Kirsten Andersen

The number of US children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled in 50 years: Census data

Kirsten Andersen
Kirsten Andersen

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 4, 2013, ( – The number of children living in single-parent homes has nearly doubled since 1960, according to data from the 2010 Census.

The Washington Times analyzed the most recent census data, showing that the percentage of two-parent families has dropped significantly over the past decade in all 50 states. Even as the total number of American households with children increased by 160,000, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. 

Today, one-third of American children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Nearly five million more children live without a mother.

Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, blames this trend for many of society’s ills.  He claims the way to deal with poverty, drugs, crime and other hot-button cultural issues is to strengthen the two-parent family. Deal with absent fathers, he says, and the rest follows.

A growing number of studies show that fatherlessness has a major negative impact on the social and emotional development of children. 

A 2011 University of Melbourne study found that absent fathers were linked with higher rates of juvenile delinquency, while a Canadian study showed that kids whose fathers were active parents in early and middle childhood had fewer behavior problems and higher intellectual abilities as they grew older, even among socio-economically at-risk families.

Children without fathers are much more likely to grow up in poverty. While married couples with children enjoy an average income of $80,000, single mothers average only $24,000.

Though poverty is the primary risk factor for fatherlessness, absenteeism among fathers has also been overwhelmingly a black problem, regardless of poverty status, reports the Times.

The majority of black children nationwide – 54 percent – are being raised by single mothers. Only 12 percent of black families below the poverty line have both parents present, compared with 41 percent of poor Hispanic families and 32 percent of poor white families.

In all but eleven states, most black children do not live with both parents. In every state, 70 percent of white children do. In all but two states, most Hispanic children do.

But the move toward single-parent homes has included every race.  There are now 1,500 neighborhoods in America with substantial white populations where most white households lack fathers, including Curtis Bay in Baltimore, Millcreek outside Salt Lake City, and Vancouver, Wa.  Maine, Vermont and West Virginia are the states with the lowest rates of two-parent households among whites. 

The Washington Times’ analysis of census data showed that even in places where the black population declined, single parenthood is increasing. In South Carolina, where the black share of the population fell by two percent, single parenthood rose by five percent. In Kentucky and Louisiana, where the black population stayed the same, single parenthood increased six percent.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

“Something has to be done about it, and it starts with the culture and reversing the attitude that marriage is not important,” DiCaro told the Times. “[P]resident [Obama] has a role to play in that. He’s a married African-American father who can probably make a huge difference with words alone.”
The Times has produced an interactive map showing the highest and lowest rates of fatherlessness across the country.  It shows the highest concentrations of fatherless households in the inner cities and rural South, with the lowest rates in more affluent, predominately white suburbs. 

You can see the interactive map of areas with the most and least fatherless families here.

Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion
Uterine Currette

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!

Featured Image
Michael New

Why cash welfare allowances won’t bring down the abortion rate

Michael New
By Michael New

Earlier this month, Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig wrote a piece for The American Conservative making the case that pro-lifers should focus their policy efforts on improving the economic circumstances of women facing crisis pregnancies. She specifically recommends a no-strings-attached cash allowance for mothers. On Tuesday, I had a Corner post expressing skepticism that such an allowance would reduce the abortion rate. Bruenig responded on her personal blog later that day. I appreciate the fact that she engaged my arguments in a thoughtful, serious, and diplomatic way. Such décor is often lacking among people who are debating sanctity-of-life issues.

I want to begin by stating that debates about the level of public support to offer mothers are complicated. This is certainly an issue where pro-lifers of good faith can disagree. We are trying to build a culture of life in the long term while protecting unborn children in the short term. Most of the time, these goals are consistent with one another. Yet there are times when this isn’t the case. The question of how to handle pregnant students is a problem that many private Christian schools have grappled with in the past. Punishing such students might make them more likely to choose abortion; accommodating them might undermine norms against premarital sex and create a culture where abortions happen more often.

Overall, I made two arguments in my Tuesday post. The first was that a child allowance would increase the number of single-parent households and undermine mores against premarital sex. In her response, Bruenig doubts this to be the case, and even if it were, it would do little to change sexual mores. She does not specify all the details of how her proposal would work, but I wonder if women would receive an increase in their allowance for each additional child they had. This would likely result in an increased number of children raised by single mothers and in a generally more promiscuous society.

