Some Democrats are now making an unusual argument about abortion: that a Democratic administration might actually reduce abortions more than a Republican administration.
On the surface, this seems preposterous. Republicans oppose abortion rights, Democrats support them. How could it possibly be that a Democratic approach would reduce abortion more?
It’s actually quite plausible under certain circumstances — though not, I must add, under the approach Barack Obama is currently taking.
Let me start with a basic point. If you look at abortion rates since Roe v. Wade you find something startling: during Democratic administrations (pro choice administrations) the average annual abortion rate is virtually identical to that under Republican administrations. Many factors help explain that but it does force us to conclude that there’s not a simple connection between whether you have a Republican president and lower abortion rates.
“Abortion Reduction”
When Democrats refer to an “abortion reduction strategy” they mostly mean efforts that keep abortion legal but help prevent pregnancy through family planning and/or making it easier for women who do get pregnant to carry the baby to term. (A few examples: Matthew 25 Network and Democrats for Life’s 95-10 strategy)
A new study indicates that a variety of non-coercive measures could have a real impact on abortion rates. Two social scientists recently looked at abortion rates in different states during the period in the 1990s when abortion rates were declining. They concluded that economics did affect women’s decisions (what has long been suspected) and that therefore social welfare policies can have demonstrable effect. For instance, if you increase payments for Women, Infants and Children, more women come to think they’ll have the means to birth and raise a child. They also found that when male employment improved, that reduced the abortion rate as well. Conversely, if you have Medicaid funding for abortions – something Obama supports — that increases the rate of abortion.
The authors concluded that the right package of financial incentives could therefore reduce the number of abortions by several hundred thousand.
Pro-life activists will occasionally say that they support these social-spending-based abortion reduction efforts, too. (along with efforts to pass legal restrictions). And at the margins, that’s true.
But as a practical matter they usually ignore and sometimes even discourage such efforts. A draft version of the Republican platform this year included the following sentence: “We invite all persons of good will, whether across the political aisle or within our party, to work together to reduce the incidence of abortion.” Religious conservatives deleted the sentence. Connie Mackey of the FRCaction told me there were two reasons. First, “that language sounded like Obama had written it himself.” And second, it sent mixed messages. “It doesn’t make sense to say the party wants to reduce abortions if you’re against abortion.”
Another reason pro-life advocates have either ignored or underemphasized Democratic-style abortion reduction is that to some degree, they view themselves players on a larger team. Think about one of Connie Mackey’s reason for eliminating the abortion reduction language form the Republican platform: it sounded too much like Obama. Wrong team.
Being part of winning coalitions has meant that pro-life politics has closely aligned with conservative ideology in general (and pro choice ideology has with liberalism). For reasons of sincere ideological conviction, many pro-life activists tend to be highly skeptical of the idea that increased social spending — which many had assumed causes moral decline — might help reduce abortion rates. It would be like a feminist being told that the best way to increase women’s pay would be doubling defense spending. Not impossible, but pretty unlikely.
Just as important, the pro-life movement has always been somewhere between ambivalent and hostile to birth control and sex education. I’m not one who believes that all unintended pregnancies occur because of a scarcity of birth control. But there is solid evidence that greater sex education – including abstinence education — and birth control does lead to fewer unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions. According to an Alan Guttmacher Institute study, 46% who had abortions had not used contraception during the month they got pregnant, largely for reasons of ignorance. 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy. 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods. 8% had never used contraceptions. All in all, “about half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.”
Yet pro-life groups have not pushed sex ed or birth control. One reason is that the groups that do the most work promoting prevention – such as Planned Parenthood – also promote abortion, so funding one often means funding the other.
Some oppose birth control methods because they believe them to abortafacients, preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterine wall. That means that they are terminating pregnancies after “conception,” a.k.a. fertilization. Since most pro-life activists believe that a life at day one of pregnancy is morally equal to a life at month nine, then the possibility that some birth control would abort one-day old embryos makes it a non-starter.
Another reason they haven’t stressed family planning is that they’re trying to keep together a political coalition. The pro-life forces were for years led by the Catholic Church, which set the philosophical underpinnings for the movement. The Church has always believed that birth control was immoral because it encouraged non-procreative sex and snuffed a potential life.
Because of the need to preserve the coalition, it’s inconceivable therefore that any pro-contraception-pro-life leaders would ever pose this horrific question to the Catholic Church: is it possible that your opposition to birth control over the years has increased the number of abortions? Nor is it likely that they would say to their conservative evangelical compatriots: isn’t it possible that your resistance to sex education, has led to more abortions?
(By the way, if you have a hard time believing that the pro-life community, like the pro-choice community, routinely compromises its principles for reasons of political tactics and coalition-building consider this: while they oppose stem cell research, they have not campaigned against fertility treatments which cause the creation and destruction of most human embryos. Why not? Because too many pro-life people have had fertility treatments or because they know that opposing it would turn public opinion against pro life movement.)
The Limits of the Current Pro Life Strategy
So what? you might be thinking. The pro life forces have ignored abortion reduction in favor of abortion elimination — a much more desirable result if you’re a fetus.
But the traditional pro-life strategy has not resulted in any difference in abortion rates during Republican administrations. Why?
In general, pro life activists have followed a two-pronged strategy that emphasizes a) high-impact but politically unpopular steps and b) low-impact but politically popular steps. An example of their high-impact-low-likelihood efforts: having the Republican platform endorse a Constitutional amendment banning all abortion in all states at all levels of gestation. It certainly would cut the number of abortions but it’s not going to happen.
Efforts to require parental consent have borne more fruit. They provide tactical wins for the pro life movement and there is evidence that they help reduce the abortion rates among some teens. But teens account for a minority of abortions.
Meanwhile, pro-life forces push hard on issues like late term abortion which are morally egregious. They hope that these examples help turn public opinion against abortion in general, and they may have: public opinion has become more concerned about abortion since the 1980s. What these efforts don’t do is directly reduce the number of abortions very much, since far less than 1% of abortions are late-term.
