Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - empathy

Pages: [1] 2
1
Open Free for All / Phone Senate here to end ALL H1B visas to boost GDP
« on: December 06, 2006, 02:01:37 PM »
I am fed up with the labor dumping. Milton Friedman identified them as subsidies to big business. http://www.computerworld.com/careertopi ... 48,00.html Joseph Stiglitz has come out against these programs as market perverting disincentives for employment in the field. http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200408/index.html Your 'economic theories' are parochial at best. What is your incentive to destroy these professions? The senate is attempting regulate the price and conditions of employment in IT. This is the definition of fascism. I don't think you were paying attention in your economics class, or did you ever take one? There are more visas being issued under the bill than there are jobs in IT. Let the free market work without the cheap labor subsidies at my expense.

Sen. Cornyn trying to ram SKIL act for huge H-1B boost of foreign tech workers

NOT A MINUTE TO WASTE, FRIENDS,

High inside congressional sources have just informed our Capitol Hill Team that Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) appears to be on the edge of negotiating an agreement to allow him to slip a bill through the Senate (maybe tonight -- maybe tomorrow) that would entail a gigantic increase in 3-year H-1B visas for tech and other skilled foreign workers and more than a doubling of annual permanent employment-based green cards!

Capitol Switchboard
202-224-3121

I warned all of you about this last week. Thanks to all who have been faxing and calling abou this.

ONLY PHONE CALLS CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE AT THIS MOMENT.

I am sending this to only those of you who live in a state of a Senator whom we usually can count on as a friend of American workers, particularly Americans working in the tech and engineering fields.


HERE ARE THE SENATORS WHO NEED CALLS RIGHT NOW TO ASK THEM TO PROTECT US FROM THE CORNYN "SNEAK PASS" (notice that this is a bi-partisan groups of pro-worker stalwarts):

Bunning (R-KY)
Byrd (D-WV)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Grassley (R-IA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

WHAT TO SAY

"Sen. XXXX has usually been one of the best friends of American workers against unfair foreign worker competition.

"I urge you to make sure that he/she knows about what Sen. Cornyn is trying to do.

"Can you promise me that Sen. XXXX will watch the floor proceedings and get to the floor in time to block any unanimous consent for any bill this week that would increase the importation of foreign workers?"

2
The Troubled Teen Industry / Lon Woodbury a Freemason!?!?!
« on: December 05, 2006, 03:03:37 PM »
lon woodbury  and  michael allgood  now  run  a  new age group  in  california.    

why  did  cascade  close ?

3
http://www.justice-denied.net/Depo_Grant.htm


sleazy  mark wasserman    phony  foundation  for  brown  money launderers   for   cascade  shakedown

4
Open Free for All / How to report Mexicans in Northern California
« on: December 03, 2006, 10:45:13 AM »
Here are some facts you should know:

40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

Over 2/3?s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.
1. http://www.cis.org/

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE .

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens

5
Open Free for All / Why America should demand repeal of DEA in CA
« on: November 27, 2006, 08:55:44 PM »
http://hempevolution.org/letter/gage020803.htm

send this link to your media and reps.

demand the poa union be disbanded and contract not renewed in december.

attend police commision meetings on sfpd website.

attend bos or e mail them at sfgov.org

we need to stop the dishonesty of the poa deceivers

6
Open Free for All / State Governments surplus of 612 bil ignored by media
« on: November 27, 2006, 12:54:59 PM »
State Governments Have $612 Billion of Your Tax Money That They Are Not Using.

http://cafr1.com/

http://cafrman.com/

7
CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones / Rudy's new job
« on: November 09, 2006, 02:56:25 AM »
where is  the  michael  allgood  ?  

a  danielle   croaked  from  meth  while  in  witness protection  

john  padgett    and  michael  cruciano    drug  mules  for  the cult  

melzer   pimping     in    lompoc  

rudy   joined  cedu  when  ?    

all the sheep  are  delusional  and  in  deep  denial  

demagogues     or   ?

8
Open Free for All / Free video link of Britney Spears doing Kevin Federline
« on: November 02, 2006, 02:42:55 PM »
HERE IS the phone number for  Judge James Munley of
the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania  who
temporarily barred
Hazleton, Pennsylvania, from implementing a law
designed to prevent illegal
immigrants from living in the town.

    PLEASE SEND IT TO THE ENDS OF THE     U S A

  570 207  5780

  TELL HIM THAT HE SHOULD GET OFF THE BENCH AND TAKE A
LOOK AROUND WE HAVE
BEEN INVADED!


In 2006, Hazleton gained national attention as
Republican mayor Lou Barletta and council members
passed the controversial Illegal Immigration Relief
Act. This ordinance was instituted to punish those who
hire or rent to illegal immigrants. Initially, a fine
on landlords for $1000 per illegal immigrant rented to
and a loss of permits for hiring illegal immigrants
has been passed. The act also made English the
official language of Hazleton. Leaders from other
communities across the United States have requested
information on this proposal for use in their own
municipalities.[1][2]

The ordinance has been criticized as illegal and
unconstitutional. A number of Hispanic residents filed
suit to strike down the law, claiming it violates the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution. A copy of the court complaint is
available from the Pennsylvania ACLU [3]. In an
agreement, announced on September 1, with the ACLU,
the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the
Community Justice Project, and other lawyers, Hazleton
will not enforce the ordinance for now [4]. In
response to the lawsuits the city of Hazleton has
retained the council of the former head of immigration
in the Department of Justice.[3]

Illegals have been reported in the press as moving out
of Hazleton under the cover of night and relocating in
nearby Scranton 54 miles up Interstate 81.


KEYWORDS:    


 minutemen     scranton     randy  graf     la  raza  

jim  webb    jim gilchrist      immigration   reform      pennsylvania  election  races      


michael savage     savage nation   bill o  reilly     o  reilly  factor  

rush limbaugh    brian  ross    dateline nbc     san  francisco  chronicle       jerry doyle       lars   larson       laura   ingrahm  

gavin newsom     jerry  brown   arnold  schwarztenegger    phil angelides     proposition  87      george allen     tom tancredo

pat buchanan       anderson cooper     larry king   lou dobbs  

phil  bronstein       cruz  bustamonte      immigration  reform  

reese witherspoon      tom  cruise    brad pitt   angelina  jolie    

thanksgiving        bill gates    larry  ellison     free porn    

tommy  lee    katie couric      ronn owens       drive by  media    

nancy pelosi     harry  reed     john  kerry      john  murfa    

arlen  spector     hilary  clinton   barack  obama    bill clinton   al  gore

9
Read this link about  witch hunts and finger pointing
and agendas and  how america can stop assumptions and
projections.........



http://www.truthinjustice.org/ed-jagels.htm

10
gee  why  won't  mike  talk  about   scam cade ?

11
Clarence ray allen and michael morales to be executed
by governor arnold schwartzenegger  next week .
california has 700 on death row  and  prisons are at
160% of capacity  and san quentin is in a nice
republican neighborhood and would sell for one billion
as developers have told the state they  can  build
townhomes in  posh marin county .  California has a 5 billion defecit and that could end by pardoning and releasing all drug offenders and deporting all illegal aliens in prison .  Prop 187 would have closed schools and hospitals to illegals under gray davis  but  a corrupt activist judge allowed illegal aliens to bankrupt the state and made the taxpayer the parents to illegal alien criminals .  

Voters and Reps must pass a  death penalty fast lane.
Two appeals heard in  two years .  No  co defendant or
snitch testimony  or anyone given immunity or reduced
sentences . three victims to get death penalty .  no
spouses or relatives as victims or testimony . no
executions without dna  or cause of death  or  weapon
.  scott peterson would be  set free.  stuart anderson
 sausage king  passed away of natural causes  on death
row  last week.   Death
row wait would be two years not twenty six.  Taxpayers
pay for executions  and  executions would be televised
on pay per view for 99 bucks  and gang members and
those in jail would be forced to attend . Exposure to
executions weekly would  be a deterrant and many are
so ghetto ized they need therapy and seroquel.  Money
would
go to build low income housing for poor citizens  and
housing would donated to landlords .  Sensitivity
training is needed for inmates  to teach them to
behave properly and not bully and verbally abuse
others in jail .  chemical castration for all maximum
security inmates would reduce crime and save taxpayers
 foster care for illegitimate kids and meth addicted
wives.  



