there aren’t any absolutes for many (if not most) people.”

While this may be a valid argument in terms of recognizing complexities in perception, it is entirely possible that a slight majority of Americans are still avoiding absolutes, while sliding, albeit slowly, toward a more pro-life world view. Statistics from multiple sources corroborate this notion. One does not have to be “absolute” in a belief to lean more in one direction than another.

Imagine a line on which one charts his or her support on a scale from zero to 10 (10 being “extremely favorable” of abortion rights). Now, picture millions of people plotted along this continuum. While individuals may hold diverse beliefs on the subject, chances are that a majority would find itself on either end (this is to say before or after the five, or middle ground, placement) of the spectrum. For instance, an individual who opposes abortion, yet thinks that it should be legal in cases of rape, may choose a three on the continuum, instead of a zero. Here, this person clearly opposes abortion, while possessing some sense that it should be permitted in select circumstances. Even though his or her opinion isn't an extreme (a zero or 10), the individual still leans more in favor of pro-life sentiments.

Despite resistance from some journalists and researchers who cannot fathom a reduction in support for pro-abortion arguments, public opinion polls continue to reflect a collective, albeit slow, movement away from pro-choice-ism. In Oct. 2009, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life was one of many reputable sources to recognize a drop in support for abortion. Pew found that, while abortion supporters outnumbered foes in 2007 and 2008, the two sides are now equal in number. Additionally, Pew wrote that “there have been modest increases in the numbers who favor reducing abortions or making them harder to obtain.” And most surprisingly: “Less support for abortion is evident among most demographic and political groups.”
Perhaps most intriguing is the closure in the generational gap. According to Gallup, those Americans aged 18 to 29 and 30 to 49 were most supportive of abortion rights in the late 1970s. This pattern has evolved since 2000, with all age groups aside from seniors (65 and older), sharing similar views on abortion. Not surprisingly, seniors remain the “least likely to favor legal abortion.”

Now for the bombshell:

Gallup found that between 2005 and 2009, among those individuals who are 18 to 29 years of age, there has been a nine-percentage-point increase in the belief that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances.” This essentially means that young Americans are nearly tied with seniors in their belief that abortion should be eradicated.

Interestingly, this group is also frequently pointed out by the left to be strongly in favor of more liberal social and political policy. However, young people appear to be moving more in line with conservatives on this issue, further corroborating the notion that Millennials may not be sold on progressive policies.

Make no mistake, opinions about abortion have not shifted radically on the whole. That said, public perception appears to be sliding in the pro-life direction. In 2001, Gallup asked respondents if they saw abortion has morally acceptable or morally unacceptable; 42% said that abortion is morally acceptable, with 45% stating the contrary. In 2010, this same poll found only 38% claiming that abortion is moral, with 50% stating the opposing view, that abortion is immoral.

Abortion will continue to be a highly controversial topic in American political and social circles, as both sides argue in support of their respective stances. With Millennials poised to inherit future leadership posts, the generation's less-favorable abortion perspective offers an intriguing conundrum to the left. In the end, it is the Millennial generation that will create the laws and monitor the policies that govern this highly contentious subject.

WRITTEN BY: Billy Hallowell with original article at Human Events available by clicking on the title of this blog entry

Five Myths on Fathers and Family

Father’s Day almost upon us, expect a host of media stories on men and family life. Some will do a good job of capturing the changes and continuities associated with fatherhood in contemporary America. But other reporters and writers will generalize from their own unrepresentative networks of friends and family members, try to baptize the latest family trend, or assume that our society is heading ceaselessly in a progressive direction. So be on the lookout this week for stories, op-eds, and essays that include these five myths on contemporary fatherhood and family life.

1. THE ‘MR. MOM’ SURGE

Open a newspaper or turn on a TV in the week heading up to Father’s Day and you are bound to confront a story on stay-at-home dads. I have nothing against stay-at-home dads, but they make up a minuscule share of American fathers.

For instance, less than 1 percent (140,000) of America’s 22.5 million married families with children under 15 had a stay-at-home dad in 2008, according to the U.S. Census. By contrast, about 24 percent (5,327,000) of those families had a stay-at-home mom. This means that the vast majority — more than 97 percent — of all stay-at-home parents are moms, not dads.

The focus on Mr. Mom obscures another important reality. In most American families today, fathers still take the lead when it comes to breadwinning: In 2008, the Census estimated that fathers were the main provider in almost three-quarters of American married families with children under 18. Providership is important to protect children from poverty, raise their odds of educational success, and increase the likelihood that they will succeed later in life. Thus, the very real material contribution that the average American dad makes to his family is obscured by stories that focus on that exotic breed, the stay-at-home dad.

