Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > January > 21 > Entry

Breakdown of family needs reversing

By Jim Wooten | Sunday, January 21, 2007, 03:59 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

In the usual Martin Luther King Jr. Day recitations of problems afflicting America — the war, education, social services, losing our soul, “rebuilding the infrastructure of America’s decaying cities” and an assortment of other ills — no mention was reported, if, indeed, one was made, of a problem that would seem to be at least as significant as water pipes and Iraq.

The unmentioned reality is that children in alarming numbers are being brought into the world without a mother and father in the home, and among minority children the problem is epidemic. In 2004, 69.3 percent of births of black children were to unmarried women. For Hispanics, it was 46.4 percent. For whites, 24.5.

This week The New York Times reported that for what is likely the first time in history, more American women are living without a husband than with one. About 70 percent of black women are living without a husband, 51 percent of Hispanic women, 45 percent of non-Hispanic whites and about 40 percent of Asian women, according to the Census Bureau. Death, divorce and temporary separations because of job or military account for some — and on the whole, choices women make are of no particular concern, except as those choices affect children.

The numbers of births to those unmarried are so huge that it has become politically incorrect even to talk about it. It is really quite extraordinary that a problem so grave — the intentional infliction of disadvantage on a child — has no prominent face or voice in this state. One may be emerging. Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears has begun to raise the issue, indirectly at least, through a commission on “Children, Marriage and Family Law.” It’s not a family law problem. It’s cultural, with family law impact, something she pointed out in a 2004 speech to the Atlanta Rotary Club. “Marriage, in our culture, has become optional, contingent and conditional,” she lamented.

The silence elsewhere is deafening, while the evidence of harm to children is so overwhelming that it really is quite astounding that politicians, preachers and opinion leaders look away or insist that some new education or spending program be created to salvage the children.

A white paper prepared for the Supreme Court commission quotes the findings of studies on child well-being. This, for example, is the conclusion drawn from a number of them: “The wealth of published data demonstrate that married mothers and fathers increase their children’s physical and mental health, general life happiness, academic and intellectual performance, behavioral success at school, and substantially increase the likelihood of these children graduating from college and successfully entering adulthood. These children are also more likely to build successful family relationships themselves in adulthood.”

They’re also less likely to live in poverty, suffer sexual and physical abuse, less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol, become criminals, engage in premature sexual activity and or produce children before marriage.

Do two things here. One is to mentally construct the social services and education network that would provide the safety net, or the levels of safety nets, necessary to replace the presence in a child’s life of a mother and a father. The other is to consider how truly irrelevant most of what politicians and opinion leaders identify as problems — the war in Iraq, infrastructure, class size, voter ID, discrimination, all of the standard rally-the-base commentary — is to a daddy-deprived child. Long before the child encounters an obstacle arising from public policy, the decision not to marry made by the man and woman who conceived him will already have damaged his life’s chances.

The American Cancer Society reported this week that from 2003 to 2004, cancer deaths in this country dropped by 3,014, eight times the number by which deaths declined in 2002-2003 — the first year of decline in total deaths in 70 years.

The study’s author, epidemiologist Ahmedin Jemal, credited the drop to “lifestyle changes such as cessation of smoking, more screening, faster diagnoses and better treatments.” For women, lung cancer death rates continue to rise, one expert said, because they took up smoking in the 1960s and ’70s.

Changing harmful behaviors takes time and persistent effort by government, Hollywood, opinion leaders, family, and the media and entertainment industries. It needs leaders. Now, it has few or none. It’s the subject nobody who matters talks about. In part, that’s because the numbers have gotten so large that to talk about it is to offend. It’s because, too, none of us has led a perfect life — and the fear of having our imperfect lives thrown back at us keeps us silent. Where are the voices children need?

Permalink | Comments (117) | Post your comment | Categories: Column

Comments

By Redneck Convert

January 21, 2007 05:25 PM | Link to this

My buddy Jim Earl says divorce should not be allowed, and I agree. If you marry somebody, you got to stay with them no matter how bad things get. Sex outside marriage shouldn’t be allowed neither. We need the death penalty for unmarried people caught having sex. Also, we need to neuter all the people that ain’t married, specially Those People. That would take care of all the kids living in homes without dads. There wouldn’t be no kids.

That’s the redneck solution and that’s the Georgia solution. We get all riled up when someone besides us is having sex. I get tired of paying taxes to support kids just because some people have had too much dope and lose control of theirselfs. If us married folk ain’t having sex, I don’t know why we have to pay to support the kids of unmarried folks that do.

If we did these things, pretty soon we would get back the two house seats that the feds forced us to give to Those People. And we would have so many votes we could put the bible in the schools and the Ten Commandments on every wall in the country. And we would be rid of abortion and libruls. Let’s remember libruls are the people having the kids outside marriage and having abortions. Besides, there wouldn’t be no kids to abort what with single folk neutered and made to do without sex to boot. It makes sense to me and most folk in Georgia.

By WootenDull

January 21, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this

Begone Ain’ts.

Back to Nawlins with you.

Home to your crime infested, corruption ridden pinko playground under the sea, hahaha.

Super Bowl!

You can put it on the board, yesssss!

(Don’t all you “experts” at ESPN feel awful silly about now?)

Yes!

By Lauren

January 21, 2007 05:58 PM | Link to this

Jim, I almost always disagree with you, but we are absolutely on the same page with this issue. Proof positive that this is an issue that should cross all political party lines and become an important cause for the whole country. It is awful that folks think nothing of bringing a child into this world without getting married first. However, we stopped shaming people about this long ago and I don’t know if that genie can be jammed back into the bottle. Also, those who do marry get divorced way too easily. “No Fault” divorce is a terrible terrible thing and should once again be outlawed. Just like in the old days you should not be allowed to divorce unless you can prove physical or mental abuse, adultry or some other horrible sin. Irreconcilable differences? What a crock! Just an easy way out and there should not be an easy way out. In order to be the best parent you need a partner. I will say that in my opinion any two partner home is fine (I don’t have a problem with gay couples being parents, I know many and they are all wonderful parents) but a single parent home is missing something quite important. I don’t know what I would do without the care and support of my spouse and my daughters need both of us. Family is such a wonderful thing and I wish more people would embrace marriage along with children. The gifts to all family members are immeasurable.