Time to reduce appeals and execute inmates like we did
in the 50's  .  televising executions is what the
public and gangs need to see.  that is what the state
can teach to gangs.
No one enjoys this. This is not a deterrent either.
This will not make any of his thug buddies hesitate
one iota from doing the same thing. Then why the death
penalty? Because it's the right thing to do. It is
JUSTICE. And penal institutions are not to be about
rehab. They are about punishment. Maybe you could
selll your agrument to the young lady who's father was
taken from her so abruptly, while your boy Tookie
stood by and laughed. Some crimes can never be paid
for, especially by "writing a kid's book". Gosh, that
erases everything. As I ride through the projects, I
can certainly see the strides that Tookie and his
followers have made with their "anti-gang" message. No
one is listening. All I see are shrines erected to
those shot in daylight. Go to Turk and Webster and
tell me his message is getting through.

I can't say I feel any sympathy for these guys or
their families. No doubt we'll hear all the sob
stories when the TV news goes to interview one of the
dead men's mom. She'll be weeping on TV and saying
what a good boy he was, he never got into trouble,
never did drugs, etc.

What a load. People who get involved in the world of
drugs and crime know that getting shot is one of the
hazards of the job and they choose to do it anyway.

The obvious denial by every drug dealer's mom who
thinks their boy is a good kid only contributes to the
problem. Someone should have smacked the kid against
the head years ago, but no one did.
Shooting in nashville crack house on news
Four drug dealers off the streets of Nashville. Can't
say I think it's a bad thing.

no fathers ever on camera, why?

you always hear that one. Kid shot to death at 4am on
a weekday morning hanging out on on some streetcorner,
always turns out to be an honor student who "neva did
nuthin to nobody" I understand the TV News people not
wanting to speak ill of the dead, but come on. Gimme a
break.

America's  prisons   are 50% made up of  drug users of
cocaine, marijuana  and  heroin  which  in synthetic
form is called oxycontin  and  a  pain reliever  taken
by Rush Limbaugh  .  America should tell Congress to
end Drug Prohibition  saving 70 billion first year of
it.  Send all the drug users to locked rehab for six
months
and  we  will see every state and city budget with
billions  for infrastructure   roads, hospitals,  low
income housing  for people of all colors.  Time to
reduce unemployment to 1%  and  end the  county jails
which  do not help inmates rehab or  help taxpayers
and make them into gang members.

12
please do storys and polls on webpage  asking
reader/listeners if schools should be closed to end 80
million san francisco defecit.  
 pres eric mar  vp  norman yee   eddie chin  
assistant esther casco  

http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/defaul ... d_overview

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=7271

Do storys on this .   san francisco to have 80 million
defecit in 2006   demand that  SFUSD be closed down  .
 Jails be emptied by releasing drug and homeless
cases.  Public housing residents be evicted  to reduce
crime and balance city budgets.

$30 million disappeared at SFUSD

Remember when Ackerman found there was $30 million
missing at the School District?
Well... I was volunteering with one of the School
District accountants, and he said they had software
that nobody could use.
Meanwhile $30 million disappeared. I think the person
who bought the software for the School District did it

to make sure the accountants would be so busy
kvetching about the software, and so slowed down by
it, and so distracted by it... that they would not be
able to trace him when he walked away with all that $.


Black Parents in San Francisco say closing half empty
public schools is RACIST . taxpayers cannot afford
them and parents cannot afford to pay to send their
kids there. Verbally abusive behavior by black parents
and students must end . every time they are told to
quiet down in class or in parent teacher meetings or
principle or public meetings they play the race card
and try to decieve the public.


As a former high school teacher in SFUSD and a liberal
air america listener i agree with the decision to
close the schools . White and Asian Parents are
leaving the public schools because of the unruly
verbally abusive behavior of african american students
. i specify african american students because
immigrant african students are very polite and
courteous and do not verbally abuse students and
teachers. African American parents who want to keep
afrocentric culture schools like malcolm x and rosa
parks open should be required to donate $2,000 to the
school for each student enrolled to cover the costs
associated with having to have security guards in the
school because of the verbal abuse and terrorist
threats directed at non black students .


These parents are ignorant of the mental health
counseling and prescription drug treatment as well as
post traumatic stress syndrome caused to teachers by
their children . The SFUSD and taxpayer has to pay for
teachers who are unable to work and are placed on
disability because of the verbal abuse and yelling
done by african american students whose excuse is that
" it is part of our culture to speak loudly " . Please
tell your listeners how ignorant the parents and
students are of the metal trauma and anxiety and
stress caused by their verbally abusive behavior . Ask
the african american parents if they would like to
pick up the costs of anti anxiety medication
prescribed to teachers every time one of their kids
act out in class. The playing of the race card is a
shakedown that has been taught by jesse jackson and
african american church leaders . Not once has an
african american parent or student ever apologized for
putting so many teachers on permenant disability . No
one will work in public schools and teachers are not
being fired because the SFUSD cannot find replacements
or temps as they are aware of the verbal abuse and
bullying and disrespect by black students and parents
who are always demanding that everyone respect them
but treating teachers with false accusations of not
giving their kid a passing grade or enough attention.

13
do a google search  for congress e mail and write your newspapers , magazines  and  talk radio and local tv and national news nightly and primetime .

The Overwhelming of America

Marty Nemko, Ph.D.

 

The Overwhelming of America

 

Marty Nemko, Ph.D.

 

I don?t fit the profile of someone who worries about
uncontrolled immigration.

 

My parents are immigrants, I know that immigrants have
contributed mightily to America, and I?m no American
flag waver. I am ashamed, for example, of America?s
international hubris, environmental callousness,
obscene materialism, declining ethical standards, and
unconscionable disparity between rich and poor.

 

So, I never was particularly concerned about
uncontrolled immigration. I was additionally reassured
because the media was reporting research that found
illegal immigration to be a net plus for the US, for
example, the ubiquitous assertions that we need
illegals because they do the work that legal
resident?s won?t.

 

But one day, one of my unemployed clients said, ?Damn,
I?d even work in one of those poultry plants if they
paid a half-decent wage.? It made me start to wonder
whether  uncontrolled immigration was being ignored
mainly because it allows corporations to get cheap
labor?another example of corporate welfare.

 

And then I heard some stories from my wife, Dr.
Barbara Nemko, the Napa County Superintendent of
Schools, about how challenging it is to meet the
immigrant children?s learning, social, health needs
without shortchanging the other kids.

 

So I decided to more thoroughly review the evidence on
uncontrolled immigration?s effects. As a result of
that research, I have had to change my mind.   I have
come to the conclusion that the greatest threat to
America is not terrorism but uncontrolled immigration.


 

I thought that perhaps I was overreacting, so it was
reassuring that this was the conclusion drawn in the
cover story of this week?s (Sep. 19, 2004) Time
magazine.

 

Heretofore, the frightening present and future effects
of illegal immigration have not been readily apparent
to many of us in the middle class, but that will
almost assuredly change.

 

Prevalence

 

The number of illegal immigrants in the US has more
than doubled in the past decade to 10,000,000, the
population of Maine, Idaho, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Montana, Delaware, Vermont, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming combined!.
And the rate is accelerating.  According to the
September 19, 2004 issue of Time magazine,
3,000,000(!) illegals entered this US in the past
twelve months alone.

 

Effects

 

There's an enormous difference between earlier waves
of immigrants and this one: This wave is uncontrolled.
 

As a result, not only are the numbers overwhelming,
but because so many in this wave have chosen to flout
US immigration laws, this wave is much more likely to
commit crimes. The crime rate among illegals is
extraordinary. And the financial and human cost of
providing social services for this wave is
dramatically greater than for any previous one. Help
to earlier waves of immigrants consisted mainly of
providing them with night school to learn English.
Today, the costs are many times greater: free health
care, free education K-12, subsidized higher
education, easy-to-illegally-obtain social security,
welfare, unemployment, housing subsidies, etc, plus
the terrible financial and human costs of their high
crime rate.  

This article will primarily document, with hard facts,
how our schools, our health care system, criminal
justice system, will likely soon be overwhelmed. In
addition, our national security is severely
compromised, and salaries are being driven down,
forcing ever more formerly middle-class US residents
into poverty.  

Uncontrolled immigration and its devastating effects
would be dramatically worsened further by President
Bush?s Guest Worker proposal: all Guest Workers?
spouses, children, parents, and siblings would receive
legal status. And the chain would extend far further:
the Guest Worker or spouse could ?sponsor? his or her
parents and brothers and sisters, and relatives, which
means they can come to America legally. In turn, those
relatives could sponsor their relatives, ad infinitum.
 

