The Fertility Gap: Democrats Aborting Their Kids

of Congress. Thousand, seven hundred and twenty seven. Representative Chris Cannon, Republican, Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children in a Congressional district two hundred seventy eight thousand three. These two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide beach the congressional districts controlled by the major political parties. Republican House members overwhelmingly overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of

married people and lots of children. According to a USA Today analysis of two thousand five cents of this Bureau Info, GOP Congress members represent thirty nine point two million children younger than eighteen, about seven million more than Democrats. Republicans average seven thousand more children per district. Now, do any of you yet listening to this, have any idea where this is going? All right, you tell me where do you think this is going? Yep, no, no, no, no,

no no no. Snardly, that's not that. That is never mentioned in this story. Hang with me. Many Democrats represent areas that have many single people and relatively Futuran. Democratic districts that have large numbers of children tend to be predominantly Hispanic or to a lesser extent, African American. Now, do you get an idea where this might be headed? The fertility gap? This fertility gap is crucial to understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a

professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These child bearing patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education, and child tax credits goop traditional families. Both sides are very pro kids, Brooks says, they just express it in different ways. Republicans are congenial to traditional families, which is clearly the best way for kids to grow up, but there are some kids who don't have that advantage, and Democrats are

very concerned with helping those kids. No, they are not related. For one thing, they abort those kids did not. This story does not get to the real reason for this so called fertility gap, and that is the Democrats are aborting their kids in far greater numbers than Republicans do. Besides that, of the kids who survive a Democrat pregnancy, which is a risky pregnancy. You get pregnant and you're a Democrat, your child's chances of survival are remarkably less

than other people. Well, the fertility gap here to me is a crucial element and understanding that. But of the children who survive a Democrat pregnancy, they have not been helped by Democrats. In the last fifty years, all of these great society programs busted up the families that this story is winging its hands over. Oh it's horrible, they think of family. Why did that happen? It's because Democrats came with programs, feel good programs, feeling good about ourselves, programs,

look at how we care. We're good people, we see suffering and we want to help, And so they became essentially surrogant fathers. The government became surrogant father. The real father had no reason to hang around. Uh and and so you had all these broken families. In fact, I go so I'll go even further. I I think that Democrats enjoy they need victims. Let's face it, and this is another problem presented to the fertility gap. They're fewer and fewer victims. Why do you think they're so interested

in illegal immigrants. They need victims, They need poor people, they need people who have not reached their potential, they need people who are dependent. They want to keep as many of these people in a dependent state because they think they'll vote for Democrats in that state. Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts. Okay, well, let's try to figure out why then and do what

really needs to be done to help these kids. Let's figure out why instead of the point of this story is absurd. Jose Serranto, Congressman Democrat New York two hundred twenty seven thousand children and his Bronx district the tenth most in the House. Only of those two seven thousand kids live with married parents. By contrast, of children live with married parents in Chris Cannon's Central Utah district. These numbers are amazing. Cannon says, I see now where Jose

is coming from. What do you mean where Jose is coming from. Cannon used to have a locker next to Serranto at the congressional gym, considers him a friend. The needs of kids in his district are just not the same as the needs of children in my district. So you see where this is a Democrats are going to make a claim we need more social programs, we need more welfare, we need more attention to Democrat districts because the kids in those districts are in such poor circumstances.

The biggest gaps in American politics are religion, race, and marital status, says Democratic poster and Greenberg. Uh, the story it never gets to where I'm sure you thought it was headed, and that is abortion, the fertility gap focus, well, alternative lifestyles too, Yeah, we we have you have to throw that in there. I mean, that's that's that's clearly gonna be a factor too, and why there would be fewer kids per Democrat congressional district. But this is a

if true. This is a total indictment of Democrat lifestyles, attitudes, politics, and yet it's portrayed as something Republicans are mean spirited and hoarding all the goodies for their kids and it's not needed because Marianne and Louisville, Ohio. Hi Maryannam glad you called. Hi, Rush. It's good to talk to you. Thank you. You know, I don't want to upstate and the real news of the day, but I did have another point to make it. Very cool of you, very good. Um.