By Phil Dolan

January 21, 2007 06:00 PM | Link to this

Bravo, Mr. Wooten, this is a wonderful blog, well written, informative, and it moved me. Logic: impeccable.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 21, 2007 06:02 PM | Link to this

Jim,

I agree with many of your sentiments and the number of fatherless children being born is a disgrace, but I wouldn’t get too hot under the collar over that faux news piece from the New York Times which never even mentions children except when the women are divorced or widowed and free of them.

Among other statistical flaws, 10 million women between 15 and 19 were included in the “not living with a spouse” group.

It really doesn’t matter too much who is married and who isn’t - as long as children aren’t involved. Most of the single women who were interviewed for that story are too selfish to bother with that sort of inconvenience, so it’s not the NYT readership we need to concern ourselves with.

And good luck getting Hollywood involved. Didn’t they produce Murphy Brown? To ask them to show some moral outrage about single parenthood would be hitting too close to home for them personally. In other words, it’s not going to happen.

By jbmlaw

January 22, 2007 08:05 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. As seems to be the case with every other aspect of life, government screws up everything it touches, in this case, the religious sacrament of marriage. Although I think a primary solution is to get the state out of the marriage business entirely, I also think Jim has outlined a pretty strong case about the evils caused by absentee parents. Absentee fathers are by far a greater cause of the problem (of unsupported children) than absentee mothers, I suppose because the former get a nine-month head start. Failure to support a child has potentially greater adverse life consequences than sexual molestation; why should the penalty be less?

In addition to the need for criminal sanctions, this is a case where there is a need for local or state government support for the victim/child. I have not settled in my mind whether to prefer total reliance on the Gingrich orphanage program – which seems to me a necessity for the totally unsupported child – or to offer direct financial subsidies to whatever parent remains in the life of the child. To paraphrase Shaw’s Col. Pickering, “I am afraid she’ll make rather bad use of the money.”

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 08:09 AM | Link to this

Wooten does a good job of presenting half the story… but he ignores the many, many children who are better off living with one parent than suffering the abuse and cruelty of a dysfunctional “intact” home.

To simplemindedly declare that any child is automatically better living with two parents than one is to indulge in wishful thinking. Many families have severe problems that can only be resolved—or even lessened—by a breakup. Any action, even federal “nudging” to keep those families intact for the sake of the children is misguided and harmful.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 08:25 AM | Link to this

Brainless,

Is it always necessary to make a disclaimer and explain the obvious to you?

Yes, a child is better off with one good parent, instead of one good parent and one axe-murderer, but that’s not the point.

Wooten is speaking of a cultural problem where irresponsible people are intentionally having children where there is only one parent available to that child, and the word “parent” is applied loosely.

jbmlaw,

I don’t understand your position on keeping the government out of marriage. The State has to sanction marriage as a formal contract - that has nothing to do with religious sacraments, which are a voluntary enterprise by those who choose a religious ceremony instead of a civil one.

One the one hand you are saying that penalties for not supporting a child should be equal to those of a sex offender, but on the other hand you want the State out of the marriage business altogether.

Where are these laws that penalize irresponsible parents supposed to come from, if not from the States?

By Van

January 22, 2007 08:44 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis,

You are too quick to defend women bringing children into this world without a full set of parents. It is all for the children, right?

We read about John Keye, a high school wide receiver from Jackson, who was killed this weekend. This high schooler left behind a 11 month old child. Who was going to raise this child when John Keye went to college, he was going to University of Kentucky. Back in the dark ages, the 60’s, this was unheard of. A high school kid a proud daddy!

We have lost the ability to feel shame today. No one is ashamed of doing anything. Men and women use to be discreet about their relationships, not today. Today no one thinks twice if an unmarried woman has a child, it all seems so normal. What isn’t talked about the the menatl stress it puts on a single parent. That stress is passed on to the child in day to day living. A child sentenced to long hours at day care, a child coming home from grade school to an empty house.

In the worse case, little Dick or Janes grows up without having a male influemce, or a least a constant male influence. If mommy has 6-7 “uncles” coming over to visit all the time, what will the kids think? How will that affect them later on?

It is hard enough of a child when there is good reason for Dad or Mom not being around. Death can come at anytime and for a very young child, this can leave some marks that might last for a very long time.

Yes, Brian, a single parent family is just great for a kid.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 08:47 AM | Link to this

Here is an excellent critique of the infamous New York Times article which Wooten refers to. This story hints at why Hollywood will never get involved as Wooten hopes.

But America is not a monolith. As much as we would like to persist in thinking that we are a classless and race-blind society, the Times, of all papers — having run groundbreaking series on both race and class — should realize that a phenomenon that might bode well for middle-class white women might be absolutely disastrous for poor black women.

How can Hollywood promote marriage when it extols the unmarried Angelina Jolie who is unwilling to commit to marriage, as the paragon of virtue?

Let’s face it, the only marriage that Hollywood is willing to actively promote is gay marriage.

By getalife

January 22, 2007 08:51 AM | Link to this

Yes, there will be many children left without their parents thanks to w’s Iraq disaster.

27 more this weekend.

By RW-(the original)

January 22, 2007 08:58 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten,

I’m disappointed that you would cite such a phony report, as that in the New York Times, to bolster your point of view. I agree with your overall point, but it’s a lazy liberal trait to cite doctored numbers as evidence just because they seem to support your outlook.

You do mention that some are from temporary separations. Those include military service and working away from home. The number was about 1.9 million. Add that to the 10 million 15-19 year olds Buy Danish mentioned and the 9 million elderly widowers that were included and you find that the Times had to come up with over 20 million women that don’t really fall into their “spouse-less by choice” meme to get the number of women living alone to surpass the number living with a spouse.