2. WOMEN WANT EVERYTHING 50-50

Another prevailing media myth is that contemporary women are looking for fathers who will split their time evenly between work and family life. It may be true for the average journalist or academic, but it is not true for the average American married mom.

Most married mothers nowadays do want their husbands to do their fair share of housework and childcare. But they do not define fairness in terms of a 50-50 balancing act where fathers and mothers do the same thing at home and work. Instead, contemporary mothers take into account their husbands’ work outside the home when they assess the fairness of the division of labor inside the home.

Moreover, most women who are married with children are happy to have their husbands take the lead when it comes to providing and do not wish to work full-time. For instance, a 2007 Pew Research Center study found that only 20 percent of mothers with children under 18 wanted to work full-time, compared with 72 percent of fathers with children under 18. My own research has shown that married mothers are happiest in their marriages when their husbands take the lead when it comes to breadwinning — largely because his success as a provider gives her more opportunities to focus on the children, or balance childcare with part-time work (the most popular work arrangement for married mothers). So, on this Father’s Day, dads who are fortunate enough to hold down a good job and make a major contribution to their families’ financial welfare should take some comfort from the fact that they are likely to be boosting not only their families’ bottom line but also their wives’ happiness.

3. MARRIAGE IS JUST A PIECE OF PAPER

With the rise of cohabitation over the last 40 years, a large minority of American children will spend some time in a household headed by a cohabiting couple. Experts now estimate that about 40 percent of American children will spend some time in a cohabiting household, either because they are born into such a household or because one of their parents cohabits after a breakup. Faced with this reality, many journalists, scholars, and advocates are tempted to minimize the differences between married and cohabiting fathers and families.

But the reality is that, on average, cohabiting fathers do not compare with married fathers. As Sandra Hofferth of the University of Maryland and Kermyt Anderson of the University of Oklahoma found in a recent study, married fathers are significantly more involved and affectionate with their children than are cohabiting fathers. In fact, from their research, they conclude “that marriage per se confers advantage in terms of father involvement above and beyond the characteristics of the fathers themselves.”

Married fathers are also much more likely than their cohabiting peers to stick around. One recent study by Wendy Manning at Bowling Green State and Pamela Smock at the University of Michigan found that 50 percent of children born to cohabiting parents saw their parents break up by age five; by comparison, only 15 percent of children born to married parents saw their parents divorce by age five. Dad is much more likely to stick around if he has a wedding ring on his finger.


This is because, for men, marriage and fatherhood are a “package deal,” as sociologists Frank Frustenberg and Andrew Cherlin observed a number of years ago. By force of law and custom, marriage binds men to their families and gives them a recognizable role to play in the lives of their children. Try as they might, unmarried men typically find it difficult to be a consistent and positive force in the lives of their children.

4. THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

Every couple of years, some journalist seeks to revive the myth of the good divorce — often to excuse his or her own bad behavior. Sandra Tsing Loh is Exhibit A this week. In the most recent issue of The Atlantic, she spends several thousand words trying to justify her divorce from her husband of 20 years — a man she admits is a “good man” and “loving father” — under the cover of a sprawling, incoherent, and frankly disturbing review of five books on marriage and family life. (Among other things, the reader is regaled with all too much information about Loh’s private life; we learn, for instance, that one reason she ended up divorced is that she could not replace the “romantic memory of my fellow [adulterous] transgressor with the more suitable image of my husband.”)

Loh claims that her children appear to be doing just fine. Her two school-age girls — aged 7 and 9 — appear to be “unfazed” and “relatively content” in the midst of their parents’ divorce. Who knew divorce could be so easy on the kids?

In reality, Loh is probably deluding herself. The best social science presents a rather different picture than the rosy one Loh is trying to paint. According to research by Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and Paul Amato of Penn State, girls whose parents divorce are about twice as likely to drop out of high school, to become pregnant as teenagers, and to suffer from psychological problems such as depression and thoughts of suicide. Girls whose parents divorce are also much more likely to divorce later in life.

Moreover, studies indicate that children experience the most harm when their parents divorce after living together in a low-conflict marriage for many years (as Loh appears to have done). Why? These divorces come as the most surprising ones to children who thought that their parents had a good-enough marriage.

Though Loh manages to find for her Atlantic piece a bunch of well-educated friends who are also entertaining thoughts of divorce, she is (fortunately) in increasingly rare company. The work of sociologist Steven Martin indicates that since 1980, college-educated Americans have grown less tolerant of divorce, and the divorce rate among this cohort has fallen off sharply. Thus, well-educated readers of The Atlantic are unlikely to take Loh’s misleading and self-serving essay to heart.