I'm afraid you. I'm a little worried about you. I'm afraid you might be on the news with him tonight as a headline said Democrats aboard their children. I was really surprised to hear you say that. I mean, I have believed this for a long time, but I would I didn't expect who you say it so and don't back down and make a wimpy apology. Uh, I have no intention of backing the Why why I don't get

your point. You're worried that the Democrats are gonna put me on the news tonight is saying they aboard their kids and that's why there's a fertility gap. Well, I'm afraid that. You know, like you read the story and it said nothing about that, and you picked up the real point of it. I thought too, but we would the table shows tonight. They're gonna let them. I don't worry about what they say about the day I start. I mean, I really, you're worried about me being discredited

as a as a list. You're in a devotee of this program. You're worried about seeing me being criticized it And I understand that it's the maternal instinct. Uh. But but let's stick with me here. If this you think I'm just making that up. You think I'm just pulling that out of thin air, you think it's just my opinion. I think it's true. Well would you like some would you like would you like some backup for it? Well?

What do you mean? I have it right here in my formerly nicotes right here from March one of this year, two thousand six. Who's Your Daddy? It's a piece by James Toronto in the Best of the Web blog, which

is the Opinion journal dot com website. In the new issue of Foreign Policy magazine, Philip Longman of the liberal New American Foundation has a fascinating essay on demographics and politics, the gist of which is that differing reproductive patterns are likely to make Western society is including the US, more conservative.

I reported this, and I talked about this back in March when it came out, specifically those who practice patriarchy, which Longman defines not in the crude feminist sense of men dominating women, but as a quote particular value system that not only requires men to marry, but to marry a woman of proper station. Those people that practice that are outbreeding those who do not. In the United States, the percentage of women born in a late thirties who

remained childless was near ten percent. By comparison, nearly twenty percent of women born in the late fifties are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the sixties and seventies, and liberal writing this will leave no genetic legacy normal their emotional or psychological influence on the

next general ration compare with that of their parents. Conservatives are having more babies. That's what was said in the USA Today story. This this guy, this is the Philip Longman, New American Foundation says that fewer and fewer liberal women influenced by feminism at all are having fewer and fewer children, and therefore there's less opportunity to breed little liberals. They're

just gonna be fewer of them. Meanwhile, conservatives are having kids in the old patriarchal sense, the nuclear family unit. They're influencing the way their kids grow up, and they're simply at some point in the future, conservative kids are gonna out number of Liberals and later on in this story. H Later on in this story, this of course dovetails with the Row effect i e. Ro versus Wade. Now abortion has been brought into this not by me, but

by demo demographers. This of course dovetails with the Row effect, which surely magnifies the political consequences. Support for unrestricted abortion defines the content perary Democratic Party more than any other issue does, and abortion advocates open contempt toward those who disagree makes it hard for the latter to be Democrats.

Longman draws a lesson from military history. After the agricultural revolution, in more and more places in the world, fast breeding tribes morphed into nations and empires and swept away any remaining slow breeding hunters and gatherers. It mattered that your warriors were fierce and valiant in battle. It mattered more that there were lots of them. And there's simply fewer and fewer Liberals having kids, which would have to soume fewer and fewer liberal offspring growing up. And this is

something we covered in March. Now, this USA Today story didn't mention this Today, which I was stunned about and stunned by. They focused on a pure social welfare angle of it, and try to say that the poor kids, and they're fewer of them in democratic districts. Somehows the problem of Republicans when it's when it's just things. But I appreciate your being concerned for me. So few people

are so a few people. Most people. You have to understand, Mary, and most people would love to see me plummet to the depths of obscurity. And you have, you have called, and you have you have expressed genuine love and heartfelt concern and even fear for what might happen. But you fear not because whatever they say, we can back it up. Here, Can I say one more thing? By all means, I just want to tell Jane Fonda to go back to doing aerobic because we the women of this country, say no,

thank you to her. Okay, stop and think about that for a second. Now, you know, here here, now, this is an excellent point. Jane Fonda and who Steinham and these other babes are doing this new feminist radio network. Well they're on four stations nationwide, of course, nation You know what their topics are, sewing, child care, fung SWI I'm not no, no, no no, I'm not making this up. The point is here are these women to say women

are being driven away from traditional talk radio? Why because they don't like the subject matter, They don't like confrontation, they don't like dealing with issues. Well, what the hell was the feminist movement all about? Here are these feminist icons who are now going to go on the radio and try to replicate nineteen fifties and sixties high school

