Mary Cheney's Pregnancy Affects Us All

Townhall ^ | December 7, 2006 | Janice Shaw Crouse PhD, Concerned Women for America

[rakovskii]

Mary Cheney’s pregnancy poses problems not just for her child, but also for all Americans. Her action repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation. With 37 percent of American children born to fatherless families, Mary Cheney is contributing to a trend that is detrimental to all Americans who will live with the ramifications of millions of children whose anger and frustration at not knowing their father will be felt in the public schools and communities of our nation.

Mary Cheney is among that burgeoning group of adult women over age 20 that are driving the trend of women who don’t want a man in the picture, but want to have a baby. These older women are pushing out-of-wedlock birth statistics higher and higher. At a time when teen births and teen abortions are declining dramatically, older women are having more un-wed births and more abortions, including repeat abortions (indicating that they are using abortion as birth control).

Well-educated, professional Mary Cheney is flying in the face of the accumulated wisdom of the top experts who agree that the very best family structure for a child’s well-being is a married mom and dad family. Her child will have all the material advantages it will need, but it will still encounter the emotional devastation common to children without fathers.

One Georgia high school principal reported, “We have too many young men and women from single-mother families that don’t have the role models at home to teach them how to deal with adversity and handle responsibility. They’ve seen their mom work 60 hours a week just to put food on the table; they end up fending for themselves.”

When fatherless children get to be teens, the girls tend to start looking for love in all the wrong places and the boys tend to find as their role model the bad-boy celebrities of MTV, NFL and NBA.

As they grow older, fatherless children tend to have trouble dealing with male authority figures. Too often children in single-mother households end up angry at their absent fathers and resentful of the mother who has had to be a father figure, too. Typically, the boys who have a love-hate relationship with their mother end up hating all women. Numerous of them look for vulnerable women where they can act out their anger and be in control.

Mary Cheney’s action sets an example that is detrimental for mothers with less financial resources who will start down an irrevocable path into poverty that tends to be generational –– children in households without a father tend to themselves have unwed births later in life. Experts from both the left and the right cite a disastrous litany of negative outcomes that are predictable when a child grows up in a fatherless family. Such children tend to get involved in drugs, alcohol abuse, and delinquency; they tend to drop out of school and have teen pregnancies. An assistant principal in a Junior High School said that many of the behavioral problems that teachers face in the classroom stem from households without a father’s influence.

Mary’s pregnancy is an “in-your-face” action countering the Bush Administration’s pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-life policies. She continues to repudiate the work to which her father has devoted his life. Mary has repeatedly said that “studies” show that children only need a loving home. Her statement is incomplete because the experts agree that for the well-being of children, they desperately need a married father and a mother.

All those people who talk about doing what is best “for our children” need to get back to the basics: children need a married mom and dad. Children can do without a lot of the trimmings of childhood, but nothing can replace a home where the mother and dad love each other enough to commit for a lifetime and are absolutely crazy about their kids –– enough to be willing to sacrifice their own needs to see that their children get the very best.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a culturally conservative think tank for Concerned Women for America, is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns.

[TAdams8591]

Hard to mind your business when the media makes an issue of it. They are unfortunately using the fame and prominence of the Cheney's and Mary Cheney's situation to further acceptance and tolerance toward homosexuality, and their raising of children and to divide conservatives.

[Hildy]

Actually, following God's law would rule out lots of folks from having children . . . this usually for the benefit of the child.

Oh my, and who would you suggest "play God" and/or interpret his word? You don't have to answer me, I' know what you're going to say. This is why FR is considered a rightwing nutjob site.

[Albion Wilde]

And, what are these standards that you speak of? If the gay people are capable of doing a better job than the straight that's the only standard that matters.

The standards often used for evaluation children's adjustment were cited in post 514, and they include, but are not limited to, school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.

It is astonishing to believe that gays "are capable of doing a better job than the straight[s]". What in the world are you thinking? At present, it is primarily lesbians having the children, and they are trying harder due to the pressure of social disapproval on them to justify themselves. If our society "normalizes" gay parenting, the GBLT community would soon press for more latitude. Since the 60s, GLBTs in Europe have been pressuring for a lowering of the age of consent for sexual activity to 12; other GBLT groups there and here have been pressuring for complete removal of any age restriction or relational restriction whatsoever on having sex -- meaning a person could adopt an infant and gain a sex partner. There are also numerous "polyamatory" lawsuits demanding that multiple numbers and gender combinations of people should be able to marry. Lawsuits of this type are the reason informed people are not seeing gay marriage through a haze of sentimental wishful thinking.

[Kimberly GG]

I read two paragraphs and need read no more....what a load of horse &*(^.

[billbears]

At no time did I say or imply that the Framers passed laws on the national level controlling marriage or church attendance. Take your outrage elsewhere. The only reason such a law has been proposed today is because the Federal oligarchy is ever-ready to roll over any state-passed laws such as DOMA.