On balance, the evidence is strong, therefore, that as long as Roe v. Wade is on the books, a comprehensive abortion reduction strategy of the sort advocated by progressive pro-life activists could reduce abortions more than that approach traditional taken by the pro-life community.
But what if Roe v. Wade is overturned? We may be just one Supreme Court justice away from such an outcome. Surely that would lead to a massive drop in abortions, no?
Not necessarily — because the states where public opinion is pro-life are already the states with lower abortion rates. So when those states ban abortion, the impact on abortion rates won’t be dramatic. Joseph Wright, a visiting professor at Notre Dame, estimated that if abortion bans were enacted in states where a majority of the population is now pro life, that would lead to a 10% reduction in abortions nationally.
This is a possibility acknowledged by neither pro-life forces (which have placed all their eggs in the Roe basket) nor pro-choice forces (which like to cast such an event as doomsday).
So we’re left with this stunning possibility: a comprehensive abortion reduction agenda of the sort advocated by pro-life progressives could reduce abortions by twice as much as overturning Roe v Wade.
Now I’m fully aware that studies like this are very squishy. Perhaps the abortion reduction agenda wouldn’t save as many as the studies claim; perhaps overturning Roe would save more. But at a minimum it’s a far closer call than pro-life activists would admit.
Now, a big caveat: Barack Obama has not endorsed the full slate of abortion reduction measures described above. Yes, he supports funding for pregnancy prevention and maternal health care. But at the same time, he supports Medicaid funding for abortion — which would likely increase the numbers. And he supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would wipe out state laws restricting abortion, including (probably) laws requiring parental notification of teens.
The upshot: progressive pro-life groups can make a persuasive case that their approach would reduce abortion as much if not more than the traditional Republican approach. However, Barack Obama has severely undermined his ability to make such an argument.
On the other hand, those conscientiously concerned about reducing abortion should not view support or opposition of Roe v. Wade as the only — or even the best — measure of one’s concern on life issues.
posted October 7, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Let’s talk some facts. There have been less abortions during this Bush administration than under the Clinton administration, even though there has been an obvious population increase. With abortion rates going down and the population going up, it’s very significant that there has been an actual decrease in abortions. In the first week of the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton began his radical pro-choice agenda with several executive orders damaging the previous pro-life progress. Furthermore, he twice vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. To summarize my first point: The decrease in abortions under the Clinton administration happened IN SPITE of Bill Clinton.
In 2003, President Bush signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (the one that Clinton vetoed twice) after it passed in the Congress. Obama said at the Rick Warren forum that he was opposed to partial-birth abortions, but when the PBA Ban Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in the summer of 2007, he stated, “I strongly disagree with the the Supreme Court ruling…” Sounds like a lie to me. The question becomes, was he lying when he made that statement in 2007 or was he lying at the Rick Warren forum? Hmm…
posted October 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Steven you have to be kidding….
Abortions actually have fallen to historic lows since President Bush has been in office for nearly eight years. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3624.html)
On the other hand, abortions actually went up at the tail end of the Clinton administration once his policies had been in effect. (http://www.lifenews.com/nat4342.html)
Anyone who thinks abortions will go down under Obama is either so partisan they are willing to lie about Obama’s positions or they think pro-life voters are naieve.
Obama supports unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy and he has said he would sign a bill that would overturn every single pro-life limit on abortion passed since 1973 in all 50 states. It’s estimated that alone will increase abortions by 125,00 annually.
Obama will fund abortions with taxpayer dollars and that will increase abortions as well. That doesn’t even include his opposition to paretal involvement laws, opposition to partial-birth abortions, etc.
posted October 7, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Steven,
What’s your take on the idea that:
a) overturning Roe wouldn’t reduce abortion that much because the states that woudl abolish abortion have the lowest abortion rates already
b)abortion numbers could be reduced with more maternal health care, targeted welfare, and prevention efforts
?
posted October 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Steven, thank you for a thoughtful treatment of a tricky subject, for a change. If we took this entire debate outside the realm of a political campaign, we could probably agree on many aspects of it. It’s my belief that the “abortion reduction” argument is being used by Obama supporters primarily for tactical reasons, that their heart is not really in it, but I am sure there are exceptions. The focus on abortion reduction avoids the issue of why abortion is morally wrong and why the rationale of Roe v. Wade needs to be overthrown. The law, for better or worse, is a teacher and at present it’s not teaching us the truth about the basic human right of unborn persons to continue their existence.
posted October 7, 2008 at 6:22 pm
The article suggests that a pro-abortion candidate for president of the USA, once elected and while in office, could actually reduce the number of abortions in the USA, and reduce the number of abortions by a particularly large number.
I have problems with, and questions about, such conclusions.
A number of social science research conclusions or implications are cited in this article. Similar conclusions and implications are referred to by other writers (? guest writers), such as Prof. Kmiec, on this website. The gist of two of the conclusions or implications seems to be that 1) Advancing access to birth control methods will help reduce abortion rates in general. 2) Advancing socioeconomic status can be causally associated with reduction in abortion rates, to the point that a particular number of abortions can actually be attributed to a particular socioeconomic status in a particular society, eg. the USA.
Large numbers of national and international studies have strongly indicated that access to birth control methods does not eliminate or even reduce rates of abortion (legal or illegal) in any particular culture. In fact the studies indicate, with appropriate correction for confounding variables, that introduction of artificial birth control methods increase out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates and abortion rates, although there may be a ceiling to the abortion rate in any given society.
The social science data on a relationship between something like socioeconomic status and a particular behavior can be rife with unintended biases in data collection, and with confounding variables in the data. Biases are often not adequately analyzed and corrected for in the data analysis. Confounding is part of the possible error in the data analysis. The articles provide no assurances that these studies causally attributing a particular number of abortions to socioeconomic status, have rigorously analyzed for and controlled for bias and confounding in the data.