Brian Curtis,

Do you whine to Jay Bookman when he doesn’t present every conceivable side of an issue?

By harold

January 22, 2007 08:59 AM | Link to this

can we buy beer and wine on sunday while grocery shopping yet?

do we still need to make a pointless driving trip to the store another day to get our beer and wine?

is traffic so wonderful and air quality so excellent that pointless extra driving for beer and wine needs to be mandated by law?

harold says anybody who causes pointless extra driving for no reason should be tried in as respectable and legitimate of a court as saddam hussein was

driving kills 45,000 americans annually

sell beer and wine on sunday and we can save a few of those lives

By Brian Curtis

January 22, 2007 09:06 AM | Link to this

Van: Try reading what I’m saying. A single-parent home is, in some cases, unavoidable (as when the other parent is killed). In some cases, it’s a problem; and in many cases, it’s preferable to keeping together a dysfunctional or abusive environment that gets superficially labeled “intact.”

By rena

January 22, 2007 09:08 AM | Link to this

I question the validity of this “data” regarding single parents. Particularly the ethnic breakdown. As a married black woman with friends from childhood that ALL are married with children, I can’t see how this data is accurate. I can’t even get past these “statistics” to read the rest of the article.

My parents, aunts and uncles, and in-laws are blacks all still married. We don’t live in a bubble, so I know this “data” is not accurate. Please stop promoting these false images. 70% is absolutely ridiculous! Indeed!

By Mid-South Philosopher

January 22, 2007 09:14 AM | Link to this

Good morning, Jim,

While I agree that the accelerating demise of the traditional family model is having a grossly negative impact upon American society, the nature of that society has been in flux for some decades. I am not sure that to attempt to reverse the trend, given the nature of the economic environment, the focus of the educational system, the radical philosophy of the entertainment industry, the attitude of government, and even the liberality of religious and moral institutions, has a “prayer” (pardon the pun) of success.

I suspect the reality is that a new model for family is being hatched. It will continue to consist of a mother figure (it may be a grandmother, aunt, older sister, etc.) with a hybrid mixture (grandpas, uncles, boyfriends, drop-in lovers, etc.) that represents the father figure. More and more, government institutions will come to dominate the raising of children, directing how they will be brought up to think, how they will be disciplined…or not, and how soon they, too, can reproduce the next spawn.

Thank goodness, those of us ignorant, stupid, backward, idiot, Neanderthals, who found merit in the traditional values, will not be around that long to see the results.

By Van

January 22, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Maybe Aldous Huxley was right and this is the beginning of his “Brave New World”.

By getalife

January 22, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Pro war and pro life is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

By jbmlaw

January 22, 2007 09:31 AM | Link to this

Dear Danish, good question @ 8:25, your confusion reflects only my slip-shod draftsmanship. I think government should not “sanction” marriage, at least no more than it sanctions any other contract. I have less distress using the government to enforce contractual obligations.

I think there should be a private marriage contract and I have no reservation about churches creating and “sanctioning” those contracts. Thus I would take government out of the marriage business entirely.

On the other hand, I think there is an implicit obligation to provide financial support for the fruit of a marriage, whether or not the marriage is sanctioned, and would endorse strict government penalties for failure to enforce. Even using my own “execution” standard, I can rationalize such a penalty for ruining the life of an innocent.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 09:32 AM | Link to this

Midsouth,

Vote for Democrats and your nightmare vision of a Big Government Nanny is more likely to become reality.

By Van

January 22, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

getalife

Apples and Oranges - not logical, please reform your arguement.

By herman

January 22, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

i think it’s strange when jim says that marriage is on the decline in this country. he often cites stats that show how harmful this decline has been on kids. i have one question though. if the good ole 50’s norman rockwell days were that good and if as he often cites kids learn from their parents, then the very kids who were products of the so called “two parent male-female family” are the very ones who are now foregoing marriage. maybe they saw the reality. that image was just an image. the reality they lived was far from the image that people like him want to present. it is always strange to me the conservaties like Jim are always calling for smaller government, less intrusion, yet they never seem to miss a chance to pass judgement and try and impose “their” morality on others.

By jbmlaw

January 22, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this

Dear Danish, you may be amused, I think I have told this story on this site before. Law was a second career for me, and was an option only because Mrs. jbmlaw was willing to be mom and dad and breadwinner for three years while I went to school. Our sons were six and four when my first day of law school arose, and it was important to Mrs. jbmlaw that we teach the children early the importance of dedication to our education. The night before I left for the 200 mile trip to school, my younger son came to me to chat:

Ensign: “Dad?” Jbmlaw: “Yes, good friend, what’s on your mind?” Ensign: “I just want you to know, you are ruining my life.”

Clearly, even then, he understood the nature of lawyers.

By Van

January 22, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this

getalife,

Being pro-abortion and anti-death sentence is the real ultimate in hypocrisy.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

Wow! If you want to know how far liberals will go to refrain from “judging” behavior and perversely finding “beauty” in the profane, here’s a clue:

Documentary on beastiality premieres at Sundance Film Festival…PARK CITY, Utah — “Zoo” is a documentary about what director Robinson Devor accurately characterizes as “the last taboo, on the boundary of something comprehensible.” But remarkably, an elegant, eerily lyrical film has resulted.

[“Zoo,” premiering before a rapt audience Saturday night at Sundance, manages to be a poetic film about a forbidden subject, a perfect marriage between a cool and contemplative director (the little-seen “Police Beat”) and potentially incendiary subject matter: sex between men and animals. Not graphic in the least, this strange and strangely beautiful film combines audio interviews (two of the three men involved did not want to appear on camera) with elegiac visual re-creations intended to conjure up the mood and spirit of situations. The director himself puts it best: “I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it.”)[http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-121sundance,0,6997847.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines]

By getalife

January 22, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

anti death is the dumbest ever read Van.

Please GFY.

By leah

January 22, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this

I have to agree with Rena. Everytime I hear that statistic about 70% of black children being born OOW, I am always like who, where. I only know one person in my circle who has an OOW child. I was thinking it was just us, college educated, professionals in our 30s. That statistic seems skewed to me and I’d really like to see how it was gathered. It is sickening.