I’m also unsure a child allowance would work quite the way Bruenig intends. It might encourage some women to get married, but discourage others. After all, women would have more financial means to raise children on their own. Welfare programs can create a culture of irresponsibility where recipients end up engaging in repeat behavior and depending more on the government than their own initiative. Such a culture of irresponsibility is inconsistent with a more conservative sexual culture that is needed to reduce the abortion rate. And there are usually negative implications for the children raised in such a culture.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

All that aside, I have additional concerns that there will be a crowding-out effect. Often when the government takes a more active role in solving a particular problem, private endeavors recede. I would hate to see pregnancy resource centers lose out on donations because the government is taking on a more active role in caring for mothers. Such centers attempt to alleviate the economic pressures of women facing crisis pregnancies. They also do much more than that. Those centers with a religious orientation can minister to the spiritual needs of women, and many educate women about the health risks involved with a promiscuous lifestyle. Many also offer parenting classes. These are extremely valuable tasks that no welfare program can replicate.

Bruenig agrees with my second point that existing research finds little evidence of generous welfare benefits reducing the incidence of abortion. However, she cites Sweden as an example of a country that became more economically conservative while seeing its abortion rate increase. Sweden is an interesting case study, but there are other data points worth considering.  First, welfare policy in the United States has become more conservative since the 1980s. In general, cash welfare benefits have not kept up with inflation. The welfare-reform bill that President Clinton signed in 1996 made it easier for states to sanction the benefits of recipients who were not participating in work or job training activities. Welfare caseloads declined significantly while the U.S. abortion rate continued to fall.

Additionally, even though the U.S. economy was in poor shape during the late 2000s, the abortion numbers did not increase the way some had anticipated. Others have argued that the abortion-rate decline stalled, but it certainly did not increase during this time. Maybe economic pressures are responsible for fewer abortions than Bruenig thinks.

I will say that I do agree with Bruenig that pro-lifers would do well to think critically and creatively about various efforts, both public and private, to assist women facing crisis pregnancies. After Texas governor Rick Perry signed HB2 last summer, a number of Texas abortion clinics closed because they could not comply with the new rules. This has received significant coverage from a variety of media outlets. As such, it would be both good policy and public relations for the pro-life movement to make a visible and public commitment of resources to assist women in Texas and other parts of the deep South. Such private efforts will certainly do more to build a culture of life than another impersonal government transfer program.

Reprinted with permission from the National Review Online.

Featured Image
Screenshot from video showing Prof. Mireille Miller-Young accosting pro-life youth.
LifeSiteNews staff


University prof pleads no contest after attack on pro-life students

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A California professor who was videotaped attacking and taking property from pro-life youth in March pled no contest Thursday, meaning she will be convicted on charges of grand theft, vandalism, and battery. A sentencing hearing has been set for late August.

The victims of Mireille Miller-Young, an associate professor of feminist studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, were staging a demonstration to educate about abortion and promote its alternatives.

The students included Thrin and Joan Short, daughters of Life Legal Defense Foundation Legal Director, Katie Short.

While calling the police at the time of the attack, the sisters captured the altercation on video, which shows Miller-Young shoving and grabbing 16-year old Thrin, who bore visible scratches on both arms following the assault. Despite Thrin's wounds, the Short family has called for restraint in speaking about Miller-Young.

The footage also captured Miller-Young parading through campus with the stolen sign, leading students in the theft and destruction of it. When interviewed by the police after the incident, Miller-Young said she believed that her theft and destruction of the sign had "set a good example for her students."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

"Today's plea brings us one step closer to seeing justice done in this case," said Katie Short, an attorney. "Pro-life advocates should not be subjected to intimidation and violence for lawfully exercising their right to free speech, and we are happy to see that Ms. Miller-Young is being held accountable for her actions."

To date, the university has made no public statement about the assault nor issued an apology for the criminal actions of its employee and students. Two weeks after the incident, Vice-Chancellor Michael Young sent a letter to University of California at Santa Barbara students and faculty decrying the presence of "outsiders coming into our midst to provoke us, to taunt us and attempt to turn us against one another.”

In what appeared to be a denouncement of the teens advocating a pro-life worldview, he urged students to notify the Office of Student Life if they "feel harassed" or believe that "outsiders" are violating the law. It is not known whether the university has imposed any disciplinary sanctions on Miller-Young, who remains listed in the faculty directory.


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook