America's Talibangelicals--Preborn Pain? Si! PostBorn Pain? No!

Jesus, it is said, wept even for the post-born, but America's Talibangelicals do not.

America's Talibangelicals weep for the "pre-born" (sic) and want us to weep for them, too, here. They're considering a bill that concerns the pain of the "preborn" (sic).

Yes, and while America's many millions of post-born unwanted children remain un-adopted, and un-fostered, neglected, physically and/or sexually abused, America's Talibangelicals focus on promoting government-forced maternity, increasing the numbers of unwanted children, and adopting the dear little teeny weeny lonely fwozen embryoes with their big round sad eyes, embryoes who call out to us from their lonely petri dishes, here.

Yes, and one finds it so interesting that those like James Dobson who support the pain of the preborn bill, while not supporting any pain of the postborn bill, are those who support the whipping of infants. Which would likely, you know, involve pain. For the postborn. So I guess that's why they won't be pushing to do research on that.

Yes, and one finds it so interesting that those like Dobson who support the pain of the preborn bill believe in belt-beating their children, as they themselves were belt-beaten before them, which, you know, involves pain. For the postborn. So I guess that's why they won't be pushing to do research on that.

Yes, and one finds it so interesting that those like Dobson who support the pain of the preborn bill believe in belt-beating their own puppies, which, you know, presumably involves pain. For those post-born doggies. So I guess that's why they won't be pushing to do research on that.

One wonders, sometimes -- did ALL the mothers of all these preborn-obsessed Talibangelicals, at one time or another, angrily reveal that they wished their kids had never been born? Or what?

Anyhow, this is a picture of one Miss Brown. She was postborn and unprotected. She was beaten to death by her family.

Not that the Talibangelicals think there's anything wrong with that.

Not enough to write a law about, anyhow. When the U.S. House reconvenes in December, lawmakers will take up a key initiative on the pain felt by preborn babies during an abortion. The bill was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., in 2004. Because THIS is what's really important, people!

Preborn, si! Postborn, no!

preborn pain bill
Talibangelicals
child abuse
government-forced maternity
James Dobson

Wook!! It's Officiaw Snowfwake Adoption Week at No Bwood for Hubwis!!

Wook!

This, to the weft, is a snowfwake!

Next, bewow, is Our Fearwess Weader cuddlwing a saved snowfwake!!

We just wove to see our Fearwess Weader snuggwing up to widdle widdle white babies born fwom embwyoes saved fwom a tewwible death!


We wove to see him decidering to do this, because thus, our Fearwess Weader is saving innocent wife!

Now, guilwty wives is a another thing entirewy.

Guiwlty wife pwetty much means evewwyone who is post-born. So, you know, scwew them. Once they're born. You know, wike in social Darwinism -- survival of the most obnoxious, evewwy man for himself. Hahaha. Oh woops except we don't beweive in Darwin and evowution and sewial time and stuff, do we? Oopsie.

Anyway, in these difficult Pwe-Wapture Times, we're so happy here that Our Fearwess Weader is standing up for those poor widdle embwyos, embwyos we've worried about before, here, and asking evvewybody to:

adopt the cute lil' fuzzy lil' "snowflakes," the widdle sweet teensy weensy fwozen embryoes that are weeping weeping in their sad sad sad lonely abandoned-orphanage petri dishes.

We've decidered ourselves to refer all our fearwess bwog weaders to the Snowfwake Adoption Service, here, so you can have your vewwy own snowfwakes.

The Snowfwake Adoption People have received over a million dollars of your tax money!

Wow! How wucky is that?

Here's what siwwy ol' bio-ethicist Arthur Kaplan has to say about snowfwake adoption!

Wooking at these shots, one does wonder -- is evewwy snowfwake diffewent?

Hmm.

Oh, and here's a picture of an actuaw siwwy widdle post-born baby -- we don't wike nannystates so we don't want to spend money on twying to pwevent things wike a siwwy post-born baby's vewwy own pawwents bweaking it!



But hey why twy? It's wike Iwaq. Tewwible things just you know, just happen.

Oh weww.



embryo+adoption
Bush and Snowflakes
Bush veto
government-forced maternity
abortion
anti-abortion
women's rights
reproductive rights

Unwanted Babies, Si! Unwanted Aliens, No!

What's wrong with supporting child wantedness?

We've asked before, and we're asking again: is a wanted child likely to wind up with injuries like these?

Do we really want to fill America with millions of unwanted children, who grow up unloved and uncared-for, providing our society with criminals and drug addicts? Don't we have enough already?

When will our fetal sentimentalists (who weep over the failure of women to bear millions of unwanted children) be contacting America's illegal deportationists, those who feel somehow personally deprived by the presence of America's millions of unwanted illegal aliens? (My guess is that the millions of unwanted embryoes get a pass because they're "innocent", while the adult aliens are ipso facto "guilty". Still, it's an interesting notion, that millions in one overpopulating category are OK, while the other millions are not. Plus, what about original sin for all?).

I surfed a a forced-maternity website today, of the shrieky creepy misogynist-authoritarian kind, where the decision to bear a child is as trivial as picking up another carton of milk. Even, so I was quite surprised to see this:

Where have all the Down’s children gone?

Well, we know where, but we don’t want to talk about it. Very well-written, and chilling op-ed in the Washington Post by a Down’s Syndrome child’s mother. And, if you follow the blog links, predictably inhuman responses from the other side. Why is it that people appoint themselves judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to other innocent people’s lives when the other people are unable to speak for themselves?

We as a society are no different from ancient Rome. Not a bit.

How nice. Apparently there just aren't enough Downs' syndrome kids anymore, not enough to satisfy these odd people--they think it's so sad there aren't more of them like in the olden days, so sad, and so they sadly wonder, "Where have all the Downs syndrome babies gone? Please, sir--we want more! More!"

Yes, Virginia, they want more. More unwanted children. More suffering. More beaten babies to grow up to be Moussaouis.

(Previously: In Nightmares Begin Responsibilities; Embryo-centrist, anti-babyist misogynists can just shut up NOW); Creating unwanted children: the real cost.

To Those Wanting More Unwantedness

The notorious South Dakota bill to protect the all-important right of rapists to breed, and to ensure future generations for family pedophiles is raising eyebrows and blood pressure. Mine, too. It's also raising questions.

Is pregnancy resulting in giving birth to unwanted children a suitable punishment for sex?

Does an unwanted child live a life of gaiety and happiness?

Do wanted children wind up as shown here, as sweet little babies with two black eyes?

When the government forces maternity on a woman who has already decided she is unable properly to care for the child, what happens to the kid? And why don't rightwing blowhards care?

Because they're greedy selfish bastards, really. Which is why when I ran into one rightwinger's blog here that tried to spin this thing the other way, it was pretty darn funny. Well, sorta.

He insists that planning a family is "selfish."

Now, I'd bet that this person is probably a conservative Roman Catholic, and if that's how he wants to live, that's fine with me.

My problem is his attempt to dictate to me and others how we must live--which is according to his religious rules.

I'm Buddhist. I'm not after his mousetraps. I'm not ridding his house of Raid. I don't use mousetraps, and I don't use Raid. But I'm not in this guy's face about it, and he definitely is in mine.

Trying to make laws to force women into having kids that won't be well-cared for is irresponsible, and cruel. Making laws that support childbearing in loving conditions is hardly selfish, but responsible. Suggesting, like Preznit Toad-Exploder, that that feti should have health care that expires upon birth is reprehensible.

The radical right wants to suppress the data that unwantedness leads to criminal behavior, but it's out there all the same: "estimates suggest that legalized abortion can account for about half the observed decline in crime in the United States between 1991 and 1997." {The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001).

Where do child abuse and child neglect come from? Outer space?

From "The History of Child Abuse," here:

The Child as Poison Container

The main psychological mechanism that operates in all child abuse involves using children as what I have termed poison containers--receptacles into which adults project disowned parts of their psyches, so they can control these feelings in another body without danger to themselves.

In good parenting, the child uses the caretaker as a poison container . . . A good mother reacts with calming actions to the cries of a baby and helps it "detoxify" its dangerous emotions.

But when an immature mother's baby cries, she cannot stand the screaming, and strikes out at the child. As one battering mother put it, "I have never felt loved all my life. When the baby was born, I thought he would love me. When he cried, it meant he didn't love me. So I hit him."

Rather than the child being able to use the parent to detoxify its fears and anger, the parent instead injects his or her bad feelings into the child and uses it to cleanse his or herself of depression and anger.

One must wonder--just how many of those hysterically active in the forced maternity movement were themselves unwanted?

How many of those screaming for women to remain barefoot and pregnant have the slightest interest in improving economic and social conditions, so that children can be well-cared-for? How many are devoted to improving parenting and education? To improving the social climate?

As historian Lloyd deMause asks:

If war, social violence, class domination and economic destruction of wealth are really revenge rituals for childhood trauma, how else can we remove the source of these rituals? How else end child abuse and neglect? How else increase the real wealth of nations, our next generation?