John Kerry has proposed a vague but probably  even
more devastating plan: He has promised, in a keynote
address to the National Conference of La Raza to
initiate, within 100 days of his election, a ?path to
legalization? for all illegals.  

Both the Bush and Kerry plans are daggers in the US
middle class?s heart.  

Here is the evidence.

Lower wages.

 

Cindy and Ed Kolb used to run a construction service
in Hereford, Arizona. On CNN, she said, ?We could
never win a bid because we paid Americans a living
wage. Other firms hire illegals and pay them below
minimum wage.? The Kolbs have had to close their
business.

 

Of course, the problem also affects employees. The
owner of a Bay Area construction company who insisted
on anonymity bragged that he used to have to pay
carpenters $20 an hour plus benefits but now gets them
for $12, no benefits, because of the ready supply of
illegal immigrants.

 

The Center for Immigration Studies has calculated that
illegals have already cost American workers $133
billion in salary cuts and job losses. A study by
George Borjas, professor of economics and social
policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of
Government, found that immigration has reduced the
average annual earnings of native-born U.S. men by
approximately $1,700. According to a study by the
prestigious National Academy of Sciences, illegal
immigration combined with the rampant offshoring of US
jobs promises to significantly shrink the middle and
working class, forcing ever more people into poverty.


 

Legally residing young adults without college
degrees?an already vulnerable group--are being hit
particularly hard. Last year, the employment rate for
teens reached a record low, down nine percentage
points just since 2000.

 

President Bush, pandering to Corporate America?s
thirst for cheap labor, is proposing a so-called Guest
Worker program that would greatly increase the number
of illegal workers. It would provide legal residency
for three years (renewable) to all illegals holding US
jobs, to their families, and even to those with just a
letter stating that an employer promises a job.

 

The only restriction would be that the employer must
first have tried to hire a legal resident. That
restriction is practically unenforceable. The cost of
investigating each of millions of hiring decisions
would be prohibitive. No doubt, as in the 1986 amnesty
program for agriculture workers, Bush?s Guest Worker
program would rely on employers? self-serving
attestations. Even that amnesty program?s sponsor,
Charles Schumer (D-NY) admitted that in that program,
fraud occurred in 2/3 of the hires.

 

According to Rosemary Jenks, director of government
relations for Numbers USA, a nonpartisan nonprofit
that collects immigration statistics, ?When that 1986
law was passed, it was support to be a one-time
never-to-be repeated action. Since then, however,
Congress has passed seven amnesties rewarding more
than six million illegal aliens with legal residence
and putting them and their relatives on the path of US
citizenship.? Why have you not heard about this? Aware
that the public opposes amnesty for illegal aliens,
politicians disguise amnesty programs by giving them
obfuscating labels such as ?earned regularization,? or
Bush?s term, ?Guest Worker.?

 

I wonder what Bush would say to that carpenter whose
income has dropped to $12 an hour, no benefits.
?Sorry. We wanted to be sure corporations can get
cheap labor.??

 

Bush claims that Guest Workers do work that legal
Americans won?t. If that were true, then in the 35
states with few illegals (87 percent of illegals
reside in just 15 states), lawns wouldn?t get mowed,
hotel rooms wouldn?t get cleaned, buildings wouldn?t
get built, and crops wouldn?t get picked. In those
states, employers simply have to pay a living wage and
provide decent working conditions to get people to do
that work.

 

As mentioned earlier, John Kerry proposes an even more
radical plan. He has promised?without specifying
details?that within 100 days of his inauguration, to
forward a ?path to legalization? for nearly all
illegals

 

Gutted unions. Unions protect workers against
exploitation. Flooding the job market with illegals
erodes unions? power to negotiate. Bush?s Guest Worker
proposal and Kerry?s ?path to legalization? would add
millions of non-unionized workers. That would, of
course, exacerbate the problem.

 

Worse public schools. America?s public schools already
suffer under severe budget constraints, causing large
class sizes, textbook shortages, and leaky ceilings.
Yet, US law requires that all illegals receive free
public education K-12. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform estimates that this costs $7.4
billion dollars each year.

 

The birthrate among illegals is more than double that
of legal US residents. The Pew Hispanic Center
calculates that within seven years, the children of
immigrants, legal and illegal, will account for one in
nine school-age children in the US. The Urban
Institute estimates that already, 15% of all school
children in California are illegals, many of whom
speak little English. These students are usually
mainstreamed in classes with native English speakers.
This means that teachers must slow down instruction,
denying native English speakers their right to an
appropriate-level education.

 

The challenge is even greater because not all those
students? native language is Spanish: For example, in
my nearest major school district, San Francisco, it
would not be unusual to find a class that had native
speakers of Chinese, Russian, Tagalog, Spanish, and
English. Imagine the challenge of trying to educate
them all. If your child were in that class, would you
be confident that he or she would receive a quality
education?

 

Immigrant children pose less obvious challenges to the
schools. Barbara Nemko, the Napa County Superintendent
of Schools, points out examples: ?Unless she speaks
Spanish, we have a hard time justifying hiring an even
an excellent teacher? So much of our staff development
time must now be allocated to dealing with the needs
of ?English Language Learners.? Our immigrant kids
also come to school with serious health problems that
we must address. For example, dentists now visit our
high-immigrant schools providing dental services at no
cost to the student.?

 

Immigrant advocacy groups such as the Mexican-American
Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) and La Raza have
additionally burdened the public schools by demanding
that schools provide special controversial programs
such as bilingual education, in which students are
taught in Spanish for much of the day. Bilingual
education programs exist throughout California even
after longitudinal research has not demonstrated their
effectiveness and after a voter-approved ban on those
programs.

 

MALDEF and La Raza also pushed through legislation
that allows, in 19 states, illegal immigrants to not
only attend any public university in those states, but
to pay in-state tuition, while legal residents of
neighboring states must pay the out-of-state rate
which is three to eight times more.  It?s quite an
injustice, for example, that a legal resident can be
denied admission to taxpayer-supported Berkeley and
must attend community college so an illegal foreign
national can attend Berkeley?at in-state rates! And
often, because of reverse discrimination admission
policies, the illegal is admitted with B grades while
the rejected legal resident may have A grades.

 

And Senator Dick Durban (D-Illinois) is spearheading
legislation to extend the in-state tuition privilege
to illegals in all 50 states.

 

MALDEF?s and La Raza?s lobbying and legal power is
remarkable.

§                      Worse health care. US law
states that all illegals and their families are
entitled to free emergency health care, and many
jurisdictions provide non-emergency care to illegals
for free.

Our health care system is already overwhelmed.  For
example, thousands of Americans die each year because
of lack of adequate nursing and other medical care.
Illegal immigrants, coming from poor countries, have
great health care needs.  

And in addition to common diseases, illegals bring
challenges not normally faced in the US, for example,
7,000 new cases of leprosy in the past three years
came in from Mexico, India, and Brazil, 16,000 new
cases of multiple-drug-resistant, incurable, and
communicable(!) tuberculosis. The Centers for Disease
Control reports that illegal immigrants account for
over 65 percent of communicable diseases (TB,
hepatitis, leprosy, AIDS, etc.,) in the US.
Immigration officials are supposed to screen out
immigrants who are carrying diseases, but there is no
health screening for illegal immigrants.  

Illegals? further burden the health care system
because they disproportionately do heavy physical
work, which causes their bodies to fall apart faster,
and because the violent crime rate among illegals is
staggering (See below).  

The burden of providing health care to illegals
extends beyond disease and saving crime victims. For
example, because of illegals? high birthrate, in
Colorado, which has a mere (?) 100,000 illegal
immigrants, taxpayers in 2003 alone paid for 6,000
illegals to have their babies. That?s 40% of the
births Medicaid paid for in the state. To get
immediate care, the illegal only must say ?I am
undocumented."  

The Washington Times reported that dozens of hospitals
in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have
either closed their doors or face bankruptcy because
of losses caused by uncompensated care given to
illegal immigrants. Heretofore, most of the closings
have been in hospitals near the Mexican border. But
the problem is extending northward as illegals move
northward. This week, a hospital in San Jose (400
miles north of the Mexican border) had to close
largely because it was overrun by illegals who would
not pay for services.