By Atico

January 22, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this

You said it all about the mess that the sixties children (baby boomers) and their off spring are causing in our American society. You need look not further than the blacks that were crying for someone to feed them at the Superdome during Katrina. That same mess of unwed poverty sticken families are spread throughout the American landscape, black, white, brown and yellow. This disasterous tide will never ebb because of the sheer lack of political will and a thing called “poliical correctness.” We are doomed by our dumbing down of American children by our public school system. A system that has a higher cost than any other public program except the Military. So poorly administered that its waste in tax payer monies are so great, that it stays hidden by the very politicians that should be making corrections, but would rather keep feeding from the public trough and pretend they have all the answers.

Hope you keep pounding on this mess of children “without fathers.” Maybe, just maybe, some poitician with some backbone will pick up the banner and move forward and somehow stop this travesty on our society.

By time for the truth

January 22, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

The evils of the liberal obsession of racial pandering and multiculturalism and the now decades long production line producing thuggish murderous “bastards” INEVITABLY leads to this.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070121/D8MPTFEO0.html

And countless stories like this … and of course the deaths of vastly more Americans than the US military heroes sadly killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But as Bush isn’t responsible for these deaths … so the liberal maggots can’t treasonously endlessly bleat about it. Leftists only hysterically care about “Bush deaths”.

Rounding up and kicking out ALL illegals, especially Mexican type illegals, including all so called “anchor babies”, would undeniably begin to massively reduce crime rates in many areas, particularly in the freakshow that is Kalifornia. But the leftie scum would screech and screech and screech about enforcing (immigration) laws that they openly and brazenly refuse to EVER enforce.

In the meantime more young innocent black girls like this will die because of filthy liberal racial pandering. political correctness and a refusal to admit the obvious and actually deal very firmly with the criminality that liberal policies have seamlessly perpetrated.

Poor old harold is another hapless victim of liberals schools and mushy liberal thinking, he can’t even plan ahead for one day a week to indulge his alcohol soaked habits, despite it always being like this in GA since his own personal yanKKKee migration south!!

I happen to agree that alcohol should be sold on Sunday’s, even though I don’t really drink alcohol at all. Potentially this change to the law could also give us all some mighty welcome relief as Inbred Redneck the phoney conservative leftist liar might well be at the wheel of its stolen beer truck on Sunday’s too, thus allowing extra opportunities for a big ol fiery crash!! Indeed if Inbred’s kin had actually been subject to much stricter marriage laws as Inbred hypocritically suggets above then there would have been NO ONE to harass/kill Jon Voight and his chums in Deliverance!!

Wanna bet the anal obsessive stalker starts compulsively SLOBBERING NOW!!

By biblethumpingidiots

January 22, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

Children should definitely be raised by 2 parents, a male and a female, but it has nothing to do with your 2000 year old fairy tale. It’s biology and money pure and simple. According to your figures white people got it right at 24.5 % so the obvious answer (the one they pray for) by the white male bible thumpers is to kick all the minorities out of the country, keep the women uneducated, bare foot and pregnant so they can run things. Sounds a lot like the Muslim country I just left.

By Michael

January 22, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Seeing Jessica Lynch’s birth announcement was disheartening. I was hoping it would reference a husband but it only referenced a boyfriend.

By Van

January 22, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

getalife,

You ignorant fool. Anyone that would support abortion on demand and condemn the death penalty is a real hypocrite.

By getalife

January 22, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Van,

I never mentioned the death penalty idiot.

Keep reaching though loser.

By deegee

January 22, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

I heard a special ed teacher once say that the reason there are behavior-disorder students is because their parents are behavior-disorder. It would be funny if not so painfully true. BD parents come in all races, social classes and economic strata. I agree that in many cases a child can improve if a dysfunctional marriage is dissolved. Children tend to internalize conflict and blame themselves for every argument and fight that occurs between their parents.

Physiologically, the human race is most fertile between the ages of 15 - 21. Sociologically, we don’t have the maturity to handle children at that age any more. So now we have teenage mothers at the height of their fertility that we are trying to keep from having babies and women that are way past their prime that are trying desperately to have babies and failing.

I think it may be a pipe dream to think that we are going back to the “Ozzie and Harriette” days of the fifties and sixties. Abortions and adoptions were handled discretely and alot of young girs died in back alley abortions due to hemorraging and infections. What we may want to do is to see if we can match at-risk infants up with prospective parents that would like to adopt.

By Charles

January 22, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

The late President Saddam Hussein of Iraq once said, according to the newspapers, “Every time I see an African American who lives in America, regardless of educational background, I am struck by pity.” I agree with Saddam’s sentiments. Although, he was not referring to the 69.3 percent of births of black children were to unmarried women, or the 70 percent of black women who are living without a husband, nor that the numbers of births to those unmarried are so huge that it has become politically incorrect even to talk about it. He and I am referring to the pathetic position (dependency) which the Black leadership chooses for the masses which can only have a negative outcome for the family.

If a satanic worshipper wanted to sacrifice a people to the devil, the classic example is before us. Condition the people that it is acceptable to have no major businesses, to be indifferent to acquiring prominent industries, and institutions for educational advancement which the masses esteem. Look to other people for jobs et. Teach the masses that they need not be able to meet their basic needs, food, clothing, shelter independently of other groups. Employ and pay a few soft-minded people within the sacrificed group and tell them that they so-called made it through educational achievement or some talent. If you succeed in doing so, then there is really nothing sensible to discuss about a family from that point forward.

By Mrs. RepubLady

January 22, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

One is to mentally construct the social services and education network that would provide the safety net, or the levels of safety nets, necessary to replace the presence in a child’s life of a mother and a father. You mean, like SOCIALISM? Jim Wooten is a socialist!

I don’t care what people do, as long as my defense company and oil stocks do well, and my tax cuts are permanent.

By @@

January 22, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Jim:

Although I opted to remove myself and my comments from your site, this one is too important to me.