How, indeed?

[update: this law has now been signed, story here, by the Governor, who is Catholic. South Dakota, The Coathanger State]


planned parenthood
child abuse
unwantedness
South Dakota abortion ban

We Can't Care for the Children We Already Have (Andrea Yates Edition)

The American Taliban forced-maternity crowd just doesn't seem to get the difference between picking up an extra carton of milk at the store and having an extra baby. Or two. Or five.

Extra cartons of milk clog up the refrigerator and maybe go off; actual unwanted babies actually suffer.

One of the sadder recent stories of motherhood gone awry is that of Andrea Yates, over-burdened by yearly pregnancies, and one-after-another births, until she became deeply depressed. She tried to kill herself several times, and endured several psychiatric hospitalizations. Eventually, she became floridly psychotic and subject to command hallucinations: she drowned own her children, one by one.

Today, Ms. Yates, now divorced by Rusty, her husband, was released from jail and moved to a mental institution.

It's easier to demonize Andrea rather than connect her actions to her domestic situation, with her abusive misogynist husband and her misogynist preacher egging her on to have more and more and more children, helping her to become more and more isolated, and filling her mind with deeper and deeper notions of her own worthlessness.

On a brighter note, an interesting take on the Andrea Yates story here, at the Evangelical and Ecumenical Women's Caucus, "A Biblical Feminist Looks at the Andrea Yates Tragedy," an analysis with which we wholeheartedly agree.

Before marrying Russell Yates, Andrea Kennedy was a successful young woman working as a post-operative nurse. She enjoyed regular swimming and jogging and was apparently from a Catholic family. Their courtship included praying and reading the Bible together--so far so good.

But somewhere in that Bible study, or in the conservative Christian culture that surrounded them, they got the idea that when they married, they would not use birth control. They would lovingly accept as many children as God sent them. This ideal is still being taught by the Roman Catholic Church and by many small independent fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches. The use of contraceptives is considered a sin. There are no allowances for difficult circumstances such as postpartum depression, bipolar disorder, poverty, or rape. By giving family planning the powerful label of sin, these churches entrap women like Andrea Yates, who had five children and one miscarriage during her eight years of marriage.

We in EEWC need to reach as many women as possible with the good news that controlling their fertility is within God's will. Otherwise, more children will face abuse and even death at the hands of overwhelmed parents or caregivers. At a conference in 1986, EWC approved a resolution that stated, "Because we believe that every human being is made in God's image, we deplore violence against women and children and the misuse of power within the family." We need to find more ways to carry out our mission to curb domestic violence.

The world needs more voices like theirs, to empower women like Andrea Yates -- and to protect children.

America's Unwanted Children: Overturn Roe v. Wade, and Let's Have Some More!

On the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it's time to ask hard questions of our fetal sentimentalists, the extra-high-decibel shriekers who cloak punitive authoritarianism under "life-ist" (sic) spin:

are children who actually are wanted, loved, expected, planned for, and prepared for, treated like this?

Uh--no.

Starved Children Imprisoned By Bio Mom for Five Years

RENO, Nev. 1/22/06 -- Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong says he's amazed by the survival of two emaciated children who say they were locked in an apartment bathroom and starved for the past five years.

When the siblings were found Thursday, the 16-year-old girl weighed about 40 pounds, and her 11-year-old brother weighed about 30 pounds. The pair were in stable condition Sunday at a hospital, while their grandmother, mother and the mother's boyfriend were in jail.

"The little girl appeared to be a Holocaust victim," Furlong told The Associated Press. "There's no meat or muscle whatsoever. We're talking absolute starvation. It was the same thing for the little boy."

Deputies were led to the home after someone reported seeing an 8-year-old girl pushing a shopping cart full of food within a block of the sheriff's office. It turned out to be the 16-year-old girl, who told deputies she was running away because she had been locked in a bathroom . . ."Right now, there doesn't seem to be anything that conflicts with anything the girl has said," Furlong said, adding the bathroom door appeared damaged as if someone had broken out. . .

Their grandmother, Esther Rios, 56; mother, Regina Rios, 33; and the mother's boyfriend, Tomas Granados, 33, were jailed on suspicion of child abuse or neglect and false imprisonment in lieu of $100,000 bail. . . Furlong said it's one of the worst cases he's seen in nearly 30 years of law enforcement.

"I don't know how the girl or her brother survived," he said.

