Poverty And The "Born Child"

And soon to be poor.

In Texas this past Tuesday, a lone Democrat in a heavily Republican state, stood for over 11 hours and spoke continuously in an attempt to block legislation that would significantly curtail a woman's right to obtain an abortion in that state. Ultimately she was disqualified in her filibuster but not before she had stretched the process to the point where a vote cold not be taken and the legislation died.

The legislation was purportedly offered in the name of women's health. And, like legislation directed to restrict or repeal women's rights to abortion in so many states these days, there is always the cry of concern over the rights of the unborn child.

Apparently, to many in this country, there is a big difference between the "unborn child" and children at large. Apparently, to many in this country, there is a monumental need to spend a mountain of resources to protect and defend the rights of a fetus with absolutely no chance of survival apart from its parasitic relationship with the host/mother. And yet, the Annie E. Casey Foundation reports that the number of children living in poverty in the United States rose to 23% in 2011. And this isn't just inner city and Appalachian poor: Nevada and Arizona rank in the bottom 4. Add to that number the 40+% of children living in low income economic conditions and the picture starts to look less than rosy for the future citizenry of this country being vigilantly guarded in wombs everywhere.

Childhood poverty is treason. It is the undermining of this country's future well-being. It is a problem that is multi-faceted, for sure, and one that requires a multiple task response. Complicated as it may be, it deserves far more attention, discussion, and resources than what is currently allotted. And certainly far more than the time, attention, and money spent on protecting the "rights of the unborn."

Once again, I turn to George Carlin who had it right.