Kids are our most valuable resource, our greatest contribution to “society”. That’s the logical assessment anyway.

Emotionally, they are the joys of life if you care enough to see. Early on, they chortle, smile, wave in public, and you say, “damn, the world is a beautiful place and life is good” in spite of it all…

That’s the way I see it anyway, but “real life” experience tells me that all is not well. The impact of social structure within America will have negative consequences on our children. It’s already begun.

My years of experience in working with special needs children has taught me that behavior modification can change the life of a child. It takes time and patience, but the rewards are unparalleled.

I don’t know about adult behavior though. It’s pretty engrained, and the seeds were planted in the 60’s. They have an extensive root system.

So what the hell Jim, I say go for it. Save the children. Intervene, get everyone involved. What have we got to lose if we don’t?

A healthy society? A successful future? Generations to come?

Gone but reading…

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

Cute story.

I think you’re pushing your Libertarianism to an illogical extreme. Contracts have legal weight, so the government cannot help but be involved, if only because our courts are government institutions.

Harold,

Unfortunately a disease called liberalism did a great job of destroying that Norman Rockwell canvas. It is not the traditional family model that is at fault.

As a society we have to have ideals of behavior, even though humans are by nature imperfect. We must strive to do the best we can with the best intentions for our children.

When the ideal becomes single parenthood (Hollywood and NYT image), or when the government social-engineers single parenthood (welfare) the results are disastrous.

Rena and Leah,

You are proof that there is a thriving black middle class, but the fact is that 70% of black children are born to unmarried women. That number is just not in dispute.

It would be beneficial to have middle class black role models serve as mentors and grab the reins from the Sixties-era “black leaders” who have and wreaking havoc upon their own “community” by making excuses and doling out blame for bad behavior instead of condemning or correcting it.

By Dennis

January 22, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten says; “Do two things here. One is to mentally construct the social services and education network that would provide the safety net, or the levels of safety nets, necessary to replace the presence in a child’s life of a mother and a father.”

Given that Mr. Wooten (judging by his past articles) is so anti-tax for public services, and after he has done his “mental construction”, in what way does he expect to pay for the “social services and educational net work that would provide the safety net…necessary to replace the presence in a child’s life of a mother and a father”?

When all of the smoke about one/two family homes gets finally cleared, the quality of a child’s upbringing is not how many parents are in the home, but what is the quality of the parenthood?

I think that is what Brian Curtis is speaking of in his 8:09 post.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By SpaceyG

January 22, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

Wow: this blog brought forward two words I never thought I’d see together about Mr. Wooten — “logic: impeccable.” Bet the writer of “logic: impeccable” is coming from yet another TWO clueless idiots household. I fear for their children, having to grow up with parents like that.

By Curious Observer

January 22, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

We are accepting of men and women who cohabit without benefit of wedlock. We wink at illicit sex as though it is just another version of underage buying of alcohol. We see fifth and sixth and seventh marriages as normal occurrences. And we make it possible for couples to divorce for a few hundred dollars.

We won’t be putting the genie back in the bottle. Long gone are the days when having a child out of wedlock was a cause for shame and social banishment. We should expect a continuation of fatherless children.

The strange part of Wooten’s column is his mention of the need to “mentally construct the social services and education network that would provide the safety net … .” It is a proposed “solution” at least as vague as one developed by the most wild-eyed radical. Precisely what social services and education network are to be developed to accommodate fatherless children?

We can expect the idiocies of jbmlaw and tftt. I at least thought Wooten would be forthcoming with a true conservative solution to the problems he discusses. Or has Redneck Convert in fact voiced the conservative solution, which the other reactionaries are too timid to endorse?

By Dennis

January 22, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

By deegee said @10:27 AM | “I heard a special ed teacher once say that the reason there are behavior-disorder students is because their parents are behavior-disorder.”

This is a special ed teacher who doesn’t know his/her field and ought to have his/her teaching license pulled.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this

Precisely what social services and education network are to be developed to accommodate fatherless children? CO,

Wooten suggests Orphanages, although I’m not clear if they are to be privately or publicly funded.

You are incredibly defeatist in your “it’s broken and we can’t fix it” attitude.

Conservatives posit that the government is not the solution and only engenders cycles of bad behavior, particularly when it doles out taxpayer dollars as a reward for destructive behavior.

That does not mean that solutions don’t exist.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Dennis,

Am I to infer that you believe that a child’s behavior is purely the product of their genes??

By time for the truth

January 22, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

I see the sickster curious peepingtom is back in its sicko nazi like groove. Peepingtom’s intellectual dishonesty is fooking hilarious as usual … it was lefty liberals and shrill dikish feminazi hags etc who pushed harder than clear thinking conservatives to make divorce extremely easy (no fault etc) and cheap. It is traditionalists who are much less comfortable easy/instant divorce, with some (like hard line papists) believing that marriage should be for life and more reasonable folks accepting that divorce should at least be made a little more diffcult to attain than it is today. Obviously in this day and age a marriage that clearly aint working should be ended, so as to free the folks involved, and any kids trapped.

If marriage vows are meaningless and worthless - as say in the recent case of white trash drunken sluts like Ms B. Spears - its because liberals have systematically undermined traditional moral standards with such fascistic gems as their vile moral relativism, restorative justice that gleefully refuses to punish child rapists (see VT, OH etc) deal properly with illegal immigrants, young ghetto drug dealers and other such vermin in society. The liberal/hollywood life style/world view always noisily pushes the narcissitic “if it feels good do it” mentality. Ask the innocent under age victims of G Studds the queer Assachussets child molestor, R Polanski or R Kelly etc.

LIBERALISM IS an evil MENTAL DISORDER that needs to be very firmly eradicated from civilised society!!

By deegee

January 22, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Dennis, are you of the opinion that a child’s behavior is not influenced by the example and behavior of the parents? For example if a parent is abusive, confrontational and does a poor job of managing anger do you deny the effect that may have on the behavior of the child?