I see. Because I expect limited government as found under the Constitution and don't agree with the passage of an Amendment based solely on moral concerns (the last one of those was overturned a scant generation later), I have 'outrage'. Because I don't buy into the ridiculous notion that morality has to be legislated at the national level for some inane reason, I have 'outrage'. Gotcha.

And for the record? I was just pointing out your inerrant comment that I did not understand the history of this nation of states. Because I do perfectly. I also understand the moral warriors that have plagued this nation time and again who are willing to destroy the intent of a Federal Republic to pass their laws. I have no problem with the principles of conservative morality and fully support them. What I will not support is further destruction to what's left of the Framers' intent to forward that agenda.

[norge]

My comments in no way condoned Mary Cheney's life-style. They were more directed to the issue of the absence of a father.

I have no idea how my BSF daughter would respond to my post. She may well take as strong a stand as you. However, she would not be surprised that her father's opinion and her opinion may differ.

Back to Mary Cheney's chosen life-style. As I have said more than once on these threads, I am far more concerned about dealing with my sin, than to be pointing a finger at anyone else.

As to the child, I maintain it has as good a chance of doing well as any child today, especially given that his mother, aunt, grandfather and grandmother are all strong, self-sufficient individuals.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the additional comments. I'll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't believe I said you were wrong with regard to those facts. I just didn't want to delve into history on the topic at hand. There was enough to address in the here and now.

Have a great weekend.

[Daveinyork]

"People should mind their own business."

Just as Mary Cheney has a right to do what she is doing, and the responsibility to face whatever consequences might ensue, we have the right, and the responsibility, to judge her actions and act accordingly.

As Rush Limbaugh has so eloquently stated, I am through with carrying water for Republicans who do not act like Republicans.

[DoughtyOne]

I've seen it too. I know that men hurt women. I know that women hurt men. I think there are some raw nerves here, and I didn't want to get too deep on the subject.

While women do have it tough sometimes, so do men. Subsequent to divorce, men lose their children. I know women don't like to think of it that way, but it is true. Yes men can still see them every other weekend, and perhaps even inbetween, but when it comes to waking up in the morning and 'being there' it is over for the man when divorce happens.

There are exceptions to this of course, but this is in essence what takes place.

In addition to this, the man will generally get the pleasure of taking a major slice of his livelihood and donating it to the ex without any stipulation that it be used on the children. In general, the ex can spend that money on anything she desires.

Divorce finds the man having to start a new home. At that time he is also experiencing a tremendous loss of family. He is also experiencing one of the most severe financial situations he will experience in life.

The combined income is gone. He will now have to pay for a residence, transportation and utilities on one salary. The woman will continue to have two incomes. She will have her own and much of the discretionary income of her ex.

To make things worse, the father won't be able to have extensive live-in relationships with his kids even on weekends, unless he can provide adequate housing for them. This means that he can't cut expenses by living in a one bedroom home. He has to have a place for the kids to stay and the couch gets old real quick for kids.

While women do get the short end of the stick at times, the guy gets the institutionalized short end most of the time.

Everyone has their story to tell, but I'm not convinced at all that in general women have it worst.

Of course there are exceptions to every generalization.

[DoughtyOne]

I think that speaks very highly of your brother. I appreicate the mention. Having not observed adoption agency tactics first hand it's tough for me to address their tactics.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Guenevere. I appreciate the comments.

[Dante3]

You are right - this is what studies show. Wasn't there also a finding that a relatively high percentage of male killers were illegitimate but the same did not seem to hold for females?

[jwalsh07]

If you don't like gay couples having kids, that is your right, but, tough luck, you can't change it, its not your place, nor government's place to step in.

I would agree with that. I would also agree with those who say that government normalizing homosexuality in the public schools in opposition to the will of the people is bad government.

For that matter, I would also say that government taxing me to transfer money to those engaged in killing embryonic human life is government gone wild. You don't support that, do you?

[jwalsh07]

Because I expect limited government as found under the Constitution and don't agree with the passage of an Amendment based solely on moral concerns (the last one of those was overturned a scant generation later), I have 'outrage'

The totality of the Bill of Rights is based on "moral concerns". So while you're entitled to your opinion on the particular amendment proposed you are not entitled to ignore the obvious.

[tuffydoodle]

"I know someone who was so drunk he couldn't walk but he successfully drove himself home.

Yep, and I know someone that smoke and drank through all 9 months of her pregnancy and the baby was fine.

And I also know someone who runs stop signs and hasn't hit anyone yet.

And I also remember knowing someone that drove a semi and slept less than 2 hours a day but never had an accident.

Oh, that reminds me a neighbor that is an airline pilot has a couple before going to work and so far nothing has happened.

