Good Grief

Bush has just appointed Susan Orr the head of family planning within the Department of Health and Human Services. She's a "culture of death" spewer who believes that birth control shouldn't be covered under health insurance plans because "fertility is not a disease".

She also has this to say about child welfare (pdf):

Narrowing the scope in which the government can interfere will mean that some behavior. which is bad for children. will not be responded to by state authorities. But a parent whose skills and knowledge of child development are deficient may be better aided by someone unassociated with a state authority. Help from a charitable or civic association that holds no threat of harm to the family may be better received. For example, emotionally abusive behavior. such as screaming invectives at a child. may be poor parenting, but does not rise to the level of serious maltreatment. A mother who screams, however, may benefit from someone offering her the possibility of a day out of the house on her own by baby-sitting for her.

Great! Let's replace the child welfare system with having neighbors babysit. I admit my qualifications on the issue are non-existent, but seriously? Sure, a parent who loses their temper every so often is...a typical parent. But if it's a consistent problem, and the kid's getting screamed at relentlessly every day, then someone needs to step in. Otherwise, you may or may not end up with a seriously whacked-out kid. Also:

Poverty is not a crime either. No one should be persecuted for simply being unable to clothe or house a child adequately. Injuries to children, on the other hand, should be treated as criminal assaults. In fact, most poor parents do not harm their children. Reasonable people can distinguish between shabbily dressed, but well-cared for children and those who are chronically neglected: one may require private, charitable help, the other state intervention.

No, poverty is not a crime (though we still should try to stop it). And I absolutely agree that parents who are trying to but can't provide for their children (food, clothing, shelter, emotional needs) should not be punished for that; they should be helped. But if a parent isn't trying, if the kid is suffering while Pop feeds his drug addiction or Mom worships the slots, then yes, the parents should be punished. If you have a kid, that means that for the next eighteen years at least your absolute priority is taking care of that kid.

She goes on to decry mandatory reporting laws (suspect child abuse? nah, no reason to say anything), and also say that family services should be optional. I guess the church should just replace that all, right?

One could posit that increasing access to birth control and abortion could potentially help fix some of these problems, but what the hell do I know.