By zeke

January 22, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Laws to make it harder to get married, plus, make the marraige license a contract that must be enforced with severe penalties! People having kids out of a marraige must be penalized! What was the prime directive of Marx? Destroy the family and destroy the country!!!

By Markus

January 22, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this

“This week The New York Times reported that for what is likely the first time in history, more American women are living without a husband than with one.”

Of course, the Slimes has been after the traditional marriage and family for some time now (so have many other leftist media outlets). The liberals that run the Slimes find the stability of marriage as a real threat to this nation for some reason. They adore the single professional female who goes to a sperm bank over one who gets married and has kids the old fashioned way. But one thing that the Slimes article didn’t point out or emphasize is what groups were included in those women who were choosing not to live with a husband: girls aged 15-18, who are still living at home and going to high school; girls aged 19-22 in college full time; young professional women aged 23-29 who are career-oriented currently, but that doesn’t mean they’ll never get married; divorced women with children, who statistically have a harder time finding mates than their non-married, non-children counterparts; widows over age 55.

So we are supposed to believe that just because all of these categories of women somehow intentionally plan on never hooking up with a man because they aren’t doing so currently or currently can’t find a man to hook up with. Yeah. Right. Sure. Talk about brainwashing. This is just another example of the anti-traditional society of the left and liberalism which always goes anti-tradition on anything, especially values. The old trite phrase is that there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. The New York Slimes knows how to blend and manipulate all three well. But, when do liberals ever pay attention to those pesky details.

As far as some of the other comments here on single vs. two parent households, there are always exceptions to everything. Sure under certain circumstances a single parent household would be better than a mother-father household: if one is an alcoholic, an abusive spouse, an abusive parent, a gambling addict, a drug addict, and on and on. However, those are the exceptions, not the norm. The facts are that statistically, a child has a much better chance of being successful with the stability of a traditional two-parent household. If you are a single parent who raised a successful child, good for you; you beat the odds.

By harold

January 22, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Who said Harold can’t plan for alcohol? All the planning in the world doesnt help when you do your grocery shopping on Sunday. If you want alcohol, you MUST make an extra trip to get alcohol even if you have your wine consumption scheduled for the next 20 years!

Needless driving causes needless additional traffic and causes needless crashes and needless injuries and needless smog and needless deaths.

We need Sunday sales NOW! Sonny said he wants to make traffic safer. Well Sonny, get those cars making a special trip for beer/wine off the road! Let people buy when they’re grocery shopping on Sunday!

If Sonny doesnt let us vote to buy beer and wine on Sunday, the terrorists have already won.

Each traffic injury/death on Saturday or Monday that happens when somebody is headed to the store just to get beer/wine is on Sonny’s fat bald head if he vetos this vote.

By Markus

January 22, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Stupid idiotic “Bush is the World’s #1 Terrorist” T-shirt wearing liberal peacenik gets thrown off plane. What a damnn shame they didn’t literally do it from the door… without a jetway.

By Magneto

January 22, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

Markus,

Why do you defend a Global liar like Bush? Name one positive that has come from his war that wasn’t already positive. You must like watching our trrops die needlessly.

By Dennis

January 22, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

deegee, I said just the opposite. The quality of the parenthood is a big factor whether there is one parent or two. Better a sound one parent than a two parent dysfunctional marriage.

Regarding the question of By Buy Danish (the real deal); Am I to infer that you believe that a child’s behavior is purely the product of their genes?

No, I’m not saying that. A special ed child can be anything from emotionally disturbed to mentally impaired to physically impared to a child who is all messed up by being raised in a dysfunctional home.

Special ed kids come from all types of homes, rich, poor, educated, uneducated and race is not always a factor.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wooten cannot cover all bases in the amount of space he is alloted by the AJC, and he cannot cover all aspects of his topics with his sweep of his brush (sometimes).

But since he is so anti-“entitlements”, I would like to know how he plans to pay for his “social services and education network that would provide the safety net, or the levels of safety nets, necessary to replace the presence in a child’s life of a mother and a father.”

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By @@

January 22, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

I told you I would be reading Dennis. It looks like your 11:11 was a personal hit on me.

Do we know one another from ml’s?

Allow me to clarify. My degree is in sociology. I work at a private school for “special needs” children. The parent’s of those children have to meet special needs. I perform my job under the direction of an awesome individual with her PhD in special ed.

Two weeks ago my daughter informed me that she was going to pursue a masters degree in school psychology. I was ecstatic. She’s going to give her best effort to make a difference in a child’s life. She’ll be good at it. She’ll be motivated by caring and love like her Mom.

My advice to her was: “Know that there will be instances where your input is appreciated by the parents.” “They’ll follow through with your guidance.”

“There will also be parents that don’t.” It would require too much effort on their part.” “They have neither the patience or the motivation to do so.” “Don’t let those parents discourage you.”

“One child at a time.”

“One child is important.”

By time for the truth

January 22, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

time for the truth salutes harold’s trademark imbecilic idiocy once more … it’s simple enough, if those sad sods who want to drink on Sunday they need to shop on the other six days of the week … its worked well enough for a century or so now. It also gives off licence owners a legally mandated day off, which is good for their families and health. And there’s NO chance of being robbed/shot in their workplace by some thug.

One small legal stricture in GA is perplexing though, the law refusing punters the right to return alcohol to a shop. In the UK one can return carry out alcohol to most shops, especially supermarkets and off licences for exchange or a refund, assuming its unopened and in undamaged, fully saleable packaging.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

To clarify my 11:25,

Clearly there are some conditions over which parents have no control and bear no responsibility, such as Autism.

However things like fetal alcohol syndrome are directly the fault of the mother, and an unstimulating and unloving environment of neglect can do lasting damage to a child’s capacity to function normally.