Confounding variables can result in apparent causal relationships that don’t exist, or are even the reverse of the actual variable relationships. For example, there is a relationship between alcohol consumption and lung cancer. The chronological relationship indicates that a long period of excess alcohol consumption is very strongly associated with increased rates of lung cancer. Does alcohol consumption cause lung cancer? No. Alcohol consumption is very highly associated with cigarette smoking. So is lung cancer. The causal association is between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Cigarette smoking is the third and confounding variable that is associated with both alcohol consumption and lung cancer, and cigarette smoking is the actual causal factor in the increased rates of lung cancer seen in heavy alcohol consumers. In fact, with respect to some forms of alcohol, such as red wine, there may even be a protective effect against some lung cancers.
Now, with respect to socioeconomic status, which is it. Is lower socioeconomic status a cause of increased abortion rates, regardless of whether legal abortions were obtainable? Are lower socioeconomic status, unintended pregnancy, and abortion rates related instead to other third factors, such as relative numbers of abortion clinics located in areas where socioeconomic status is lower; character formation; lifestyle choices, approaches to self-gratification? Is an “up” economy a morale booster that is separate from the effects of individual socioeconomic status? Is there a mix of relationships between socioeconomic status, abortion rates, patterns of lifestyle choices and other variables, including availability of abortion? Many liberal, pro-abortion commentators, disbelieve the “up” economy reporting and are citing decreasing socioeconomic conditions, by a number of measures, during this 8 year political cycle. Why, then, has the abortion rate continued dropping during the past 8 years?
On the issue of human life, then, the problem in supporting a pro-abortion political candidate on “abortion reduction policy” is this: There is near certainty surrounding that candidate’s pro-abortion stance and the availability of abortion, and therefore the performance of at least some abortions. In the case of the presidency, the near certainty extends to very large numbers of abortions. There is also some reason to suppose that, if that candidate supports a number of lifestyle choices that are associated with increased abortion rates, then the abortion rate and absolute number of abortions will actually rise. On the other hand, there is great uncertainty, perhaps total uncertainty, as to whether that candidate’s other policies will result in any reduction in abortion rates or reduction in absolute numbers of abortions. Just as an example, let’s say the candidate is well-intentioned with regard to positively affecting certain groups’ socioeconomic status, but, when in office, supports and implements policies that damage economic conditions as a whole. The socioeconomic status of the intended beneficiaries might well actually decline – what then?
This is all entirely aside from, and in addition to, the problem of how that candidate’s philosophical approach to life issues, and their constitutional implications, will affect his or her approach to many other issues. Issues regarding human dignity, human rights and equity issues within the executive branch, issues in relationships with the legislative branch, and issues in relationship to the judiciary (eg. judicial nominations).
posted October 7, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Thank you for your very compelling post. I have always wondered why both sides of this obviously divisive issue have not come together on this point. Reducing abortions is something we can all agree on. Comprehensive sex education (that includes abstinence as the #1 best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but also teaches other options, even if they do cause problems for some Catholics et al), coupled with family planning programs, and an increase in social programs that affect new parents will certainly decrease abortions.
I have a feeling that your view may be met with some animosity so I applaud your courage.
posted October 7, 2008 at 9:13 pm
For what it’s worth, I agree with you.
posted October 7, 2008 at 9:20 pm
“The pro-life forces were for years led by the Catholic Church, which set the philosophical underpinnings for the movement. The Church has always believed that birth control was immoral because it encouraged non-procreative sex and snuffed a potential life.”
The Church’s position is a little different, actually. The Church believes that the twofold aspect of the marriage act, the unitive aspect and the procreative aspect, must not be divided, that to divide these aspects from each other is gravely wrong. Thus, contraceptive sex is wrong even when practiced by the married not because it is non-procreative (which is the natural condition for sex during a woman’s infertile period, for infertile couples, and for those whose age prohibits conception) but because it is an attack against the natural procreative aspect of the act. Since the Church views sex as the total gift of self to other, the use of contraception is, in effect, the rejection by the couple of an intrinsic property of that gift which is uniquely theirs by right in marriage and which is intended by God to bring forth children who are the living symbols and reality of their parents’ love for each other.
And so the Church’s opposition to IVF or other forms of artificial conception that take place entirely outside of the context of the loving embrace of husband and wife is consistent to this view of the unitive and procreative aspect of marriage. Just as the couple can’t seek the unitive aspect while deliberately and artificially attempting to thwart the procreative aspect, so can the couple not seek to obtain the procreative aspect in such a mechanized way that removes the unitive aspect altogether and ‘divorces’ conception from their loving intimacy, making conception more manufacture than mystery.
This is why, philosophically, Catholics can’t support the widespread distribution of contraception as a “solution” to abortion; pragmatically speaking, though, it should be recognized that increased availability of contraception hasn’t been shown thus far to cause a significant reduction in abortion rates anyway.
posted October 8, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Terry and Paul,
I think that a candidate that wants to criminalize abortion because his respect life does not automatically means that his compassion shall be extended to other aspect of life.
Like President Bush. His opposition to abortion did not convince him to had compassion for all those that he executed, especially Carla Faye Tucker. In fact, when bush was the governor of Texas, he had the largest pro death agenda ever by allowing hundreds of sacred life being executed.
Also, do the right to life end now of birth. Many social services that would make a life better had been cut by a pro-life person.
That prolife president will ship your job oversea leaving you homeless. That prolife person will allowed pro life CEO and pro-life corporations to dump pollution into your rivers, causing birth defects of the life in the womb?
That pro-life president would take your social service away so that it can be given as a present as a tax break for Paris Hilton.
That prolife candidate would deny medical care for the life in the womb instead; he would use it to built life destroying devices such as bombs and missiles. The USA is 27th in infant mortality rates among the develop nation. That means that the life in the womb are born prematurely because they did not get the proper medical care since the pro life president thought it was more important to use it as a tax break for Paris Hilton.
What about the soldiers and Iraqis? Are their lives not sacred too? Shall these soldiers and Iraqis lives be considered less scared because they are a product of the state and belong to a foreign country? If soldiers are a product of the state when they sign that contract, than as a member of the state who elect those to be in charge of the state had an obligation to respect those life and make sure that their life is use carelessly.