Brenda Walker, in the same publication writes, "More
than 40 million American citizens do not have health
insurance while they pay in their tax bills for free
medical care for Mexican nationals, many of whom are
illegally working at American jobs - a double-dip rip
off. Furthermore, hospitals closing and emergency
rooms crowded with illegal aliens mean that an
American needing speedy treatment may have to wait far
longer to receive it. Such delays can mean the
difference between life and death."

US House of Representatives member Mark Foley has
persuaded the General Accounting Office to study the
financial costs that illegals impose on hospitals. He
says "we need to remedy this problem before we can no
longer afford to take care of Americans."

 

The impact of legalizing millions of illegals, their
spouses, and children, to our already creaking health
care system would be devastating.  

I wonder what George Bush or John Kerry would say to a
legal resident whose family member died because of an
overwhelmed health care system: ?Sorry, we allow the
illegals because it enables corporations to avoid
raising wages.??

 

§                      More Dishonesty. Bush and Kerry
would give legal status to millions of people whose
first act in this country was to commit a
crime?sneaking into the US to evade immigration
laws--and who soon committed a second crime-- applying
for a job when only legal residents are allowed to.
Countless illegals soon go on to commit yet another
crime: obtain false documents so they can, from US
taxpayers, steal (that is the correct albeit
unvarnished word) food stamps, housing subsidies,
unemployment insurance, Medicare, and other government
benefits intended for legal residents.

Obtaining false documents couldn?t be easier. A fake
identity package including birth certificate, Social
Security card, passport, green card, and driver's
license is widely available on the street for $50 to
$70. For a similar price, illegals can borrow the real
thing. Legal immigrants simply rent their IDs to
illegals who want to apply for a job, welfare, or
Social Security.

Can we ask legal residents to be honest--for example,
to pay their income taxes?while we reward lawbreaking
illegals with legal status, an array of services for
themselves and their families, plus full US
citizenship for all subsequent offspring? In
officially welcoming millions of acknowledged at-least
two-time lawbreakers into the US, we would exacerbate
America?s already declining honesty.

 

And the impacts of a dishonest society are profound.
Already, we hear of endless examples of rampant
dishonesty from corporate malfeasance to welfare
fraud, from student cheating to elder scams. A viable
society requires that we able to trust what people say
and do.

§          More violent crime. The violent crime rate
among illegals is horrific. I wish I could present the
most germane statistic: the violent crime rate for
legal versus illegal residents, but for reasons I
can?t understand, most law enforcement agencies are
prohibited from collecting those data. Nevertheless,
related statistics are available.

According to the US Transportation Department, nearly
half of California's drunk driving arrests in 2001
were Latino men. (Data for later years is not yet
available.)

 

An article in City Journal reports, ?In Los Angeles,
up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants
(17,000) are for illegal immigrants. A confidential
California Department of Justice study reported in
1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street
Gang in southern California is illegal; police
officers say the proportion is actually much greater.
The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia,
the dominant force in California prisons, on complex
drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by
assassinations, and commits an assault or robbery
every day in L.A. County.? One in seven inmates in
California state prisons are illegal immigrants,
serving time for crimes other than being in the US
illegally.  California taxpayers alone spend $500
million a year on incarcerating illegals.  

Astonishingly, because of so-called sanctuary laws,
police in illegal-saturated cities such as L.A., San
Diego, Houston, Austin, Chicago, and New York are
prohibited from reporting even felons? immigration
violations to federal authorities.

Even an illegal alien who has committed murder rarely
gets deported! According to statistics from the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, 80,000 illegals who have
served prison time for felonies including murder,
rape, drug smuggling, and armed robberies, are roaming
our streets. This is frightening indeed because,
according to Bureau of Justice statistics, within
three years of prison release, 62% commit another
crime.

I wonder what Bush or Kerry would say to the family of
a person who was murdered by an illegal.

And if Bush or Kerry?s legalization proposals are
enacted, the violent crime rate among illegals will
worsen further. Because most illegals have physically
demanding jobs, when they reach their 40s, their
bodies are typically no longer capable of doing that
work. At that point, with no experience other than in
manual labor, most of these people will not be able to
earn a living wage, and hopeless people (or their
children) disproportionately turn to crime. So, as
time goes on, the already devastating crime rate among
illegals will rise further.

§                      Endangered national security.
All 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were in the US
illegally. Peyton Knight, Director of Legislative
Affairs for the American Policy Center, a Virginia
think tank, writes, ?At a time when America is under
attack by Islamist holy warriors, the Census Bureau
estimates that as many as 115,000 illegal immigrants
from Middle Eastern countries are living in the United
States.

 

§                      Higher taxes. Many illegals are
paid off-the-books. Most others earn low salaries and
therefore pay little or no tax. Yet illegals are heavy
users of tax-dollar funded programs: education, health
care, and the criminal justice system, for example.
According to US Census data, immigrants [1] are 75%
more likely to use food stamps, medical benefits, and
housing assistance at a cost of $68 billion per year.
(Compare this with the estimated $84 billion one-time
cost of the war in Iraq.) A recent report by the
Center for Immigration Studies finds that illegals
cost the taxpayer $10 billion more than they
contribute in taxes.

 

Some argue that illegals contribute to our economy
through their spending. In fact, because illegals?
salaries are low, they have little to spend. In
addition, while American-born workers spend most or
all of their earnings here in the US, creating more
jobs and in turn, more tax revenues, illegals send
much of their earnings back to relatives in their
native country. For example, according to a study by
the Pew Hispanic Center and Inter-American Development
Bank, Latino immigrants in 2002, despite the soft
economy, sent a record $23 billion to relatives and
others in their home countries.

 

California is already almost bankrupt. Adding millions
more illegals into legal status would likely push
California over the edge. Other states with large
numbers of illegals would likely soon follow, causing
illegals to move to states that still had money to
provide them with services. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)
called the Bush plan, ?lunacy.? The Kerry plan would
legalize far more illegals.

 

§                      Ever more illegal border
crossing. If I were a poor citizen of a poor country
and learned that the US government is not deporting
illegal aliens but instead, providing them with free
health care and education, and that with
easy-to-obtain fake ID, I could get many additional
services, my family and I would be ever more tempted
to sneak into the US.

 

And a majority of Mexicans, with whom the US shares a
1,000-mile border, believe there?s nothing wrong with
doing so. According to a Zogby poll, 57 percent
believe  ?Mexicans should have the right to enter the
US without US permission? and 58 percent agreed that
?the territory of the U.S.? southwest rightfully
belongs to Mexico.?  

 

Many Mexican leaders also hold these beliefs.
Co-founder of MALDEF, Mario Obledo, to whom President
Clinton awarded the U.S. Presidential Medal of
Freedom, boasted, ?California is going to be a
Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn?t like it should
leave." He added: "Every constitutional office in
California is going to be held by Hispanics in the
next 20 years.?  Jose Pescador Osuna, former Mexican
Consul General in Los Angeles, said, "Even though I?m
saying this part serious and part joking, I believe we
are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California." Past
Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, in 1997, speaking
before the national council of La Raza, was not
half-joking when he said: "I have proudly affirmed
that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory
enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are
an important ? a very important ? part of this."  And
Mexico?s current president, Vicente Fox has marched La
Reconquista forward by having convinced President Bush
to provide legal status for millions of illegals.

In Sum

As I mentioned earlier, I am far from an American
flag-waver. But despite its flaws, America has,
heretofore, been a land of exceptional opportunity and
innovation. As I get older, I especially appreciate
that America has spawned more life-saving medical
advances and quality-of-life improvements than any
country in the world. America has also provided
trillions in foreign aid, and is the only country in
the world with a worldwide Peace Corps, a tremendous
service to the people of the developing world.

 

However, uncontrolled immigration promises to destroy
all that. Of course, many illegal immigrants do
valuable work, but their net impact, as I have
demonstrated, is already very negative, and promises
to decimate America.

Yet, in fear of not sufficiently celebrating
diversity, and in pandering to Corporate America?s
thirst for cheap, compliant labor, both Democrats and
Republicans are not only failing to defend against the
overwhelming invasion by illegals but encouraging it.

As a result, every year, America is dying faster.
President Bush?s Guest Worker proposal and John
Kerry?s even more radical proposal would accelerate
America?s death, a dagger in the middle class?s heart.


And what about the millions of people worldwide who
have patiently waited so they can immigrate to the US
legally? Can we expect they?ll continue to wait? Or
will they just come on in, accelerating the
overwhelming of America.