By jbmlaw

January 22, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Dear Leah @ 9:58 and Rena @ 9:08, I understand your doubt, and I think I can reconcile your experience with the stats Jim cites. There is a whole culture out there totally alien to everything we “know” and believe. If you ask me how many chronic psychoactive drug users (including alcohol) there are, I would guess 5% of the population. If you ask a druggie – I have done so on a few occasions, as an ice-breaker - he would guess 40%. Our perceptions are shaped strongly by our surroundings; but for my dealings in the “criminal” world, I would have guessed 2% at tops. I urge you to acquire Steven Levitt’s “Freakonomics” or Tom Sowell’s “Black Rednecks” for a real eye-opener. The former is a little easier to read, the latter is shorter, but ultimately they make the same arguments.

Dear Southern, if you are around, interesting profile of one of my heroes, Clarence Thomas, in today’s WSJ, on the editorial page. Outside the popular perception, but consistent with my beliefs; will not alleviate your concerns, but worth your time.

Dear Danish @ 10:45, I partially agree with your conclusion – I am pushing my libertarian logic to a position that sounds extreme. If I may add a couple of additional ideas – the government “regulation” of marriage in part debased the sanctity of the institution. I think people should look first to their belief systems in seeking life partners, not to the government to bless the selection. Thus I urge a mindset that has the churches has the moral authority for marriage; government has no valid interest in controlling who shacks up with whom.

I believe marriage has a single noble purpose, the progeny. I think government, as the ultimate protector of the innocent and helpless in this world, has an interest in the well-being of children. I would divorce the “marriage” function, in which government has no real interest now that women are not chattel, from the “protection of the children” function, which is more urgent than ever. Regulate the heck out of the latter. I would ultimately argue that the “breakdown of family” cited by Jim today is more accurately described as a derivative of the “breakdown of religion” in the late 20th century US.

By time for the truth

January 22, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

time for the truth salutes harold’s trademark imbecilic idiocy once more … it’s simple enough, if those sad sods who want to drink on Sunday they need to shop on the other six days of the week … its worked well enough for a century or so now. It also gives off licence owners a legally mandated day off, which is good for their families and health. And there’s NO chance of being robbed/shot in their workplace by some thug.

One small legal stricture in GA is perplexing though, the law refusing punters the right to return alcohol to a shop. In the UK one can return carry out alcohol to most shops, especially supermarkets and off licences for exchange or a refund, assuming its unopened and in undamaged, fully saleable packaging.

By time for the truth

January 22, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

time for the truth salutes harold’s trademark imbecilic idiocy once more … it’s simple enough, all those sad sods who want to drink on Sunday need to shop on the other six days of the week … its worked well enough for a century or so now. It also gives off licence owners a legally mandated day off, which is good for their families and health. And there’s NO chance of being robbed/shot in their workplace by some thug.

One small legal stricture in GA is perplexing though, the law refusing punters the right to return alcohol to a shop. In the UK one can return carry out alcohol to most shops, especially supermarkets and off licences for exchange or a refund, assuming its unopened and in undamaged, fully saleable packaging.

By time for the truth

January 22, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

the forum seems to have frozen again - even with superfast DSL …

time for the truth salutes harold’s trademark imbecilic idiocy once more … it’s simple enough, all those sad sods who want to drink on Sunday need to shop on the other six days of the week … its worked well enough for a century or so now. It also gives off licence owners a legally mandated day off, which is good for their families and health. And there’s NO chance of being robbed/shot in their workplace by some thug.

One small legal stricture in GA is perplexing though, the law refusing punters the right to return alcohol to a shop. In the UK one can return carry out alcohol to most shops, especially supermarkets and off licences for exchange or a refund, assuming its unopened and in undamaged, fully saleable packaging.

By time for the truth

January 22, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Canada’s most infamous, prolific sickest serial killer will sadly only get life in jail for these Hollywood script/Saddam/Castro like crimes:

THE SWILLER KILLER …

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007030454,00.html

By Apocalypse

January 22, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Media and Music are the primary engines used to disintegrate the family. If you do a brief study of the music we were brought up on and look in certain background scenes you will notice an overabundance of obvious homosexuals. What that does is subconsciously feeds acceptance and agreement to young feeble minded children, thus leading them to choose that lifestyle if they are in any way psychologically damaged(abuse,broken families,etc.).

Also, some of our top rated songs and entertainers were actually designed to cater to homosexuals and to spread other perverted lifestyles. Y.M.C.A. is an example of this, as well as Michael Jackson and Prince with their feminine oriented makeup and presentations.

By Dennis

January 22, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

By @@ January 22, 2007 12:01 PM I told you I would be reading Dennis. It looks like your 11:11 was a personal hit on me.

Not knowing who you are or what you do, there’s no reason for me to hit on you at all.

But to quote myself above (god, forgive me) “A special ed child can be anything from emotionally disturbed to mentally impaired to physically impared to a child who is all messed up by being raised in a dysfunctional home.

“Special-ed kids come from all types of homes, rich, poor, educated, uneducated and race is not always a factor.”

And, yes, some dysfunctional kids do come from dysfunctional homes (for whatever the cause).

Blanket statements like dysfunctional kids all come from dysfuncional parents does a disservice to everyone and are an embarrassment coming from someone in that field who is supposed to know better (whoever the teacher was who made that statement - and ought to have his/her license revoked).

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

jblmaw,

Government does not “bless” marriage, it licences it. It has rules that must be met in order to validate that license, such as forbidding Polygamy, minimum age requirements, the requirement that the two partners be of the opposite sex, et cetera.

When marriages fail, the courts step in over property and custody disputes. Even childless marriages are subject to government intervention when there is a divorce or separation.

On the other hand, it is in the best interest of a cohesive Society to “bless” marriage as the best unit in a civilized society, and that need not and should not be the exclusive realm of parents. If it were, marriages would legally disolve once our children reached the legal age of 21. Surely that would not be a desirable outcome.

By DebbieDoRight

January 22, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

Wooten is speaking of a cultural problem where irresponsible people are intentionally having children where there is only one parent available to that child, and the word “parent” is applied loosely

From a Different Poster: Hope you keep pounding on this mess of children “without fathers.” Maybe, just maybe, some poitician with some backbone will pick up the banner and move forward and somehow stop this travesty on our society.