Whose life is considered scared. To whom shall this respect of life be extended too? Shall respect for life end the moment of birth? Shall the life in womb be less sacred to the prolife corporations that are poisoning their waters? What about corporations that caused serious birth defects for the life in the womb? Shall these corporations be able to reign as supreme because they are in agreement with the evilness of abortion?
posted October 8, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Steve Waldman does an excellent job pointing out that there are two separate and potentially complementary approaches to solving the abortion problem. This undercuts the idea propagated by conservative political consultants that Democrats are immoral and Republicans are purely virtuous on this issue, when reasonable people could reasonably come to the opposite conclusion. Senator Obama favors some legal restrictions, principally on late-term abortions, and most states (like Massachusetts) already prohibit abortions after 24 weeks. A few quick thoughts:
1. Overturning the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal Medicaid spending on abortion would have less of an effect on abortion rates than one might think. This is because 19 states, primarily the ones with the highest numbers of abortions already, provide state funding to replace the absent federal funding. So it’s not clear that if Medicaid started paying for abortions next year that it would have a significant upward impact on abortion numbers.
2. Conservatives love to talk about the 43 million abortions since Roe-v-Wade, but they never talk about the 43 million that came before. The CDC data indicates that current abortion rates are now equal to what they were before Roe-v-Wade, which on the face of it begs an answer to the question of how reversing Roe-v-Wade now would significantly further reduce the numbers. Consider too that in 1973, an illegal abortion was a dangerous surgical procedure. But today in countries like Brazil, where abortion is illegal, most abortions involve taking two anti-ulcer tablets available in every pharmacy in the country. The bottom line is that putting all one’s eggs in the overturning-Roe basket is a formula for potentially failing to prevent even a single abortion in the foreseeable future–and possibly never.
3. Deal Hudson’s argument about the teaching function of the law is unmoving. The law fails to prevent hundreds of millions of Americans from speeding every day. The law is an utter failure in preventing people from using marijuana, or keeping minors from smoking and drinking. The law failed to teach President Bush not to torture prisoners at Guantanamo, or to prevent illegal eavesdropping on Americans. People break laws with which they don’t agree. And since the majority of Americans think abortion should be a matter of personal conscience, the only truly effective strategy is to move toward a society that supports people in making life choices. This is at the heart of Christ’s message, which seeks to establish the Kingdom of the Lamb not through coercion but rather through invitation to the moral life.
Will the conservatives agree to end their obsession with Roe-v-Wade if an Obama Administration significantly outperforms President Bush in cutting abortion rates in the US? I predict that the Clinton Administration’s success in cutting abortions (faster than any other president) will be rivaled only by the coming Obama era.
posted October 9, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I would like to hear someone talk about the abortion issue from the following perspective. When women were given the choice to have an abortion, to make choices about their body, it opened up many other avenues of choice.
Hospice was in England long before it came to the U.S. It wasn’t until after Roe v Wade that there was permission to make life choices. We did not have the option to choose how we died. Doctors made that decision. You couldn’t refuse treatment. You couldn’t sign yourself out of the hospital.
Living wills became possible. You could choose if you wanted to end your life on your own terms, if you wanted to be fed or not, if you wanted extraordinary measures taken to keep you alive.
All of this was possible by the landmark decision giving us the ability to choose. I wish that the abortion issue was moved into this arena. It has a much larger implication that just choosing whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. I don’t think anyone would want to go back to the day where the doctor forced you to have a treatment, tied you to the bed, etc. I don’t think anyone wants to end the Hospice experience from the United States where you could not choose to end treatment, not choose to die at home, etc.
If you look at choice and how much it has impacted our lives in a positive way, I think it would change how people view choice. It isn’t just about abortion.
posted October 9, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Abortion cannot be eliminated – not anywhere, not ever – and anyone who thinks it’s possible to eliminate abortion is inexcusably ignorant.
By far the best (and proven) way to reduce abortions to as low a level as possible (maybe half the current U.S. rate) is to abolish all laws and restrictions against them, make contraception universally available and affordable (or free), teach comprehensive sex-ed and responsible sexuality, support parenting and families with social programs and resources, and guarantee women’s rights and equality. http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/dont-need-abortion-law.html
posted October 13, 2008 at 3:25 pm
“(which have placed all their eggs in the Roe basket)”
That is simply awesome wordsmanship.
posted October 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Provisions at abortion reduction through Democratic programs will offset any theoretical rise in their number through federal funding. States provide the lion’s share of funding and will certainly continue to.
posted November 2, 2008 at 6:41 am
Steven, I heard your interview on NPR this past week, and was really impressed with the objectivity and integrity of your reporting on the history of the founding of the U.S. I was even more pleasantly surprised to find that this objective analysis was coming from someone who authored a blog called “Belief Net”. I thought I might go out and buy your book.
Imagine my disappointment to find you engaging in the dishonest portrayal of Planned Parenthood as and organization that “promotes abortion”.
Can we please agree that no one believes that abortion is a good thing? It’s a tragedy. Especially for the women who have them and the fetus they abort. No one is out there “promoting” abortion. Shame on you.
If you’re truly interested in reducing the number of abortions in this country, you have to leave the boilerplate rhetoric behind and your ‘team’ needs to be willing to concede when their opponent is right about something. And that’s why the admission that your team won’t accept anything that comes from Obama is so important. It’s the most serious impediment to achieving what you say is your goal.
And while we’re at it, let’s examine another hypocrisy: Being pro-life requires that you consider a lot more when you make your voting decision than what the party SAYS about its stance on abortion.