 

This is sad, not only for America, but for the world.
For example, developing nations benefit from a US
government and a Corporate America wealthy enough to
invest in those countries. For example, when US
corporations establish operations in developing
nations, they pay employees much more than the
country?s prevailing wages and offer far better
working conditions. So, a dying America contributes to
declining standard of living to people around the
globe.

 

By having de facto suspended our immigration laws, we
will soon be just another of the world?s countries
struggling just to cope with its own residents?
poverty.

 

An Alternative

For both humanitarian and practical reasons, the US
should not round up and deport illegal immigrants.

 

Instead, the US should impose and enforce severe
penalties on employers who hire illegals. If an
employer cannot find a legal worker, it must improve
salaries and working conditions until a legal resident
will take the position. The government must also
eliminate incentives for foreigners to sneak into the
US: no benefits to illegals and their families except
for emergency health care.

 

Also, we should do more to make citizens of other
countries less eager to leave their homeland. Such
efforts should focus on Mexico because it is the
source of the majority of illegal immigrants. What
could be done? Mexico is home to half of Latin
America?s billionaires. Mexico should more heavily tax
its wealthy to provide higher-quality education and
health care for all its citizens. US banks and
non-profits, perhaps with a government subsidy, should
provide microloans to help Mexican citizens start
their own local businesses. For 25 years, microloans
have helped millions of poor people to raise their
standard of living, even in the most poverty-wracked
countries. In addition, the Mexican government needs
to take some responsibility for its people?s poverty.
For example, its government is notoriously corrupt,
creating a gap between rich and poor that dwarfs the
disparity we so decry in the US. If President Fox is
to expect the US to assist Mexico, he needs to make
all efforts to clean up the corruption.

 

If you believe that uncontrolled immigration is
damaging to America and indirectly to the world, seek
out candidates willing to control immigration. Trouble
is, I can?t find one.

 

Marty Nemko holds a PhD in education from the
University of California, Berkeley and subsequently
taught there. He has been a consultant to 15 college
presidents. 400+ of his published writings are on
http://www.martynemko.com.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The census doesn?t identify residents as legal or
illegal, but the consensus estimate is that 2/3 of all
immigrants in the US are illegal.

 

Back Print This Page  

 

Dr. Marty Nemko hosts Work With Marty Nemko,
Sundays 11 am to noon
on KALW, 91.7 FM, San Francisco.
His newest book is Cool Careers for Dummies
and he offers by-phone and in-person career
and personal coaching.
For information, call 510-655-2777.

14
Nine Reasons Why Abortions Are Legal

Abortion is never an easy decision, but women have
been making that choice for thousands of years, for
many good reasons. Whenever a society has sought to
outlaw abortions, it has only driven them into back
alleys where they became dangerous, expensive, and
humiliating. Amazingly, this was the case in the
United States until 1973, when abortion was legalized
nationwide. Thousands of American women died.

Thousands more were maimed. For this reason and
others, women and men fought for and achieved women's
legal right to make their own decisions about
abortion.

However, there are people in our society who still
won't accept this. Some argue that even survivors of
rape or incest should be forced to continue their
pregnancies. And now, having failed to convince the
public or the lawmakers, certain of these people have
become violent extremists, engaging in a campaign of
intimidation and terror aimed at women seeking
abortions and health professionals who work at
reproductive health clinics.

Some say these acts will stop abortions, but that is
ridiculous. When the smoke clears, the same urgent
reasons will exist for safe, legal abortions as have
always existed. No nation committed to individual
liberty could seriously consider returning to the days
of back-alley abortions ? to the revolting specter of
a government forcing women to bear children against
their will. Still, amid such attacks, it is worthwhile
to repeat a few of the reasons why our society trusts
each woman to make the abortion decision herself.



1. Laws against abortion kill women.

To prohibit abortions does not stop them. When women
feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to
have abortions, even in secret, without medical care,
in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before
abortion was legal in the U.S., it's been estimated
that nearly a million women per year sought out
illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands
were mutilated. All were forced to behave as if they
were criminals.


2. Legal abortions protect women's health.

Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it
also protects their health. For tens of thousands of
women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe
hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes,
and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the
availability of legal abortion has helped avert
serious medical complications that could have resulted
from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's
choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or
dangerous childbirth.


3. A woman is more than a fetus.

Some people argue these days that a fetus is a
"person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of
us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On
this question there is a tremendous spectrum of
religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical
opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately,
our society has recognized that each woman must be
able to make this decision, based on her own
conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a
"person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a
woman's ? a thinking, feeling, conscious human being ?
is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish
women.


4. Being a mother is just one option for women.

Many hard battles have been fought to win political
and economic equality for women. These gains will not
be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be
able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other
options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can
end a woman's economic and personal freedom.


5. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory.

Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income
women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or
back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But
the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a
safe abortion.


6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a
free society.

If there is any matter that is personal and private,
then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme
invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an
unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted
to compel a woman to bear a child, where will
government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It
violates traditional American ideas of individual
rights and freedoms.


7. Outlaw abortion, and more children will bear
children.

Forty percent of 14-year-old girls will become
pregnant before they turn 20. This could happen to
your daughter or someone else close to you. Here are
the critical questions: Should the penalty for lack of
knowledge or even for a moment's carelessness be
enforced pregnancy and childrearing? Or dangerous
illegal abortion? Should we consign a teenager to a
life sentence of joblessness, hopelessness, and
dependency?


8. "Every child a wanted child."

If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to
term, the result is unwanted children. Everyone knows
they are among society's most tragic cases, often
uncared-for, unloved, brutalized, and abandoned. When
they grow up, these children are often seriously
disadvantaged, and sometimes inclined toward brutal
behavior to others. This is not good for children, for
families, or for the country. Children need love and
families who want and will care for them.


9. Choice is good for families.

Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do
happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But
for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An
unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt
stability, and push people below the line of economic
survival. Family planning is the answer. All options
must be open.



At the most basic level, the abortion issue is not
really about abortion. It is about the value of women
in society. Should women make their own decisions
about family, career, and how to live their lives? Or
should government do that for them? Do women have the
option of deciding when or whether to have children?
Or is that a government decision?

The anti-abortion leaders really have a larger
purpose. They oppose most ideas and programs that can
help women achieve equality and freedom. They also
oppose programs that protect the health and well-being
of women and their children.

Anti-abortion leaders claim to act "in defense of
life." If so, why have they worked to destroy programs
that serve life, including prenatal care and nutrition
programs for dependent pregnant women? Is this respect
for life?

Anti-abortion leaders also say they are trying to save
children, but they have fought against health and
nutrition programs for children once they are born.
The anti-abortion groups seem to believe life begins
at conception, but it ends at birth. Is this respect
for life?

Then there are programs that diminish the number of
unwanted pregnancies before they occur: family
planning counseling, sex education, and contraception
for those who wish it. Anti-abortion leaders oppose
those, too. And clinics providing such services have
been bombed. Is this respect for life?

Such stances reveal the ultimate cynicism of the
compulsory pregnancy movement. "Life" is not what
they're fighting for. What they want is a return to
the days when a woman had few choices in controlling
her future. They think that the abortion option gives
too much freedom. That even contraception is too
liberating. That women cannot be trusted to make their
own decisions.

Americans today don't accept that. Women can now
select their own paths in society, including when and
whether to have children. Family planning,
contraception, and, if need be, legal abortion are
critical to sustaining women's freedom. There is no
going back.

If you agree with this, you can help. Circulate this
statement among your friends, and support our work by
contacting your local Planned Parenthood affiliate.
Thank you.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Updated November 2004

© 2004 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
All rights reserved.



For medical questions, or to schedule an appointment
with the nearest Planned Parenthood health center,
call toll-free 1-800-230-PLAN
or 1-800-230-7526.

Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers provide
culturally competent, high quality, affordable health
care to millions of diverse women, men, and teens
every year. Planned Parenthood welcomes everyone ?
regardless of race, age, disability, sexual
orientation, or income.
 
  These documents are for informational purposes only
and are not intended to constitute medical advice,
diagnosis, or treatment.
 
Facts About Birth Control
REVERSIBLE PRESCRIPTION METHODS

Progestin-Only Methods

The Shot (Three Months) - Depo-Provera

The Shot is injected every 12 weeks. It contains a
hormone that is similar to the progesterone made by a
woman's ovaries. The shot is also known as DMPA. The D
stands for "depot," the solution in which the hormone
is suspended. The hormone is medroxyprogesterone
acetate. The common brand name for the DMPA shot is
Depo-Provera.