Maybe it would be nice if America -- and particularly America's forced-maternity hysteric fringe -- made it a priority to take care of all its current post-born children, for a change.



child abuse
blogging for choice
unwantedness

Child Abuse & Unwantedness: Take 5

Are there happy outcomes for unwanted children? Maybe sometimes.

Are there outcomes like this, below, for children whose mothers love them and are well able to care for them?

Emphatically, no.

FLORIDA MOM CHARGED WITH 3 YEAR OLD SON'S FATAL SCALDING

January 2, 2006

DEERFIELD BEACH, Fla. --A 3-year-old boy died after his mother held him in a tub of scalding water as punishment on Christmas Day and his grandmother, who had custody, failed to get him medical care for a week, authorities said Monday. The mother had lost custody of the boy for previous abuse.

Broward County sheriff's deputies found Jaquez Mason with burns over 50 percent of his body after getting a 911 call Sunday morning. He was pronounced dead a half hour later. It was unclear why he was punished, spokesman Jim Leljedal said.

His mother, Valerie Kennedy, 30, was charged with child abuse murder and jailed without bond. His grandmother, Annie Williams, 51, accused of failing to take the boy for medical treatment, was charged with manslaughter and was being held on $10,000 bond.

Raise your hand if you believe in cause and effect.



.

ROE V. WADE: SAY GOODBYE, GRACIE (PT. 2)

Told you so.


Them freedom-lovin' black-heart neo-cons seeking to overturn Islamist medievalism seek to subject all women of America to their mysogynist hellfire & brimstone medievalism, so that their government, not you, will regulate the size of your families.

They, not you, will decide if you're ready to bear a child. Here's the kicker: the size of your family will depend upon your fertility. Not planned parenthood, just random parenthood.

You ready for that?


ALITO REJECTED ABORTION AS A RIGHT

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2005


Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
"I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.
"I am and always have been a conservative," he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. "I am a lifelong registered Republican."
But his statements against abortion and affirmative action might cause him headaches from Democrats and liberals as he prepares for confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for January.

It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," he wrote.
"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

All together now: smoking gun! Smoking gun! Smoking gun!


(Hat tip to Inflatable Dartboard and and BarbinMD at Kos, who, correct me if I'm wrong, as of this posting, has not seen fit to elevate this story beyond his sidebar. // Oh, now it's on the left side, with a bunch of other recommended diaries. Too chickflick still, I guess)


Let's all get on that great big bus toward government-forced maternity, ladies! Gents who think freedom of reproduction is just some pussy chickflick issue, step aside! Gents who get it, come on down!




-------------------------------------------
We can't care for the children we already have dept.

Here's a story from Houston, Texas.

Convicted child abuser Ivan Castaneda gets life in prison
By PEGGY O'HARE
Houston Chronicle

A jury decided this afternoon that Ivan Emmanuel Castaneda should be sentenced to life in prison for inflicting severe injuries on his infant daughter.

In contrast to his stoic appearance the previous day, when the jury convicted him of injury to a child, the 23-year-old Castaneda quietly wept at times today during testimony in the trial's punishment phase. . . Testifying today, Castaneda said he did not cause his daughter's massive injuries and denied ever abusing her. . .

On Thursday, Houston police Sgt. Randall Upton, who investigated the case, said the jury did the right thing in convicting Castaneda.

``They saw through the lies and deceit,'' he said, adding that Castaneda is, ``hands down, probably one of the most cold-hearted, emotionless people I've ever seen in my life.''

The child's mother, Donna Marie Norman, 20, remains in the Harris County Jail, awaiting trial on a charge of injury to a child by omission. Prosecutors say she was charged for failing to protect her daughter. Norman testified this week that she saw Castaneda squeeze the baby's abdomen and stick his finger down her throat on repeated occasions. The baby, then 6 months old, was clinging to life when she was brought to a hospital Feb. 2.

Police said the baby was injured ``head to toe,'' with fractures to her skull and other bones, as well as brain contusions and hemorrhaging, and injuries to her liver, lungs and kidneys. . .

Prosecutor Kari Allen told jurors Thursday that Castaneda's statement to the police was enough for him to be convicted, even without Norman's testimony.

She said Castaneda initially tried to blame the baby's injuries on an uncle who has Down syndrome, whom he falsely described as ``mentally ill.''

Castaneda then suggested that staff members at the first hospital to treat his daughter, Doctors Hospital Parkway, might be to blame, Allen said.

``This is someone who is desperate to point the blame somewhere else, because he's guilty,'' she told jurors. Though prosecutors couldn't explain how the injuries were inflicted, they said it was clear the child's parents didn't protect her.

``She had a daddy who, when she cried, stuck his finger down her throat,'' Allen said. ``He wanted to make her stop crying, so he did something to her tongue. (She) had a mother who wouldn't stand up to that man, wouldn't protect her,'' she said.

``She survived, despite all the odds. Despite everything her parents did to her, she survived. We need to give that child justice.'' . . . No plea deal for Norman has been discussed, prosecutors said, and they told jurors she should spend time in prison for failing to protect her daughter.

IT'S HERE: Government-Forced Maternity!! (Thanks to Pubic-Hair-on-Coke-Can Commentator Justice Thomas)

Supreme Court halts prison abortion order

Missouri officials had been ordered to transport inmate for procedure

"KANSAS CITY, Mo. - The U.S. Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a federal judge's ruling that ordered Missouri prison officials to drive a pregnant inmate to a clinic on for an abortion.

Justice Clarence Thomas, acting alone, granted the temporary stay pending a further decision by himself or the full court.

Missouri state law forbids spending tax dollars to facilitate an abortion. However, U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple ruled Thursday that the prison system was blocking the woman from exercising her right to an abortion and ordered that the woman be taken to the clinic Saturday."

Here we go again. The womb of an individual post-born person becomes a government-owned and operated "oven," as noted pubic-hair-on-coke-can commentator and dyed in the wool Roe v. Wade Overturner Clarence Thomas exercises his own very special form of judicial activism on an incarcerated woman.

(Oh, goodie, Clarence. Let's start with the down-trodden, they're down-trodden, after all. Let's make sure the poor have no control over their bodies, that they're the very first ones forced to give birth against their will).

In any case, since the prisoner in question is sufficiently pregnant that if the forced maternity lobby can just stall a little longer, the woman will be unable to terminate her pregnancy due to state laws, time is on their side.

Will Justice "Long Dong Silver" Thomas and his ilk be adopting and raising this unwanted child? Will he and they be the one who dies in childbirth?

Certainly not. These anti-choice hysterics are people purely interested in promoting birth and their own "religious" agendas, not promoting health, much less the happiness of families.

It's vile.

UPDATE: October `8, 2005

"GOVERNOR REBUFFED ON ABORTION

Supreme Court lets stand the order forcing Missouri to take inmate to abortion clinic

WASHINGTON--Missouri officials must let a pregnant inmate have an abortion, the Supreme Court said yesterday, rejecting an appeal by anti-abortion Gov. Matt Blunt.. . . Blunt criticized the court, saying its decision is "highly offensive to traditional Missouri values . . ."


So watch out now, ladies and gentlemen. "Traditional Missouri values" (sic) are coming your way--which means having sectarian religious views forced on you by government, instead of exercising freedom to reproduce by consent of the individual.

In Nightmares Begin Responsibilities

Time to kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome in the official Judge John Roberts era of forced maternity.

That's where we are now, brought there thanks to Bubble Boy, foreshadowed by repeated heh-heh-heh "Dred Scott decision" heh-heh-heh nudge-nudge wink-wink innuendo moments during his 2004 campaign.

Bubble Boy sure can smirk, but I'm not smirking about his plan to repeal women's reproductive freedom. That's a tragedy.

Not Judge Roberts' simplistic "tragedy of abortion"-type tragedy--alright, he's Roman Catholic, he can get away with it--at least they're consistent within their tradition, well, pretty much, except for that big fat "just war" loophole--but the actual American tragedy is that of post-born women, and their actual post-born kids and their actual post-born families.

Let's welcome, then, the coming upsurge of unwanted babies, thanks a lot.

Let's have more and more babies we can't care for, we can't afford, we can't deal with. Let's have a little more child abuse, because, really, stressed out moms and dads who can't make ends meet, well, they're not going to be the poster boys and girls for patient parenting, are they? Let's up the general quota of maternal/child suffering.

And crime. Let's not forget crime. "Unwantedness leads to high crime," according to economist Stephen Levitt and Steven Dubner. "When a woman does not want to have a child, she usually has good reason. She may be unmarried or in a bad marriage. She may consider herslef too poor to raise a child. She may think her life is too unstable or too unhappy, or she may think that her drinking and drug use will damage the baby's health. . . for any of a hundred reasons, she may feel that she cannot provide a home environment that is conducive to raising a healthy and productive child. . . . Two factors--childhood poverty and a single-parent household--are among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future."

But that's ok with the people ordering mothers to bear children against their will.

