Category archives: Family Facts

UN, Please Note that Abortion is not Maternal Health Care

by Arina Grossu

April 14, 2014

The UN Commission on Population and Development held its annual meeting last week. Wendy Wright (C-FAM) delivered a statement jointly submitted by the Family Research Council, C-FAM and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG).

We must continue to hold the U.N. accountable for keeping maternal health as the priority in the agenda and not conflating it with abortion services. Here are some excerpts:

Now better than ever before, we know what it takes to make pregnancy and childbirth safe for mothers. It takes investment in education, skilled birth attendants, prenatal and antenatal care, clean water and sanitation, adequate nutrition and vitamins, antibiotics and other healing medicines, and emergency obstetric care.

Making abortion legal doesn’t improve maternal health in any way.

Maternal health care strives to make pregnancy safer for both mothers and their unborn children. Preventing births by aborting the unborn child, or preventing the human embryo from implanting in the mother’s womb does not improve the health of the mother or her unborn child.

We know what it takes to make pregnancy and childbirth safe. Maternal health care, must remain a distinct and urgent priority in the post-2015 development agenda. This cannot be confused with elective abortion, which destroys the life of innocent unborn children and places the lives of mothers in jeopardy.”

Let’s work on real solutions to improve maternal health care around the world. Abortion is not the answer.

Economic and Human Inequality: The Contradictions of Barack Obama’s Vision

by Rob Schwarzwalder

December 23, 2013

In a compelling piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, economist and Chris Christie advisor Robert Grady describes that he calls the President’s “obsession with equality” and argues that the real solution to our bumpy economy is economic growth. As Grady notes, if Mr. Obama really wants to end economic disparity in the nation, “Accomplishing this worthy goal requires growth, not redistribution.”

Three thoughts:

(1) We cannot have the kind of growth Mr. Grady rightly calls for unless we have enough people. The sad but indisputable fact is that our quantity of workers is shriveling. My colleagues at FRC’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute have demonstrated this is several key studies . The American family is in crisis due to divorce and cohabitation; abortion claims about 3,000 unborn lives each day. We cannot sufficiently manipulate federal tax and spending policy to redress these trends. The only way is for one man and one woman to marry, for life, and have three or more children. This is consistent with FRC’s view of the value of human personhood and the centrality of the traditional family unit, yes - but it is also demonstrated by the undeniable facts.

(2) That many Americans are struggling cannot, and should not, be denied. But there are a lot of misconceptions about what constitutes inequality, prosperity, and opportunity; the bottom line is that most ordinary families are faring relatively well. Pounding on the theme of “inequality” creates a measure of social resentment that will provoke unwarranted and dangerous federal intervention into the private marketplace, already too prey to the intrusions of the state (e.g., Obamacare, a confiscatory tax regime, etc.).

(3) It is ironic that Mr. Obama is so fixated on what he views as income inequality given his denial of the essential premise of the American republic, that all men are created equal. “The combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe,” he said in his December 4 speech on the economic disparity theme. As noted above, Mr. Obama both misstates the case and proposes policies that will only increase the power of the government at the expense of private enterprise and personal achievement. Yet beyond his rather standard “enlightened” critique stands a devastating paradox: If unborn persons have value independent of their mothers, if they are, in fact, persons, how does advancing a grim and relentless pro-abortion agenda, as does our President, assure the equality he says he so favors? It doesn’t, of course; abortion is inherently discriminatory, elevating the will and power of one person over another. It is the celebration of the worst kind of inequality, the taking of the life of the weaker by the stronger.

If Mr. Obama wants to be taken seriously by economists, entrepreneurs, and social conservatives alike, he needs to remove his reactive Left-liberal lenses and look at the economy, and what makes for the growth thereof, realistically. And if wants to be taken seriously as a moral leader, he needs to jettison his dogmatic agenda of elective abortion-on-demand. Let’s pray to that end in 2014.

Marital Quality Influences Job Satisfaction

by Joe Carter

October 16, 2007

Marital quality influences work satisfaction, according a 2003 study that analyzed over 1,000 married individuals surveyed four times between 1980 and 1992.

The study highlighted by the Heritage Foundation finds that respondents who experienced an increase in marital happiness and time spent in leisure and everyday activities with their spouses were more likely to report higher levels of job satisfaction at the later interview than individuals who did not experience an increase in marital satisfaction. Conversely, increases in marital discord between the interviews were linked to declines in job satisfaction.

Read more about this finding at familyfacts.org.

Family Facts #15

by Joe Carter

July 10, 2007

Among a sample of adolescent virgins from intact two parent families, females who reported having a close relationship with their father during the initial interview were less likely to report having engaged in sexual intercourse during a follow-up interview one year later, when compared to similar females who did not report having a close relationship with their father.

Source: “The Parent-Child Relationship and Opportunities for Adolescents First Sex” Regnerus, M. D., Luchies, L. B. Journal of Family Issues Vol. 27, Number 2. , 2006. Page(s) 159-183.

(HT: FamilyFacts.org)

Family Facts #14

by Joe Carter

May 31, 2007

Teens from intact families with frequent religious attendance were least likely to have ever gotten into a fight (27.1 percent) when compared to (a) their peers from intact families with infrequent religious attendance (32.1 percent), (b) peers from non-intact families with frequent religious attendance (34.3 percent), and (c) peers from non-intact families with infrequent religious attendance (43.5 percent).

Source: Source: Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006), pp. .

(HT: FamilyFacts.org)

Family Facts #13

by Joe Carter

May 10, 2007

Teens from intact families with frequent religious attendance were the least likely to have ever run away (5.2 percent) when compared to (a) their peers from intact families with low to no religious attendance (8.1 percent), (b) peers from non-intact families with frequent religious attendance (8.5 percent), and (c) peers from non-intact families with low to no religious attendance (13.1 percent).

Source: Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006), pp. .

(HT: FamilyFacts.org)

Family Facts #12

by Joe Carter

April 26, 2007

Teen girls from intact families with frequent religious attendance averaged the fewest sexual partners (0.47) when compare to (a) their peers from non-intact families with frequent religious attendance (0.93), (b) peers from intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.14), and (c) peers from non-intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.55).

Source: Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006), pp. .

(HT: FamilyFacts.org)

Family Facts #11

by Joe Carter

April 13, 2007

Adolescents living at home with two parents were 20% less likely to have ever had sexual intercourse when compared to adolescents not living at home with two parents.

Source: “Friends religiosity and first sex.” Adamczyk, A., Felson, J.

Social Science Research Vol. in press, Number . , 2006. Page(s) NA.

(HT: FamilyFacts.org)

Family Facts #10

by Joe Carter

April 4, 2007

Among a sample of adolescent virgins, those living at home with two parents were roughly 38% less likely to engage in sexual activity for the first time during the following year when compared to adolescents not living at home with two parents.

Source: “Friends religiosity and first sex.” Adamczyk, A., Felson, J.

Social Science Research Vol. in press, Number . , 2006. Page(s) NA.

(HT: FamilyFacts.org)

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
Archives