How the Shot Works
DMPA works in two ways. Usually, it keeps the ovaries
from releasing an egg (ovulation). Less often it
thickens the cervical mucus, preventing sperm from
joining with an egg. It also affects the lining of the
uterus, which, in theory, may prevent implantation of
a fertilized egg.

How Well the Shot Works
DMPA is one of the most effective reversible methods
of birth control. Of every 100 women who use DMPA,
only three will become pregnant during the first year.
Fewer than one will become pregnant with perfect use.

How the Shot is Used
After taking your medical history and giving you a
physical exam (if needed), the clinician will give you
the shot. Protection against pregnancy is immediate if
you get DMPA during the first five days of your
period. Otherwise, use a backup method of
contraception for the first seven days.

Do not have an injection if there is a chance that you
are pregnant. Be sure to tell your clinician if you
think there is any chance that you are.

You should have a follow-up visit for another
injection at the end of 12 weeks. Be sure to tell any
health care provider you may see that you are using
DMPA.

Advantages of the Shot


can be used by women who cannot take estrogen

nothing to put in place before vaginal intercourse

can be used while breastfeeding

effective for 12 weeks

no medicine to take every day

helps prevent cancer of the lining of the uterus

A Woman Should Not Use the Shot if She


has unexplained bleeding from the vagina

is or might be pregnant

has a known or suspected breast cancer

is taking medicine for Cushing's syndrome

cannot put up with irregular bleeding or loss of her
period

wants to become pregnant within 12 months

Some women can use DMPA under close medical
supervision even if they have


diabetes

a history of severe depression

a recent history of liver disease, such as hepatitis,
or abnormal results on liver function tests

high blood pressure

high risk for heart disease

current serious blood clotting conditions

Possible Disadvantages of the Shot
A woman must receive the shot every three months. It
is important to consider that there is no way to stop
the effects of DMPA. Side effects from DMPA, for
example, may continue until the shot wears off (12?14
weeks). For some women, it may only take 12 weeks
after the last shot to get pregnant. For others, it
may take more than a year.

Irregular bleeding is the most common side effect for
women using DMPA.


Periods become fewer and lighter for most women ? in
time, they may stop altogether. It may take a year for
periods to begin again after a woman stops using DMPA.

Some women will have longer and heavier periods.

Some may have more light spotting and breakthrough
bleeding.

However, these side effects are more common in the
first six-to-12 months of use. The longer a woman uses
DMPA, the more likely she will be to stop having
menstrual periods. More than half of DMPA users have
no periods after one year of use.

Less common side effects include


headache

nausea

dizziness

sore breasts

change of appetite, weight gain

depression

hair loss, or increased hair on the face or body

nervousness

skin rash or spotty darkening of the skin

change in sex drive

Depo-Provera provides no protection against sexually
transmitted infections.
Latex and female condoms can reduce the risk of
infection.

Research Update ?

Women should not use the shot continuously for more
than two years unless no other method is right for
them.


Women who use DMPA may have temporary bone thinning.
It increases the longer they use DMPA. Bone growth
begins again when women stop using the shot. Whether
or not there is a complete recovery of bone mass is
unknown.

Whether or not temporary bone thinning leads to
greater risk of bone fracture from osteoporosis much
later in life is also unknown.

To protect your bones, get regular exercise and get
extra calcium and vitamin D ? either through your diet
or by using supplements.

In the very rare case that pregnancy occurs during the
use of DMPA, there is an increased chance that the
pregnancy will be ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies are
life threatening. They usually are eliminated
medically or removed with surgery. Contact your
clinician immediately if you have any symptoms of
pregnancy, including


late or missed periods

severe lower abdominal pain

nausea and breast tenderness

Warning Signs for the Shot
Serious problems are rare. Tell your clinician
immediately if you have


severe pain in the stomach or abdomen

unusually heavy or prolonged vaginal bleeding

a new lump in your breast

major depression

yellowing of the skin or eyes

How to Get the Shot
Visit a family planning clinic, your HMO, or private
doctor for a prescription. Sometimes an exam is
needed. The shot must be administered by a clinician.

What the Shot Costs
Nationwide, the cost of a visit or examination, if
needed, ranges from about $35?$125. The injection
costs about $30?$75. Subsequent visits cost about
$20?$40, plus medication. Costs may be less, depending
on your income, at some family planning centers. All
costs are covered by Medicaid. Costs vary from
community to community, based on regional and local
expenses. Contact your nearest Planned Parenthood
health center 1-800-230-PLAN for information about
costs in your area.




Sterilization

Progestin-Only Methods:

Implants
The Shot (Three Months)
Progestin-Only Pills (POPs)


The IUD (Intrauterine Device)

Combined Hormone Methods:

The Pill

The Ring

The Patch


Prescription Barrier Methods


The Condom

The Female Condom

Fertility Awareness-based Methods (FAMs)

Spermicide

The Sponge


Emergency Contraception  
   
 
 
Facts About Birth Control
Sterilization

Sterilization is intended to be permanent. It may
involve surgery and there is no guarantee it can be
reversed.

How Sterilization Works
Tubal sterilization is the procedure for women. It
blocks the fallopian tubes ? the tubes where eggs are
fertilized by sperm.

Vasectomy is the procedure for men. It blocks the two
tubes that carry sperm. Each tube is called a vas
deferens.

Pregnancy cannot happen when sperm cannot reach an
egg.

How Well Sterilization Works
Sterilization is one of the most effective
contraceptive methods. Of every 1,000 women who are
sterilized, only five will become pregnant during the
first year. About one out of 100 women will become
pregnant each year after. Of every 1,000 men who are
sterilized, fewer than two will cause pregnancy during
the first year.

Sterilization provides no protection against sexually
transmitted infections.
Latex or female condoms can reduce the risk of
infection.

Advantages of Sterilization
Sterilization is intended to be permanent protection
against pregnancy, and


has no lasting side effects

does not affect sexual pleasure

the high up-front cost is low compared to lifetime
costs of most similarly effective methods

Who Can Use Sterilization
Sterilization can be used by most women and men,
especially

those who have all the children they want

those who are sure they will never want children

those who do not want to risk passing on hereditary
diseases

women ? or their partners ? for whom pregnancy is a
health threat

How Sterilization Is Used
Surgical tubal sterilization is effective immediately.
The newly approved, no-incision method (Essure?)
becomes effective 12 weeks after insertion. Some sperm
remain in a man's system after the vasectomy. Other
birth control must be used until the sperm are used
up. This usually takes at least 15 ejaculations. Semen
analysis ? a simple lab test ? shows when there are no
more sperm.

Possible Disadvantages of Sterilization for Women and
Men
Most women and men adjust to sterilization with few or
no problems. However, if incisions are necessary,
there may be some complications, including


mild bleeding right after the operation

reaction to local or general anesthetic

mild infection within one or two weeks of the
operation

bruising at the incision site

rarely, tubes in women and men reconnect and pregnancy
occurs

    Vasectomy


temporary pain, swelling, or tenderness near the
testicles ? rarely, pain may become chronic and severe
and require medical treatment

small lumps (granulomas) formed by the sperm, near the
testicles ? which sometimes need medical treatment

    Tubal sterilization

very rare injury to blood vessels or bowel that may
need surgery



Possible rare problems with the placement of Essure
could lead to expulsion of the insert or to
perforation of a tube. Reaction to local anesthesia is
also possible.

Warning Signs
Pregnancy after sterilization is rare but can occur
years after the procedure. If it occurs, it is more
likely to be ectopic ? in a fallopian tube. Contact
your clinician if you have any symptoms of pregnancy,
including


late or missed periods

severe lower abdominal pain

nausea and breast tenderness

What Sterilization Costs
Tubal sterilization costs from $2,000?$6,000.
Vasectomy is less expensive because it is a simpler
procedure that can be done in a clinician's office. It
costs from $240?$520.

Medicaid and some insurance companies pay for
sterilization. Costs vary from community to community,
based on regional and local expenses. Contact your
nearest Planned Parenthood health center
1-800-230-PLAN for information about costs in your
area.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Updated April 2005

© 2004 Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
All rights reserved.


For medical questions, or to schedule an appointment
with the nearest Planned Parenthood health center,
call toll-free 1-800-230-PLAN
or 1-800-230-7526.

Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers provide
culturally competent, high quality, affordable health
care to millions of diverse women, men, and teens
every year. Planned Parenthood welcomes everyone ?
regardless of race, age, disability, sexual
orientation, or income.
 
