Child Abuse and Neglect Cost the United States $124 Billion

Click on the title of this post to read the press release put out by CDC on how much child abuse and neglect costs our nation. If the effect child abuse has on children isn't reason enough to step in and change things, the cost to our health care, legal, and social services systems should make every taxpayer want to act.

Our systems are so reactive and do little to prevent it from happening in the first place. Social services is hesitant to remove a child because they are so focused on keeping the family together and so further abuse happens. Family courts need hard proof of serious abuse happening before they even considered supervised placement or hold opens on placement for the abusive parents. As unfair as this may sound, we need to stop giving second (and third and fourth and fifth, etc.) chances when the safety of children are involved. And we need to look at the statistics that say a parent who is abusive towards the other parent is far more likely to be abusive towards the children. Our children deserve better. And parents' rights should not be put above children's needs and rights.

New issue in Health Reform

The title of this post is linked to an article that prompted this post about the issue of abortion related to the Health Reform bill.

We are a country that is greatly divided over the issue of abortion. Well as we are working through a health reform that will likely include government subsidies in some form for insurance premiums, the concern came up as to whether these government subsidies will end up paying for abortions directly or indirectly.

As the bill is currently written in the Senate, it is very possible that government subsidies will end up paying for abortions. Without the addition of a restriction of government funds, many are saying that this bill may not pass.

So the next question is how much of a separation of funds is enough? Is it enough for insurance companies just to keep separate government subsidies and private premium costs, allocating only the private premium costs towards abortions? In which case, abortions may still be paid for indirectly through government subsidies that make it financially feasible for people to afford plans that allow abortion when they otherwise may not have.

Or does the government need to go as far as not providing subsidies for plans that pay for abortions? In which case those who currently have insurance coverage that covers abortions may lose that coverage. This option will likely lose support of those who are strong pro-choice supporters. But will the other option be enough to gain the support of pro-life supporters?