From a different Poster: But one thing that the Slimes article didn’t point out or emphasize is what groups were included in those women who were choosing not to live with a husband: girls aged 15-18, who are still living at home and going to high school; girls aged 19-22 in college full time; young professional women aged 23-29 who are career-oriented currently, but that doesn’t mean they’ll never get married; divorced women with children, who statistically have a harder time finding mates than their non-married, non-children counterparts; widows over age 55

So what do you guys suggest? We bring back the shot-gun wedding? We force people to become “wed” whether they like it or not? So, if people don’t like the thought of unmarried with babies, do you support Abortions?

By lovelyliz

January 22, 2007 01:09 PM | Link to this

Single Mom’s have, in many cases, simply taken out the middle man or more apropos the wedding coordinator and the divorce attorneys. Marriage is a great institution when it works. However, if your parents, relatives and many friends have gone through a nasty divorce, the idea that having a child without getting married as opposed to going through the expense of a wedding and then the financial and emotional expense of a divorce is making more look to the friends with benefits option.

Children with involved parents do better whether the parents were married, divorced or single. Rate of illegitimate births around the world don’t always correlate with maladjusted children. It really is the parents who make the difference.

Those who want to save the traditional family need to work on better, long lasting marriages.

By Watta Load

January 22, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Apocalypse seems to have a preoccupation with the pretty boys he sees in the media and music videos…methinks he doth protest too much…

Internalize much?

By jbmlaw

January 22, 2007 01:12 PM | Link to this

Dear Danish @ 12:35, I suppose I use “license” and “bless” interchangeably; they mean the same thing. Just as government has a set of arbitrary rules for its “licenses,” so each religion has particular rules for its “blessings.”

When any contract fails, the courts are invoked over property matters; there is no reason a private marriage contract would be any different. Churches could even be the legal “arbitrators,” thus reinstituting the ecumenical churches that preceded our “courts of equity” (even called by the old Roman Catholic term “chancery” courts, in some states.)

“Custody,” in contrast, is not an issue in a childless marriage, and that is the distinction I am trying to draw out. Get government out of the marriage business, and focus all of its energy on the children.

As to your argument that parenthood is not the exclusive purpose of marriage, I guess we fundamentally disagree. In my harsh style, I would respectfully suggest that a marriage without children is no marriage at all, and is fundamentally indistinguishable from a life-long homosexual relationship.

By jbmlaw

January 22, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

Sorry, typo in the last post: “thus reinstituting the ecumenical COURTS that preceded …”

By Liberal drive-by

January 22, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this

Out of Wedlock Births: 2004 (CDC)

White: 553003 Black: 397512 Hispanic: 434696

Any questions?

By Magneto

January 22, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

No one seems to want to comment on this idiotic blog.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 01:37 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

I can’t keep up with your arguments. On the one hand you are a Libertarian but you want the churches to handle all marriages and divorces.

I also don’t see all this government “interference” in marriage that you are somewhat obsessed with.

This statement is silly:

I would respectfully suggest that a marriage without children is no marriage at all, and is fundamentally indistinguishable from a life-long homosexual relationship.

Ideally, children should not be born outside of marriage, but that does not mean that childless marriages are illegitimate. As I said earlier, would you disolve marriage at the point that all children have reached adulthood? Surely you can envision the chaos this would cause.

The homosexual/heterosexual argument is a red herring that I don’t have the time or energy to get into today.

By DebbieDoRight

January 22, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

  • have to agree with Rena. Everytime I hear that statistic about 70% of black children being born OOW, I am always like who, where. I only know one person in my circle who has an OOW child. I was thinking it was just us, college educated, professionals in our 30s. That statistic seems skewed to me and I’d really like to see how it was gathered. It is sickening*

I think they just make up a LOT of the data — sort of like how they make up the exit polls. My parents were married until death did they part. All my brothers are married and I’m married. Cousins, uncles, etc. ALL MARRIED — go figure!!

By DebbieDoRight

January 22, 2007 01:43 PM | Link to this

Question: How DO they gather their data? I’ve emailed my friend, (married) who just had a baby and asked her if when she was in the hospital in labor, they asked her if she was married or not. She replied no. So where do they get the data from? Exit Polls?

By DebbieDoRight

January 22, 2007 01:50 PM | Link to this

Marx also said that “Religion is the Opiate of the People”. Used to pacify persecution in this world with the hope of “peace and love” in the next.

By Buy Danish (the real deal)

January 22, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

Liberal-Drive by Dumbass,

What percentage of the total population does each group represent?

Clue: Blacks represent 12% of the total population.

DDA,

Much of the data comes from the U.S. census. They also have this amazing thing called “Birth Certificates” which list the child’s parents.

By DebbieDoRight

January 22, 2007 01:54 PM | Link to this

Michael Jackson is not a homosexual — pederast would be a better description of him and Prince likes women. A LOT.

By jbmlaw

January 22, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

Dear Danish @ 1:37, I do not intend to confuse. I think my libertarian beliefs are not at all inconsistent with my argument that churches have an interest in the substance of the marriage contract, and that government does not. The unlovely civil marriage ceremony imbues a relationship with nothing that will sustain it through hard times. Many marriages not rooted in something deeper than “a common interest in the children” do dissolve when the nest is empty, so the chaos you postulate exists anyway.

My equation of childless “marriage” and homosexual “marriage” really is not so bizarre after you let the concept settle in. Don’t attempt to address it today; think on the idea, and if you come up with any meaningful distinctions, please educate me. Jim introduces the homosexual marriage topic from time to time, and that would be an appropriate time for us to thrash it out.

By DebbieDoRight

January 22, 2007 01:59 PM | Link to this

Out of Wedlock Births: 2004 (CDC)White: 553003 Black: 397512 Hispanic: 434696 Any questions?

The CDC (Center For Disease Control) keeps records of BIRTHS??!!? I’ve GOT to go to their website to see if that’s true or just a bunch of baloney!!!

By DebbieDoRight

January 22, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

OK so if the mother retained her maiden name, (which a LOT of women do), and didn’t use her married name, then the chid was erroneously cited as “out of wedlock”?

Accor