  These documents are for informational purposes only
and are not intended to constitute medical advice,
diagnosis, or treatment.
 
 
 
 
   
Back to Index

Comparison of Effectiveness

Behavioral Methods:

Continuous Abstinence

Withdrawal

Outercourse

Continuous Breast-feeding ? LAM (Lactational
Amenorrhea Method)


Sterilization

Progestin-Only Methods:

Implants
The Shot (Three Months)
Progestin-Only Pills (POPs)


The IUD (Intrauterine Device)

Combined Hormone Methods:

The Pill

The Ring

The Patch


Prescription Barrier Methods


The Condom

The Female Condom

Fertility Awareness-based Methods (FAMs)

Spermicide

The Sponge


Emergency Contraception  
   
 
 
 Did Roe v. Wade Abort Crime?
And Why Hardly Anybody Wants to Talk About It
Sasha Abramsky


Crime is down across America. The nation's crime rate
has been dropping for the best part of a decade now,
and everyone is keen to take the credit. New York's
Mayor Rudy Giuliani claims that zero-tolerance
policing is responsible; former California Governor
Pete Wilson credits three-strikes-and-you're-out laws;
President Bill Clinton says gun control and federal
funding for prison construction and new police
officers have done their part.

Likely as not, they're all partly right. But what if
it turns out that other factors are actually having
far more influence on the crime rate than these
get-tough policies? Why lock up two million
people--more than half of them nonviolent
offenders--at a cost of tens of billions of dollars a
year and the disruption of untold millions of lives,
if the real explanations for the drop in crime lie
elsewhere?

Last summer word began circulating, first in the
academic community and then in the media, that two
professors, John Donohue and Steven Levitt, had found
solid evidence of exactly that: They had discovered a
link much stronger, more statistically demonstrable,
than the link between anticrime policies and crime
rates. More shocking still, the link they found was
between abortion and crime. Or to be more precise,
between the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing
abortion and the much heralded fall in crime rates
starting about 18 years later, in the early 1990s.

When laid out in its crudest form, the notion that
crime was dropping because potential criminals were
being aborted provoked a firestorm of objections from
left, right, and center. What terrible policy
conclusions, people demanded to know, were they
supposed to draw from this information? "Racist,
genocidal stupidity," the conservative monthly
American Spectator labeled the new study. On the
opposite political flank, Jackie Cissell, director of
the Indiana Family Institute, wrote that "African
Americans [are] in shock because it could threaten the
very survival of the race."

But if the smoke ever clears, progressive critics will
find that the policies this new study actually points
to are not shocking at all. In fact, they're quite
traditionally liberal.

John Donohue, a professor of law at Stanford
University who once ran an unsuccessful campaign as a
Democratic nominee for the Connecticut state senate,
and Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economist,
have long sought explanations for the falling crime
rate. In a 1998 paper published by the Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, Donohue pointed out that
the explanations people usually give just do not
account for much statistically. According to his
calculations, the large decline in crime during much
of the 1990s was either a short-term anomaly or the
result of factors that had not yet been identified. It
was a hint of a fascinating new theory that he and his
colleague were developing.

During the course of their research, Donohue and
Levitt had almost accidentally stumbled upon the
number of abortions performed in America and the fact
that--in Donohue's words--"poor, unmarried, young,
low-education women tend to have more abortions. And
their kids tend to have higher rates of crime." The
two researchers began crunching the numbers, and after
several years they concluded, to their own surprise as
much as anyone else's, that fully half of the decrease
in crime that has occurred over the past decade can be
directly attributed to the fact that women in the
1970s and 1980s had ready access to abortion.

After exhaustive peer review lasting the better part
of a year, their study, titled "Legalized Abortion and
Crime," is scheduled for publication in the May 2001
issue of Harvard University's prestigious Quarterly
Journal of Economics. The authors hope that a longer
version, specifically addressing many of the
criticisms leveled against their work, will follow in
a top law review.

Looking at state-by-state and year-by-year figures,
the two professors found a remarkable correlation
between abortion rates and crime rates 15 to 18 years
later. And that's not all. They also determined that
in the states that legalized abortion prior to the Roe
v. Wade ruling, crime rates began falling earlier than
in other parts of the country (see box). Moreover,
while the rate of arrests did drop in other age
groups, among young people (those whose mothers had
the option of a legal abortion) it dropped far more.
The authors factored in a host of other possible
explanations, and the correlation between crime rates
and abortion remained powerful. "According to our
estimates," they boldly asserted, "legalized abortion
is a primary explanation, accounting for at least
one-half of the overall crime reduction... . The
social benefit to reduced crime as a result of
abortion may be on the order of $30 billion annually."


That such an idea, put like this, would raise the
hackles of an extraordinary range of people should
have surprised no one. Levitt and Donohue had stepped
into the vicious ethical and political minefield of
the American abortion debate--as well as the
treacherous terrain of race politics, since African
Americans have abortions at a higher rate than whites.
But the authors, economists rather than ethicists,
were unprepared for the response and initially seemed
almost too stunned to prepare counterarguments.
"What's odd about our study," Levitt now reflects as
he prepares for publication of the work and,
presumably, renewed assaults on its authors, "is it
manages to offend just about everybody. [But] our
worldview is an economic worldview--that people
respond to incentives. I view it as being apolitical."


That lack of political savvy may explain much. "I
don't think it's controversial to say crime is higher
among African Americans," Levitt still insists. "We're
not saying there's anything intrinsic about this.
There's also higher poverty among African Americans.
The causality is not important in our argument, in the
sense of why it is that African Americans are
disproportionately represented in the crime
statistics."

Given recent political history, however, and given the
ways in which the poor--especially the black and
Latino poor--have all too often been blamed and
punished for the circumstances of their poverty,
causality was certainly on many other people's minds.
Were Donohue and Levitt arguing that poor people were
intrinsically, perhaps even biologically, predisposed
to criminal behavior, or did they believe that the
environmental conditions of poverty pushed people into
crime? Were they conservatives or liberals, and why
had they avoided showing their political hand in their
academic presentation?

Add to this confusion the fact that conspiracy
theories run rife in today's inner city--theories that
AIDS is a form of biological warfare against black
populations, that the war on crime and drugs is a none
too subtle attempt to destroy the social fabric of the
inner city through mass incarceration, and that the
easy availability of abortion is a means of racist
population control--and this study could hardly be
anything but explosive.

At the same time, anti-abortion groups accused the
study of advocating the murder of unborn children as a
crime control stratagem. "Naturally, if you kill off a
million and a half people a year," the executive
director of the Pro-Life Action League declared
sarcastically in a news release, "a few criminals will
be in that number." Meanwhile, many on the left of the
political spectrum, including some in the pro-choice
movement, denounced the report as little more than a
call to arms against the poor. As if it had advocated
for forced abortion, sterilization, or euthanasia
against select elements of the American population,
the study was seen as a bloody addendum to such bibles
of the New Right as Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles
Murray's 1996 book The Bell Curve.

But this is not, in fact, what the two authors were
arguing. In the years after Roe v. Wade, they found,
the number of abortions performed each year in America
grew rapidly. By 1980 the annual total had reached 1.6
million, a statistic that has remained fairly constant
ever since. Before this, the authors argue, more
unwanted children were being born, often after
unhealthy pregnancies during which the mother failed
to look after herself adequately, and often into
difficult, non-nurturing, impoverished environments.
Such children, Donohue and Levitt assumed, would be
more likely than others to grow up to commit crimes as
troubled, angry, gang-affiliated teenagers and young
adults. The authors cite evidence from studies in
eastern Europe and Scandinavia that "unwanted children
are likely to be disproportionately involved in
criminal activities." And it's certainly plausible
that the same would be true in the United States.


Donohue and Levitt's data bear this out. Legalized
abortion, they found, didn't just lower the absolute
number of people in a given age group; it
disproportionately lowered the number of children born
to mothers in impoverished circumstances who hadn't
intended to become pregnant and gave birth to babies
they didn't want. The effect on subsequent teenage
arrest rates suggests that these were indeed the
conditions that put children "most at risk of engaging
in criminal behavior."