It's all about being a selfish, black-heart neo-con with no capacity for empathy, much less compassion: as in Bubble Boy, and his anti-choice lynch mobs.

It's about punishing women for being women, punishing the poor for being poor, and punishing the pregnant for the act of conception itself.

The crackpots across the street from Camp Casey said it best: WE DON'T CARE. WE DON'T CARE. WE DON'T CARE.

They don't.

No surprises there.

We'll shriek hysterically about the horror of murdering embryoes, but are fine with sending the grown-up ones to die in Iraq. We'll weep sadly about fetuses, but put our own accumulation of wealth first, putting ourselves always at the head of every line. We'll yap endlessly about culture-of-life, culture-of-life, but we really couldn't give a shit about anyone but ourselves. We'll squawk about culture-of-life, culture-of-life, but we'll cause pain whenever we please, to whomever we please; we'll do anything to anyone whenever we want to--so long as it's not residing in a womb or in a petri dish.

The so-called "culture of life" is really a culture of death; a culture of ego, a culture of me-first, a culture of "gimme," a culture of torture in which your pain is perfectly permissible.

It's not really very Christian at all.

In Nightmares Begin Responsibilities: We Can't Care for the Children We Already Have

Eleven Children Found Caged in Ohio Home

"Sheriff's deputies found 11 children locked in cages with alarms in a north Ohio home, and prosecutors are looking into possible charges of abuse and neglect.

The children, ages 1 to 14, were in nine cages in the walls of a house outside this city of about 1,000 about 50 miles west of Cleveland, according to the Huron County Sheriff's Office. They had no blankets or pillows, and the cages were rigged with alarms that sounded if the cages were opened, Lt. Randy Sommers said.

The children told authorities they slept in the 40-inches-high by 40 inches-deep cages at night. Doors to some of the cages were blocked with heavy furniture.

Sharen and Mike Gravelle are adoptive or foster parents for all 11 children, officials said. Prosecutors are reviewing the case, but no charges had been filed as of Monday night.

A children's services investigator saw one of the children in a cage Friday, Sommers said. The sheriff's office obtained a warrant and returned to the house around 5 that evening and removed the children."

Stories like this one are why I strongly object to putting embryo rights ahead of the rights of the post-born, you know, ahead of the rights of actual infants and children.

Oh, and here's another:

For torturing kids, couple get 15 years

The Dollars say their strong religious beliefs led them to pull out toenails of five of their foster children, starve them and give them electric shocks.

By ABBIE VANSICKLE
Published September 15, 2005

---

INVERNESS - A Citrus County couple accused of torturing and starving five children agreed Wednesday to 15-year prison sentences, then said the crimes occurred because they took their religious beliefs too far.

"We are sorry that the children are hurt," John Dollar said. "We are firm believers in the God almighty ... because of those principles we were led to do certain things."

Those "things," prosecutors say, included pulling out the children's toenails with pliers, starving them and shocking them with a cattle prod.

John and Linda Dollar faced 150 years in prison if convicted at trial. . .

The story of the Dollars - an educated (sic), financially stable, devout (sic) couple - shocked the local community and the nation in January when the accusations surfaced.

Their 16-year-old boy weighed 59 pounds. Twin boys, age 14, weighed 36 and 38 pounds. The children were compared to prisoners of war because of the abuse they suffered and the traumatic effects that still haunt them.

Wednesday's hearing was likely the final chapter in the criminal case, which first caught the public's eye after the Dollars' 16-year-old son was taken to a hospital emergency room with a head wound and red marks on his neck.

He was severely underweight, which sparked an investigation by the Citrus County Sheriff's Office and the Department of Children and Families. Shortly after, the Dollar children were removed from their adoptive parents and placed in foster care. The couple fled to Utah, where they were apprehended.

Disturbing details of the Dollars' life soon surfaced.

The family had operated a private Christian (sic) school in Tennessee, but many of the students rarely saw the Dollar children.When the family moved to the Tampa Bay area, they changed homes frequently. Between 1990 and 2004, the Dollars bought and sold a half-dozen homes in Hillsborough County, from Plant City to Riverview to Valrico.

A closet door at one of their Hillsborough homes had a lock installed on its outside, as if it were meant to keep someone inside, not out.

A bag of what appeared to be toenails was found in the family's motorhome . . . "

The fact is, we in America, supposedly the richest country in the world, do not properly care for the children (and families) we already have.

Why would one want to make a bad situation even worse, having the government force women to bear children they know they are unable to care for?