The Republican party doesn’t WANT the fight over abortion to go away. It’s the issue they use to distract and manipulate Pro-Choice opponents and get you all to ignore all of the other policies in their platform that do a lot more to destroy families than abortion ever will.
posted November 2, 2008 at 10:56 am
It is all talk. There are no candidates that will end abortion. Our republican party has bee manipulating us for years and have achieved nothing to end this travisty. At the very least virtually the same abortion rates are incorrect. After the first four years of the Clinton administration there were 1,600,000 less abortions than the Regan administration. If that is virtually the same in our minds we need to get a little more visual. Picture that many fetus in a pile. It is genocide!
posted November 23, 2008 at 6:45 am
i have some rusty coat hangers and a vacuum.. i’ll be preforming abortions all week!
posted November 28, 2008 at 12:33 am
The problem with what is left of the welfare system is that the stringent time limits/work conditions actually lock people into poverty. Options for higher education and/or real job skills training have been dramatically reduced, trapping people into temporary bottom-wage jobs (laid off as soon as they reach the end of their “probationary period”, when their first pay raise is due). What little aid is made available ensures only marginal health, often compromised by the severe stress of trying to get by on an income far below the poverty line while (often) trying to figure out how to do the impossible.
We have lost sight of the central issue that spurred welfare “reform”. At the time that Clinton signed that draconian bill, corporations were loudly complaining about the shortage of Americans who were willing to work for super-low wages. The policies that came out of that bill actually financially reward companies for hiring workfare labor (and there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that many, many workers were put on “indefinite layoff”, only to be replaced by workfare labor, who can be hired for those jobs at minimum wage or less/no workers’ benefits). This bill created a massive bottom-wage workforce to compete for jobs in a shrinking job market, an instant Third World workforce without the cost of moving jobs to foreign countries.
We know these policies have hurt the poor (soaring infant mortality rate among our poor, and a life expectancy age that has fallen below that of most Third World nations). We need to examine how these policies have so effectively been used to crush unions and suppress wages. Welfare “reform” has not only greatly harmed the poorest, but all working class citizens.
posted February 10, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I am impressed by the caliber of readers who have responded to this article. I especially agree with DH Fabian and his assessment of Clinton’s Welfare Reform Act. Although I have been a life long Democrat and am ecstatic that Obama has won the election, I pray everyday that he is not a wolf in sheeps’ clothing; much like our last “Democratic” president.
I also agree that saying that Planned Parenthood promotes abortion is a terrible mischaracterization. I have never seen an organization work so hard to work themselves out of business as Planned Parenthood does.
posted March 27, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Elliot Miller, “Sometimes Politically Correct Is Biblically Correct,” Christian Research Journal, issue 33/1, March, 2010,laments the failure of conservative Christians to lend a hand in the civil rights movement of the 50′s and 60″s. I suggest that they didn’t because they feared they would be identified as, or as being in sympathy with, what they considered to be the degeneracy surrounding the movement. We Christians, left and right, always let those fears hinder us from doing good. And so they do now as regards the lives of the unborn. Not for one second did Christ back away from being identified with degenerates; remember his wino and prostitute friends? Year after year we allow millions of unborn children to die because we refuse to participate in any effort to save them except one blessed by the Republican Party. Why? Image! We are afraid of being identified as liberal–soft on abortion. weigh your image against the lives that could be saved if you joined some cause, even a liberal one proposed by Obama or Family Planning, in an effort to reduce the number of abortions.
posted July 26, 2010 at 7:46 pm
blog.beliefnet.com is great! Same Day Payday Loans Or Cash Advance Made Easy If you are looking for same day payday loans or cash advance you need money and you need it now
posted August 19, 2010 at 11:47 pm
I think pro-choicer’s have this stigmata that we want to abort all babies and we do not think it’s a big deal, that’s not true. It really comes down to the right of the person to choose. Which is funny because that’s what all the right wing nut job’s proclaim as their motto. I guess a person’s rights only count as long as your on their side. “right”?
posted August 19, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Pro-lifers should have been aborted. They have no respect for a persons right, and are so blinded by what their party says that they’ll do whatever and say whatever they want them to.
how to Cure Premature ejaculation
posted September 8, 2010 at 3:50 am
Terrific concepts on this internet site. It’s rare these days to find websites with data you are seeking. I’m happy I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Maintain up the nice job and I’m sure some other folks researching valued information will actually stop by and benefit from your website for resources. gdxncxmoqkybckmdwndwulnhwtvyijsltnl
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.
posted September 10, 2010 at 7:39 pm
I don’t think it should be a matter of political affiliate so much as it should be an education process for people. When I was younger, I had the pro-choice stance.
My girlfriend and I made the choice to terminate our 2nd teenage pregnancy (after keeping our first) and if there was ONE thing I absolutely regret and wish I could take back in life, it’s having that abortion.
At the time, I really wasn’t informed and simply mature enough to really understand the ramification of my decision.
posted September 17, 2010 at 9:08 am
Aloha! http://www.praxis-ibc.com/imitrex,
– 5534
posted September 17, 2010 at 7:07 pm
The Catholic faith and teaching is PROVED by Eucharistic miracles, particularly that of Lanciano, Italy, in the eighth century and recent scientific study of the relics showing that the five different-sized globules of dried blood each separately weigh the same as all five together. This proves a miracle and God’s favor toward the Catholic Church’s TRUTH, AUTHORITY, MORAL TEACHING, LITURGY and His Eucharistic Presence.