5. DADS ARE DISPENSABLE

The final myth propagated by journalists in connection with fatherhood these days is the myth of the dispensable father. Often conjured up in glowing profiles of women who have become single mothers by choice, this myth holds that fathers do not play a central role in children’s lives.

This myth fails to take into account the now-vast social scientific literature (discussed above) showing that children typically do better in an intact, married families with their fathers than they do in families headed by single mothers.

It also overlooks the growing body of research indicating that fathers bring distinctive talents to the parenting enterprise. The work of psychologist Ross Parke, for instance, indicates that fathers are more likely than mothers to engage their children in vigorous physical play (e.g., roughhousing), to challenge their children — including their daughters — to embrace life’s challenges, and to be firm disciplinarians.

Not surprisingly, children benefit from being exposed to the distinctive paternal style. Sociologist David Eggebeen has shown, for instance, that teenagers are significantly less likely to suffer from depression and delinquency when they have involved and affectionate fathers, even after controlling for the quality of their relationship with their mother. In his words, “What these analyses clearly show is that mothers and fathers both make vital contributions to adolescent well-being.”

This is not to say that all journalists get it wrong when it comes to making sense of contemporary fatherhood and family life. This week, for instance, Sue Shellenberger at the Wall Street Journal had a great piece discussing the ways in which mothers serve as gatekeepers for fathers to their children; she also encourages mothers to allow fathers to engage children with their own distinctive style of parenting. Likewise, Linda Carroll at MSNBC has written an incisive story showing that involved and affectionate fathers play a crucial role in steering their daughters away from early sexual activity; in fact, it turns out that dads are more important than moms in protecting their teenage daughters from early sex.

In the coming years, we will need more tough-minded and honest journalism like the kind offered by Shellenberger and Carroll. This is particularly true because the cultural and economic storms of late — e.g., the individualistic turn of contemporary life and the recession — have been eroding the marital foundations of family life in America. Given the social scientific record on fatherhood, marriage, and family life, the United States could use more journalists who are willing to confront hard truths about the roles that fathers and marriage play in advancing the welfare of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens, our children, and the cultural, economic, and legal forces that are now undercutting marriage and fatherhood in America.

WRITTEN by W. Bradford Wilcox at The National Review on June 19th, 2009

Islamic Terrorists Aren't Poor & Ignorant

Nearly everyone on earth is aware that Islamofascism is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problems facing today's world. Here in America, the iconic Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York were bombed in 1993 before finally being collapsed in the attacks of 9/11. What some are not aware of is that the United States continues to be attacked, more than a dozen and a half attempts (at least) since that infamous date in 2001. Included among these were Jose Padilla's plans in 2002 to set off a 'dirty bomb', Dhiren Barot's plan to attack the New York Stock Exchange in 2004, Kevin James and the plot to attack the National Guard facilities in Los Angeles in 2005, Narsearl Batiste & crew and their 2006 plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, the mammoth plot in summer of '06 to simultaneously blow up numerous airliners flying from Britain to the U.S. using liquid explosives. Right here in our own backyard, we had the May 2007 plot to attack the soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Who are these terrorists, and what do they want? Contrary to theories pushed by certain sociologists and liberal thinkers, terrorists are not poor, stupid, and ignorant. According to an article titled "What Makes a Terrorist?" published in the November/December 2007 issue of 'The American' magazine, the highly-respected Pew Research Center conducted a Global Attitudes Project public opinion survey during February 2004 in Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey in an attempt to answer just that question. Their findings show that those who both support and engage in terrorism activities are more highly educated and much better off financially than most in the region. A similar study by the Rand Corporation found that almost 60% of suicide bombers among the Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza had more than a high school education. Nasra Hassan, a U.N. relief worker in the region conducted interviews with hundreds of militants, and stated "none of them were uneducated, desperately poor, simple-minded, or depressed." The article states what is a simple fact: people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause have diverse motivations. Some motivated by nationalism, some by religious fanaticism, some by historic grievances, etc. Facts seem to pretty clearly support that the majority of terrorists have education and means. They know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it, and they do it willingly and happily. What Islamofascist proponents want is to reestablish the worldwide Caliphate and unite the world under Islam and their own political leadership. To this end, they want to strike down western civilization, which is led by the United States and Great Britain, and which is highlighted in what they see as their own region of the Middle East by the nation of Israel. Defeat the U.S., Britain, and Israel by either or a combination of physical destruction or political weakening of power, and the Islamic Caliphate can more easily take control. That is what they want, and they won't cut any deals to 'live and let live'. If we "bring home the troops" that will only stop one side from fighting. The Islamic terrorists are not poor and ignorant. Far from it, they are coming for us, they will keep coming unless we utterly defeat them and their ideology. And in doing so, they are well aware of what they are doing, what price they will have to pay, and how long it may take to accomplish.