Joseph McNamara, a Hoover Institute fellow, sees the
connection as simple common sense. "Many years ago,
when I was police chief of San Jose," McNamara
remembers, "I cooperated with Planned Parenthood, and
I said: 'Your organization prevents more crime than
mine does.' Children need love and nurturing. If
there's no one there to provide that [because a child
is unwanted], many are going to commit crimes and
violent behavior. You don't have to be a criminologist
to see that the children growing up under these
conditions are at high risk. It's an enormous problem
for society to have children born that no one wants
and no one's able to take care of."

Levitt and Donohue think of themselves as researchers,
not advocates for any position--not even
McNamara's--and they are annoyed that others see their
study as promoting forced abortion. "It seems such a
puerile logical step," Donohue says. "A completely
incorrect reading of the study. One wonders how
presumably intelligent people could make such an
incorrect logical inference." Far from having any ax
to grind about abortion and crime, Donohue, raised as
a Catholic, says he resisted making this connection
until the evidence he and Levitt compiled proved
overwhelming.

But by presenting only their study's results and not
the social meaning they saw in it, the two researchers
left both the study and themselves vulnerable. "John
and I are good at taking data and understanding [it].
We have no expertise in making moral or ethical
judgments," Levitt says. "We bring this to the table
to add to the debate, but certainly not to solve the
debate." They might have diffused much of the
criticism leveled against them, however, if they had
joined forthrightly in the policy debate from the
start, presenting their study as Donohue privately
acknowledges they see it--as evidence that get-tough
anticrime policies have less effect on crime than most
people think and that allowing women to choose when to
have children has more.



Still, the more important questions would have
remained. Is their startling conclusion about abortion
and crime actually true? And if so, are these its
implications?


Other academic experts have mostly praised the work,
while also noting its limits. The study does not, for
instance, explain why crime rose so dramatically in
the first place. Obviously, other social changes,
unrelated to the availability of abortion in pre-Roe
v. Wade days, were at work. Donohue and Levitt
themselves talk of the large growth in the drug trade,
the movement against prisons, the transformative but
chaotic forces released by the civil rights, antiwar,
and student movements of the 1960s, and the decline of
respect for traditional institutions of authority. But
given that these paradigm shifts served as a backdrop
to a dramatically rising level of crime in the United
States, the authors wanted explanations for why it
subsequently fell. And whatever the other
crime-reducing changes in the culture, they found that
the change in abortion policy had a major magnifying
effect on them.

Many scholars feel that Donohue and Levitt's study may
exaggerate that impact. Ted Joyce, for example, a
professor of economics at New York's Baruch College,
says, "I think it's plausible that there's an
association between fertility controls and better
outcomes for women and children. The question is how
much. A 50 percent drop in crime? I'm suspicious."

Joyce believes that the authors overestimated the
effects of abortion in traditionally high-crime states
like New York and California. In the years leading up
to Roe v. Wade, when New York and California were
among only five states in the nation that had already
legalized abortion, many women traveled to these areas
from elsewhere in order to have abortions. Because
Levitt and Donohue based their calculations on where
abortions were performed rather than where the mothers
actually lived, Joyce argues, they ended up comparing
apples and oranges. Abortion rates in New York during
the early 1970s were as likely to affect subsequent
crime rates in New Jersey or Connecticut.

Moreover, Joyce suspects that once abortion became
routine and widely available it began to serve as an
alternative, albeit radical, form of birth control.
Many of those aborted fetuses, would not, Joyce
believes, have been born into lives of crime had
abortion been less available. Rather, the parents
would simply have been more careful to use other
methods of birth control to prevent pregnancy in the
first place.

But the same reviewers who believe the study has
probably overstated the effect of abortion
liberalization agree that the authors most likely have
uncovered an important mechanism contributing to the
lower crime rates. Alfred Blumstein, a professor of
public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and one of
the country's leading criminal justice experts, views
the study as "sophisticated research." It provides
hard evidence, he says, in a fresh, innovative format,
that poverty, neglect, and crime are linked, that the
much maligned "root cause" arguments touted by
liberals in the 1960s and 1970s and derided by the
lock-'em-up crowd in the 1980s and 1990s can no longer
be dismissed. Bring together a child and a certain set
of impoverished material circumstances, the authors
demonstrate, and there's a fair chance that the mix
will, at some stage, produce crime. Abortion takes the
child out of this equation. But society could equally
well invest in social policies that would try to
remove the poverty instead.

Blumstein, too, has quibbles with the research; he
says that Levitt and Donohue's regression analysis did
not adequately account for such changes as the booming
national economy and the shrinking drug markets in
California and New York as possible explanations for
the decline in crime rates. But the study convinced
him that there is some linkage between access to
abortion and falling crime. And he says it is a
connection that the public needs to contemplate.
"Conservatives say, 'People are rotten, lock 'em
away,'" Blumstein argues. "And liberals say, 'We have
to get at root causes.' The dilemma is how to allocate
resources to do both. The message has got to be [that]
prevention is key regarding young people and
criminality."

At the moment, conservatives pretty much control the
policy conversation about crime. But as Robert
Weisberg, a Stanford University Law School colleague
of Donohue's, says, get-tough policies from
"Giuliani's policing techniques to three-strikes laws
were open to the criticism that they were getting
undeserved credit. Crime in three-strikes states
hasn't fallen by more than crime in other states. The
lack of that evidence is even more embarrassing in
light of the analytical study Donohue and Levitt have
done."


Indeed, their work has the potential to change the
parameters of the debate. "The deterrent effect of the
regular criminal justice [system] is not trivial,"
Weisberg asserts, "but it has already been
accomplished." At a certain point, Weisberg says,
incarceration policy runs into a wall of diminishing
returns: With two million people already behind bars,
increases in the size of the prison population mainly
tend to put more small fry into harsh prison
environments from which many emerge more dangerous
than they were when they entered. If imprisoning
lawbreakers cannot reduce crime beyond a certain
point, then attention must turn to studies such as
Levitt and Donohue's. Its strong evidence of a link
between economic deprivation and crime suggests that
the most sensible crime-prevention policy may well be
the introduction of better antipoverty
programs--perhaps the very social programs that have
been dismantled over the past 20 years in favor of
prison building. ¤

Sasha Abramsky

15
Open Free for All / How Blacks are to blame for Racism vs. Blacks
« on: December 28, 2005, 04:13:00 PM »
Bill Cosby's overemphasis on personal responsibility, not structural features, wrongly locates the source of poor black suffering?and by implication its remedy?in the lives of the poor. When you think the problems are personal, you think the solutions are the same. If only the poor were willing to work harder, act better, get educated, stay out of jail and parent more effectively, their problems would go away. It's hard to argue against any of these things in the abstract; in principle such suggestions sound just fine. But one could do all of these things and still be in bad shape at home, work or school. For instance, Cosby completely ignores shifts in the economy that give value to some work while other work, in the words of William Julius Wilson, "disappears." In our high-tech, high-skilled economy where low-skilled work is being scaled back, phased out, exported, or severely under-compensated, all the right behavior in the world won't create better jobs with more pay. And without such support, all the goals that Cosby expresses for the black poor are not likely to become reality. If the rigidly segregated educational system continues to miserably fail poor blacks by failing to prepare their children for the world of work, then admonitions to "stay in school" may ring hollow.

In this light, the imprisonment of black people takes on political consequence. Cosby may be right that most black folk in jail are not "political prisoners," but it doesn't mean that their imprisonment has not been politicized. Given the vicious way blacks have been targeted for incarceration, Cosby's comments about poor blacks who end up in jail are dangerously naïve and empirically wrong.

Cosby also slights the economic, social, political and other structural barriers that poor black parents are up against: welfare reform, dwindling resources, export of jobs and ongoing racial stigma. And then there are the problems of the working poor: folk who rise up early every day and often work more than forty hours a week, and yet barely, if ever, make it above the poverty level. We must acknowledge the plight of both poor black (single) mothers and poor black fathers, and the lack of social support they confront. Hence, it is incredibly difficult to spend as much time with children as poor black parents might like, especially since they will be demonized if they fail to provide for their children's basic needs. But doing so deflects critical attention and time from child-rearing duties?duties that are difficult enough for two-parent, two-income, intact middle-class families. The characteristics Cosby cites are typical of all families that confront poverty the world over. They are not indigenous to the black poor; they are symptomatic of the predicament of poor people in general. And Cosby's mean-spirited characterizations of the black poor as licentious, sexually promiscuous, materialistic and wantonly irresponsible can be made of all classes in the nation. (Paris Hilton, after all, is a huge star for just these reasons.)
[ This Message was edited by: empathy on 2005-12-28 13:58 ]

Pages: [1] 2