It would appear that we should definitely stay out of people's business and who needs laws. They just get into peoples lives when we should mind our own business. Especially when no one gets hurt. Too many laws, too many rules and too many intolerant busy bodies trying to run other people's lives with laws and regulation that are not needed and only hurt innocent people that just want to have fun and run their own lives.

“The principles of genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations, are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man, therefore, who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that Book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.” Noah Webster What ever happened to the rules and regulations laid out in the Bible? If we as a country don't use the Bible what are we using? Just to name a few laws in the Bible would be God hates divorce, murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, adultery is wrong, greed is wrong, not working for a living is wrong, violence and drunkenness and rioting are wrong, and homosexuality is wrong, prostitution is wrong, and so forth and so forth.

It sure would be wonderful if we got back to the basics and all were able to prosper and live our lives in a decent manner with rules and laws in place that protect us our children and society as a whole."

Didn't get any rebuttals on this one, I see. Excellent post and exactly right.

[jwalsh07]

I remember an America where people actually did mind their own business...

I need a cheat sheet to tell me when opinions can be offered on news stories and when they can't. I'm getting confused. While I would never support the government telling Mary Cheney that she can not have a baby, hell I love babies both the born and unborn variety, I certainly think it is apropos to have an opinion on whether or not Heather is better off with two Mommies or one Mommy and one Daddy.

Merry Christmas amigo.

[Dustbunny]

Mary Cheney's Pregnancy Affects Us All

What a totally stupid statement. It does not/will not affect any of the women I know.

[epow]

If her father wasn't Dick Cheney, vice-president to George W. Bush, it wouldn't even merit the back page.

If her father wasn't Dick Cheney there wouldn't be a bunch of two-faced posters saying it's nobody's business but her's. If this was Clinton's daughter instead of Cheney's I would wager that there wouldn't be more than perhaps one or two comments criticizing the article's author or the original poster. I like Cheney as much as anyone on FR, and I wish he could be our next president. But when his daughter makes a mockery of the institution of traditional marriage and motherhood her familial relationship with him doesn't immunize her from criticism from those of us who believe she is causing further damage to the already tattered remnants of what was once the morally responsible mainstream of traditionally Christian American culture.

Ms Cheney's personal life would not be the business of any of us if she wasn't the daughter of the man who could become president of the USA at any moment, but unfortunately she is. Although her lifestyle and sexual preferences and are in direct violation of God's laws, Ms Cheney has a civil right to live her personal life in any manner she chooses as long as her choices don't violate any law. But IMHO she should have had enough regard for her parents and her father's high visibility position in government to have waited until after he had left public office before exercizing that right.

I would be disappointed by her action even if I only looked at this matter from a practical POV as it pertains to the 08 political picture. Like it or not, her act makes all GOP candidates liable to accusations of hypocrisy and double standards when and if they try to make a case for a higher moral standard among GOP candidates than among Democrat candidates. And don't think that isn't important to GOP success, because no matter how much disgust or even hatred that you and many FR posters may feel toward those of us who comprise the despised "right wing religious" faction of the GOP, you can't win a national election without a significant portion of it's estimated 15-20 million votes. Ms Cheney's illegitimate pregnancy and immoral lifestyle will not influence my vote in any way, shape, or form in 08. But since many, including myself, in the religious right camp are already becoming very doubtful about the depth, or even the very existence, of actual GOP support for our POV and agenda, it is possible, although not probable, that the mere appearance of hypocrisy created by this immoral act by someone within the immediate family of a high level Republican official could adversely affect the religious right turnout rate enough to make the difference in a close race.

That might not be the wisest course of action, but then no one ever accused us slope-browed, knuckle-dragging, closed-minded, bible-thumping, right wing Christians of possessing any shred of political acumen.

[scripter]

It is indeed an eye-opening experience to read some of the pro-gay responses on this forum. It appears intelligent folks are ignoring the facts in favor of anecdotal evidence and what their gay friends say and do.

Here are the facts which many here apparently ignore due to their personal bias:

• Homosexual was listed as a mental disorder in The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual until 1973.
• Gay activism, not science, was the force behind removing homosexuality as a mental disorder.
• There is no valid argument to the above fact. Even homosexual activist and scientist Simon LeVay admits this is his book Queer Science. I own this book and verified the quote.
• There is no gay gene.
• There isn't a single credible scientist that denies the above fact.
• The environment in which children are raised is key.
• There is no genetic test or procedure, experimental or otherwise, that can determine one's sexual preference.
  • When somebody claims to be gay, the only evidence they have to support their claim is their word, their testimony, their declaration.
  • The same evidence exists for ex-gays, yet those who believe the testimony of gays apparently refuse to believe the testimony of ex-gays.
• The ex-gay population continues to grow.

To understand the bigger picture the above facts must be taken into consideration. And when the above facts are taken into consideration, it is quite obvious the pro-gay arguments having no foundation on which to stand. See my profile for supporting links and documents.