homet class as a way of attracting women. If that's not the greatest and final nail in the coffin of Middleton feminism from these founders anyway, then I don't know what is uh. You know, this job is hard. I just make it look easy because I'm good the Great make everything they do look easy. That's why everybody thinks they can do what the great do. Um. But I understand, uh, totally your point, Beth in Act in Massachusetts. I'm glad

you called and waited. Welcome to the program. Hi. I just wanted to say, if you like the Darwinian theory that the liberals love so much to their reproductive habits, they'll be driving themselves into extinction eventually. Will the rest of us conservative Christians continue to reproduce sur survival of the fittest? Yes, Darwinnian theory? Yes? How can liberals evolve

if there are no liberals exactly? Well, you know, I live in Massachusetts, and it's interesting to hear you say these things because I've noticed it that, you know, anywhere I go, the liberals I know, have one child. If they have a girl, she doesn't want to have children. Or if they have a boy, he's seminized. This poor guy has been just emasculated on drugs or whatever. And I just don't see them having grandchildren. And then they

lamented as they get older. You know, where are my grandchildren? Well you never embraced life, and life isn't going to embrace you. Well, whatever the reasons, I mean, whatever they factors here, we've now got Census data Bureau, Census Bureau data that that that confirms this in a demographic fashion. Uh.

We're not sitting here making this stuff up. What we've learned today from USA today, via the Census Bureau is that the per congressional district, there are seven thousand fewer kids in Democrat districts on average nationwide than Republican districts. We've also learned that most of them are in one are many of them are in a single parent homes and are very poor, and most are Hispanic and black, those who are poor and fit this profile. Uh. It's

not hard to draw conclusions here, folks. Liberalism doesn't work, flat out just doesn't work. And a number of cities in this country established that. For the rest of you who might be concerned over the statements I made today, that the Democrats are aborting children and that's why there's a fertility gap. Uh. And even though the piece that I just shared with you by the very liberal uh his name again, Philip Longman, the New American Foundation, let's

let's hit you with this, uh. Friday, May twelve, two thousand six again James Taranto Opinion Journal dot com. Judicial Watch has been researching the Clinton administration's policy and r U forty six the abortion drug and the final exhibit begins on page sixty of the PDF document linked above, and they do have the link here. Uh makes for fascinating reading. It is written by Ron Weddington. Ron Weddington, who served as co counsel along with his better half

Sarah Weddington, in successfully arguing Row versus Wade. The cover letter dated January, but the year seems to be an error since the address ee, Betsy Wright, is identified as working for the Transition Team Clinton Transition Team. In it, Weddington tells Betsy Wright of the four page missive to the President to be that follows that I am going

to try to get it published. Uh. Would you like to hear some excerpts from this letter that Ron Weddington, co council on Roll versus Wade wrote to then President elect Bill Clinton. You want to hear it? These are excerpts. I don't think you're gonna go very far in reforming the country until we have a better educated and healthier and wealthier population. You can start immediately to eliminate the

barely educated, the unhealthy, and poor segment of our country. No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs, and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced, but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies. There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan Bush religious orgy. We

don't have a lot of time left. The biblical exhortation to be fruitful and multiply was directed towards a small try surrounded by enemies. We are long past that our survival depends upon our developing a population where everyone contributes. We don't need more cannon fodder. We don't need more parishioners. We don't need more cheap later. We don't need more poor babies. This appeared at the Opinion Journal dot com on March or May the twelfth, I'm sorry of this year.

It was written to then President elect Clinton uh sometime in to Betsy Wright from the co Council of the ro VERSUS Wait now what's he advocating here. He's advocating abortion and having a litmus test on who shouldn't who shouldn't have kids. And I'm not talking. I'm not indicting Clinton here. Don't misunderstand. I'm just saying this is somebody thought he was on Clinton's side. This is a co counsel in ro versus way, this is a Democrat. So it's best to get this stuff out in the open.

If you think I'm out on a limb suggesting that there's a fertility gap at a lack of replacement level liberals out there because of a lack of liberal births and the abortion is not a factor in it, You've got to have your head examined. It is the foremost important social issue on the Democrat agenda and has been for as long as I've been following this stuff. So I appreciate the concern you people have for me out there, but I'm gonna get into all this stuff unless there's back up for it.