The comment of Mr. Wakefield here condemns himself to possible eternal hell for suggesting the aborting of pro-lifers. Also, he and all like him have no respect for the right to life of all persons who are conceived. We are not blinded by a political party, we are enlightened by the spirit of God. Mr. Wakefield is blinded by the sin of murder, as an accomplice to it, at least. But I pray for God’s mercy toward him.
posted September 18, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Aloha! http://www.ensembleterreciel.com/levothyroxine-and-weight-loss.htm, -)) – 3741
posted September 18, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Aloha! http://www.theninthstreetgallery.com/keflex.html, !? – 6869
posted September 19, 2010 at 1:14 am
Aloha! http://afcet.org/allergy-pills.htm, -) – 1225
posted September 19, 2010 at 2:13 am
Aloha! http://chillonmycouch.com/ciprofloxacin-500mg.html,
– 5933
posted September 19, 2010 at 3:12 am
Aloha! http://www.kate-evans.com/, )) – 3292
posted September 19, 2010 at 6:12 am
Aloha! http://www.kate-evans.com/prevacid_30_mg.html,
– 2030
posted September 19, 2010 at 7:14 am
Aloha! http://www.tanguerosdeley.com/buy-diflucan.html,
– 8244
posted September 19, 2010 at 8:16 am
Aloha! http://www.ccemd.org/,
– 8994
posted September 19, 2010 at 9:19 am
Aloha! http://julienemecek.com/buy_flagyl,
– 7057
posted September 19, 2010 at 10:23 am
Aloha! http://www.groupepivot.org/male_enhancement_products,
– 1930
posted September 19, 2010 at 11:25 am
Aloha! http://www.beatriceglow.com/simplicef-for-dogs.html, -) – 2250
posted September 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Aloha! http://www.conneyconference.org/buy_premarin.html, -|) – 1720
posted September 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Aloha! http://www.ourcommunityourchoice.com,
– 1305
posted September 19, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Aloha! http://www.clementsjd.com/celebrex-200-mg, !) – 3193
posted September 19, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Aloha! http://www.clementsjd.com/,
– 8725
posted September 19, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Aloha! http://www.tanguerosdeley.com/generic-diflucan.html, !? – 731
posted September 19, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Aloha! http://www.instreamhabitat.org/cipro.html,
– 6602
posted September 19, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Aloha! http://www.leftoversalmon.net/strattera-medication.html, !? – 996
posted September 19, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Aloha! http://www.zanzibararchives.org/diet-pills.htm, -)) – 2039
posted September 20, 2010 at 1:12 am
Aloha! http://www.malcolmxgrassroots.com/, !) – 7473
posted September 20, 2010 at 2:10 am
Aloha! http://www.destinyspace.com/,
– 1327
posted September 20, 2010 at 3:10 am
Aloha! http://www.irvsburgers.com/amoxicillin.html, !? – 5986
posted September 20, 2010 at 3:10 am
Aloha! http://www.malcolmxgrassroots.com/prevacid-30-mg.htm, -|) – 8242
posted September 20, 2010 at 4:06 am
Aloha! http://www.aebonsai.com/flagyl-500-mg.html, )) – 5998
posted September 20, 2010 at 5:05 am
Aloha! http://www.pulserocom.com/diflucan_candida.htm, -)) – 2381
posted September 20, 2010 at 7:01 am
Aloha! http://www.thehealthfund.org/, !? – 7556
posted September 20, 2010 at 7:59 am
Aloha! http://www.johnedwardgill.com/, )) – 8679
posted September 20, 2010 at 8:58 am
Aloha! http://capcaweb.net, ) – 4624
posted September 20, 2010 at 9:57 am
Aloha! http://www.spiritofeducation.com/proventil.html, )) – 388
posted September 20, 2010 at 10:55 am
Aloha! http://www.boulderfilmalliance.com/priligy-dapoxetine.html,
– 5258
posted September 20, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Aloha! http://eyesonsalvador.com/rimonabant-achat.htm, )) – 1771
posted September 20, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Aloha! http://siwn.org/, ) – 3172
posted September 20, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Aloha! http://www.boulderfilmalliance.com/buy-priligy.html, !? – 8224
posted September 20, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Aloha! http://www.poconotopsites.com/buy_backpacks.html,
– 3205
posted September 20, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Aloha! http://www.buywebkinzstuff.com, !? – 2070
posted September 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Aloha! http://www.irockthemicvo.com/flirty_girl_fitness_dvd.html,
– 6246
posted September 20, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Aloha! http://www.contranatura.net, ) – 2612
posted September 21, 2010 at 12:22 am
Aloha! http://www.septentrionalia.org/, !? – 6342
posted September 21, 2010 at 3:18 am
Aloha! http://www.spiritofeducation.com/claritin.html,
– 5180
posted September 21, 2010 at 4:16 am
Aloha! http://www.dullahanband.com/necklineslimmerreviews,
– 9837
posted September 21, 2010 at 6:13 am
Aloha! http://www.campusqv.com/, !) – 9807
posted September 21, 2010 at 7:26 am
Hi webmaster, commencers and everybody else !!! The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lots of great information and inspiration, both of which we all need! Keep them coming… You all do such a great job at such Concepts… can’t tell you how much I, for one appreciate all you do!
posted September 21, 2010 at 8:10 am
Aloha! http://modernluddites.com/,
– 4698
posted September 21, 2010 at 11:12 am
Aloha! http://www.checkpointuniversity08.com/keflex.html, ) – 6332
posted September 21, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Aloha! http://www.creativecursor.com/, -)) – 3899
posted September 21, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Aloha! http://www.irvsburgers.com/celebrex.html,
– 8910
posted September 21, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Aloha! http://capcaweb.net/stretchmarkremoval.html,
– 5196
posted September 21, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Aloha! http://www.ohyac.org/, -) – 2360
posted September 21, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Aloha! http://www.contranatura.net/generic-topamax.html, )) – 474
posted September 21, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Great concepts on this website. It’s rare these days to find websites with data you are seeking. I am happy I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Keep up the nice job and I’m sure some other folks researching valued information will actually stop by and benefit from your website for resources.
posted September 21, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Aloha! http://www.stocktoncougars.net/generickeflex.htm, !) – 4010
posted September 21, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Aloha! http://www.stocktoncougars.net/keflexantibiotics.htm, !? – 7032
posted September 22, 2010 at 12:18 am
Aloha! http://chillonmycouch.com,
– 2811
posted September 22, 2010 at 1:22 am
Aloha! http://www.river-rats.net/predisone.html, -) – 5606
posted September 22, 2010 at 2:22 am
Aloha! http://www.campusqv.com/cipro-antibiotic.html, ) – 945
posted September 22, 2010 at 5:20 am
Aloha! http://www.scottdallas.com/, ) – 8847
posted September 22, 2010 at 5:20 am
Aloha! http://www.buylocalrenfrewcounty.org/buypriligy.html, ) – 9940
posted September 22, 2010 at 7:25 am
Aloha! http://www.nanogenesys.com/abilify-medication.htm, !) – 7304
posted September 22, 2010 at 7:25 am
Aloha! http://www.buylocalrenfrewcounty.org/, -)) – 8449
posted September 22, 2010 at 8:25 am
Aloha! http://www.yiddishmusicians.com/, -) – 3918
posted September 22, 2010 at 8:25 am
Aloha! http://www.campusqv.com/buy-cipro.html,
– 9509
posted September 22, 2010 at 9:31 am
Aloha! http://www.cometmagazine.com/celebrex-200-mg.html, !? – 9353
posted September 22, 2010 at 10:37 am
Aloha! http://www.lostpenguin.org/plavix-75-mg.html,
– 5860
posted September 22, 2010 at 11:44 am
Aloha! http://www.instreamhabitat.org/doxycycline-hyclate.html,
– 1710
posted September 22, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Aloha! http://www.leftoversalmon.net/atomoxetine-strattera.html,
– 6008
posted September 22, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Aloha! http://mac-sf.org/generic-cymbalta,
– 3589
posted September 22, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my web site some thing like that. Can I take part of your publish to my blog? cqeejimaarb
posted September 22, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Aloha! http://www.crystalray.org/phenylpropanolamine_hcl.htm,
– 3974
posted September 23, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Aloha! http://www.esperanto-ntx.org/ciprofloxacin-hcl.htm,
– 3565
posted September 23, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Aloha! http://vcafo.org/nexium-medication.htm, -)) – 4199
posted September 23, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Aloha! http://www.instreamhabitat.org/, !) – 3207
posted September 24, 2010 at 12:45 am
Aloha! http://www.kate-evans.com/prevacid_otc.html, -)) – 8680
posted September 24, 2010 at 3:55 am
Aloha! http://www.pulserocom.com/,
– 9198
posted September 24, 2010 at 4:57 am
Aloha! http://www.techpt.org/,
– 1885
posted September 24, 2010 at 4:58 am
Aloha! http://www.esperanto-ntx.org/,
– 4951
posted September 24, 2010 at 6:01 am
Aloha! http://www.praxis-ibc.com/prednisone, -) – 9460
posted September 24, 2010 at 7:05 am
Aloha! http://www.kate-evans.com/,
– 2132
posted September 24, 2010 at 8:08 am
Aloha! http://www.creativecursor.com/hydrochlorothiazide_12_5_mg.htm,
– 4777
posted September 24, 2010 at 9:11 am
Aloha! http://modernluddites.com/plavix-75mg.html, !? – 8599
posted September 24, 2010 at 10:15 am
Aloha! http://www.nanogenesys.com/, -)) – 108
posted September 24, 2010 at 11:21 am
Aloha! http://julienemecek.com/flagyl_500_mg, !? – 9730
posted September 24, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Aloha! http://www.kate-evans.com/prevacid_30_mg.html, -)) – 1751
posted September 24, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Aloha! http://www.johnedwardgill.com/claritin-allergy, -|) – 750
posted September 24, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Aloha! http://www.familyconnecting.com/phenergan-25mg.htm, -|) – 1197
posted September 24, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Aloha! http://julienemecek.com/, ) – 106
posted September 25, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Thanks for good news! Your site is very useful for me. I bookmarked your site!
posted September 25, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Aloha! http://www.techpt.org/ciprofloxacin-500mg,
– 8571
posted September 25, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Aloha! http://www.kate-evans.com/prevacid_generic.html, -) – 9335
posted September 25, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Aloha! http://www.malcolmxgrassroots.com/prevacid-15-mg.htm, -) – 997
posted September 26, 2010 at 12:05 am
Aloha! http://www.instreamhabitat.org/amoxicillin.html, -) – 1665
posted September 26, 2010 at 1:14 am
Aloha! http://www.boulderfilmalliance.com/priligy-online.html, -)) – 174
posted September 26, 2010 at 2:23 am
Aloha! http://www.boulderfilmalliance.com/priligy-usa.html, ) – 111
posted September 26, 2010 at 3:30 am
Aloha! http://www.scottdallas.com/hctz-25-mg.html, -) – 6649
posted September 26, 2010 at 4:19 am
I will post a link to this blog on my website. I’m sure my readers will find this info really great.
posted September 26, 2010 at 4:39 am
Aloha! http://www.irvsburgers.com/amoxicillin.html, -)) – 7634
posted September 26, 2010 at 5:47 am
Aloha! http://siwn.org/,
– 7790
posted September 26, 2010 at 6:56 am
Aloha! http://cyborg-info.com/hctz_25_mg.htm,
– 8445
posted September 26, 2010 at 8:05 am
Aloha! http://www.yiddishmusicians.com/hydrochlorothiazide_12_5_mg, -) – 1649
posted September 26, 2010 at 11:33 am
Aloha! http://www.claykeck.com/plavix-medication,
– 3403
posted September 26, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Aloha! http://www.realsportsinvestments.com/CoQ10.html,
– 1249
posted September 26, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Aloha! http://www.buywebkinzstuff.com/buy-flagyl.html, -|) – 8394
posted September 26, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Aloha! http://www.theninthstreetgallery.com/cephalexin-500mg.html, ) – 4196
posted September 26, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Great concepts on this website. It’s rare these days to find websites with data you are seeking. I am happy I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Keep up the nice job and I’m sure some other folks researching valued information will actually stop by and benefit from your website for resources.
posted September 26, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Aloha! http://www.realsportsinvestments.com/L-Arginine.html, -|) – 7877
posted September 26, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Aloha! http://www.praxis-ibc.com/mobic,
– 421
posted September 26, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Aloha! http://www.praxis-ibc.com/toradol, -) – 479
posted September 27, 2010 at 12:18 am
Aloha! http://www.praxis-ibc.com/skelaxin, !) – 1251
posted September 27, 2010 at 1:28 am
Aloha! http://www.praxis-ibc.com/diclofenac,
– 7222
posted September 27, 2010 at 4:55 am
Aloha! http://www.creativecursor.com/, -)) – 6716
posted September 27, 2010 at 4:55 am
Aloha! http://www.irvsburgers.com/ibuprofen.html,
– 7623
posted September 27, 2010 at 6:03 am
Aloha! http://www.septentrionalia.org/, ) – 1938
posted September 27, 2010 at 9:33 am
Aloha! http://www.river-rats.net/, )) – 768
posted September 27, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Aloha! http://www.campusqv.com/,
– 6814
posted September 27, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Aloha! http://www.cometmagazine.com, !) – 3403
posted September 27, 2010 at 5:46 pm
This web-site is a complete web resource for this. You’ll find all you wanted or needed to know, here.
posted September 27, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Aloha! http://www.checkpointuniversity08.com/keflex.html, -|) – 3337
posted September 27, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Aloha! http://www.claykeck.com/, -) – 8879
posted September 27, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Aloha! http://www.scottdallas.com/, !? – 2355
posted September 27, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Aloha! http://tsmwiki.com/, -)) – 8138
posted September 28, 2010 at 12:23 am
Aloha! http://www.ohyac.org/, ) – 8506
posted September 28, 2010 at 1:32 am
Aloha! http://cyborg-info.com/, -|) – 2451
posted September 28, 2010 at 2:40 am
Aloha! http://www.yiddishmusicians.com/, !? – 3474
posted September 28, 2010 at 6:07 am
Aloha! http://www.theninthstreetgallery.com, -)) – 9970
posted September 28, 2010 at 7:16 am
Aloha! http://www.buylocalrenfrewcounty.org/,
– 7419
posted September 28, 2010 at 7:34 am
Greetings everyone, This webpage is terrific and so is how the matter was expanded. I like some of the comments as well although I would prefer we all maintain it on topic in order add value to the subject.
posted September 28, 2010 at 8:27 am
Aloha! http://www.instreamhabitat.org/doxycycline-hyclate.html, -)) – 1724
posted September 28, 2010 at 9:37 am
Aloha! http://www.ensembleterreciel.com/, )) – 9914
posted September 28, 2010 at 10:48 am
Aloha! http://www.cometmagazine.com/celebrex-medication.html,
– 1952
posted September 28, 2010 at 11:59 am
Aloha! http://www.buyamoxicillin.co.uk/amoxicillin-500mg.html,
– 6674
posted September 28, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Aloha! http://afcet.org/, -)) – 5204
posted September 28, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Aloha! http://www.ensembleterreciel.com/levothyroxine-and-weight-loss.htm,
– 3334
posted September 28, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Aloha! http://mac-sf.org/, !? – 6101
posted September 28, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Aloha! http://soegirang.com/metformin_tablets.htm, )) – 6224
posted September 28, 2010 at 6:34 pm
This article gives the light in which we can observe the reality. This is highly nice one and gives in-depth information. Thanks for this nice article
posted September 29, 2010 at 7:28 am
exert thermohaline economic
posted September 29, 2010 at 7:29 am
records developers india
posted September 29, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Thanks for beneficial news! Your web page is extremely useful for me. I bookmarked your web page!
posted September 29, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Aloha! http://www.pulserocom.com/fluconazole_diflucan.htm, -) – 1727
posted September 29, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Aloha! http://www.kate-evans.com/prevacid_otc.html, )) – 1369
posted September 30, 2010 at 1:30 am
Aloha! http://www.destinyspace.com/ordernexiumonline.htm,
– 9138
posted September 30, 2010 at 2:38 am
Aloha! http://www.poconotopsites.com,
– 4235
posted September 30, 2010 at 8:54 pm
This web-site is a complete world wide web resource for this. You’ll find all you wanted or needed to know, here.
posted October 2, 2010 at 5:47 am
Thanks for such a tremendous post and the evaluation, I am completely impressed! Keep stuff like this coming.
posted October 4, 2010 at 3:51 am
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free. It is the old what goes around comes around routine. Did you acquired lots of links and I see lots of trackbacks??
posted October 5, 2010 at 8:41 pm
This web page is a complete internet resource for this. You’ll find all you wanted or needed to know, here.
posted December 17, 2010 at 11:46 pm
This website is the most excellent net page. bapcsapl
posted December 18, 2010 at 6:47 pm
This website is the most desirable online site. rurlxrcp
posted December 24, 2010 at 7:15 am
I am looking for college football online gambling. How can I find it?
posted January 12, 2011 at 7:00 am
Excellent read about Can Democrats Reduce Abortion More than Republicans???
- Steven Waldman!
posted July 1, 2011 at 1:40 am
Obama supports unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy and he has said he would sign a bill that would overturn every single pro-life limit on abortion passed since 1973 in all 50 states. It’s estimated that alone will increase abortions by 125,00 annually.
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/10/can-democrats-reduce-abortion.html#ixzz1QpTij8fS
posted September 20, 2011 at 5:40 am
youth nfl jerseys
It’s estimated that alone will increase abortions by 125,00 annually.
posted October 25, 2011 at 3:35 am
Chicago Bears and RB Matt Forte are on hold Forte was looking for an extension as he headed to the fourth and final yr on his rookie contract,The Bears have been prepared to negotiate, however the talks are getting tabled for now.yangchengbin/201110
posted November 17, 2011 at 8:27 pm
The Vikings tagged Greenway in feb as their company player,essentially a one-year arrangement that would’ve paid him very much much more than $10 million this time period to sustain him off the market for an additional year. He and his agent, Marvin Demoff, could’ve held out for available bidding subsequent March but Greenway said he didn’t wanttoleave.
“I just can’t say enough about how extremely I sustain the organization. You listen to lots of bad testimonies near to the league, and I have nothing bad to say about these guys,” said Greenway, who has led the group in tackles in each within the final threeyears.=”They have often been good.”yangchengbin/201111