The failure of Family Policy
There were some who thought I was cruel in my post comparing French President Sarkozy to people in the Republican Party. Chronicles has a wonderful article dealing with divorce and the Republicans. It deals more generally with the failure of family policy. A brief excerpt.
While the left was revolutionizing the legal structure of marriage, the conservative response was to lament and bemoan. “Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce,” writes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture, “nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership.” When Vice President Dan Quayle famously denounced unwed motherhood, he was careful to add, “I am not talking about a situation where there is a divorce.” Maggie Gallagher’s complaint has become a prophecy for today’s politics: “Opposing gay marriage . . . is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue. . . . The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.”
The divorce revolution weakened marriage and fatherhood among members of the middle class in striking parallel to what welfare inflicted on the poor. In addition, the surge in divorce has expanded the welfare state itself to include the middle class, turning programs conceived to address the problems of low-income, single-parent homes into financial incentives for middle-class divorce.
- Stephen Baskerville, Chronicles
Comments are closed.
I am a radical catholic, but divorce makes me ill. I could give long reason but suffice it to say I get ill when two people against the soft background music of Ave Maria swear their undying love and 2 years later say “Just joking.”
Sad but true.
Republicans also promoted legalized abortion to favor those same two constituencies in the 60′s. But by playing anti-abortion Christians like fiddles, they can likewise leave the issue untouched, knowing that Democratic action plus their own ennui will keep their pro-choice constituents pleased.
To get further off topic, this is really no different from bishops like Francis George or Sean O’Malley who float through see after see before getting the big assignment. You take advantage of a trophy wife to get your foot in the door, then dump her when bigger fish present themselves to fry.
There is little appetite on either side of the aisle to reform divorce laws. In a democracy where 50% of marriages fail as a result of divorce I would be astounded if this were not the case. I find the current divorce laws abhorrent, but there is simply no broadbased political movement battling for change, and I see no such movement arising in the foreseeable future. Abortion is a completely different matter. In Congress as well as in state legislatures, Republicans propose, and not infrequently pass, legislation restricting abortion. In state after state the ardent supporters of abortion, with certain honorable exceptions, are Democrats. The spearhead of Clinton’s comeback in New Hampshire was her attempt to out-dead-fetus Obama with her letters fallaciously claiming that Obama is not equally dedictated to maintaining open season on children in the womb.
Until the thalidomide babies of the early sixties abortion was a non-issue in this country. With the rise of the feminist movement abortion became more of an issue. Here is a link to a short article on abortion law pre-Roe.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/LIFBFROE.TXT
Reagan signed the 1967 California Abortion Law and regarded it as his biggest mistake.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200406%5CCUL20040608a.html
Initially after Roe was handed down most policians in the two parties opposed it.
Here is Ted Kennedy in 1971:
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
“On the question of the individual’s freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire.
“When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.” ”
Swiftly after 73 the Democrats became the totally pro-abort party that they are today. In 1976 the Democrats had a plank in their platform supporting Roe. With the demise of the Rockefeller wing of the party with the victory of Reagan in 80, pro-abort Republicans lost all influence in the party.
Compare the 1976 and 1980 Republican party planks on abortion:
“1976
The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court’s decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.
We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. ”
1980
“There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general–and in our own Party–we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers’ dollars for abortion.
We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parent’s obligation and right to guide their minor children.”
Right Todd, I always got the impression Cardinal O’Malley was climbing the corporate ladder. I’m being sarcastic of course. I’d say you are not only off topic but off reality.
I tend to think that it would be better if Bishops were appointed to a diocese for life, absent some extraordinary circumstance (say, becoming Pope). That’s not the system we have though, and I feel constrained to admit that the Church hasn’t really sought my opinion on the matter. Under the current scheme of things even if a Bishop wanted to stay with one diocese for life he might not be able to, as he could easily be ordered to another diocese. Since the Church is not in the habit of ordering people to leave their wives and marry someone else, the analogy is not very apt.
A couple things real quick:
1) A bishop cannot be forcibly moved. A bishop can be forcibly removed. Movement is preferable to both parties over removal.
2) O’Malley is a special case. I think his movement has more to do with him being a very good fireman rather than careerism on his part.
3) I’m not as familiar with George. As to the broader point, Ratzinger and others have lamented bishops not being bishops of a place for life.
3a) It should go without saying that many issues go beyond the diocese. We don’t have a 3rd century ecclesial structure, and we don’t have 3rd century problems.
3b) As I’ve written previously – and the idea was pooh-poohed at the time – in many ways we need broader ecclesial leadership at the metropolitan and primatial levels.
“Opposing gay marriage . . . is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue. . . . The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.”
This is exactly right. Gay ‘marriage’ should be categorically opposed without reservation, but there is a built-in hypocrisy when divorce is not also categorically opposed. No-fault divorce has been far more devastating to the institution of marriage than any ritual buggery under the name could possibly be.
Tim, I think O’Malley has been a good soldier and gone where he’s been asked. George strikes me as more ambitious. Cardinal Law, in fact, when calls came for him to step down from Boston, said the relationship of bishop and diocese was like two spouses. He’s right, if he’s appealing to Patristics. But it was a curious appeal for a man who served a Missouri dicoese for 11 years before getting the call to Boston.
For the record, bishops can and do turn down assignments in other dioceses. Rocco at Whispers seems to think it happens fairly frequently.
Not only do I think this is germane to topic as well as realistic in a general sense, my points were intended to show that one’s political or ideological affiliations are not at all accurate indicators of one’s morality. Republicans, for example, can pontificate all they want on abortion, and pass oodles of legislation, knowing that legal abortion in the US is secure thanks to a Republican-packed court back in 1973.
I want to be sure that we’re all cognizant that Republicans as a party have nothing on anyone in terms of family-friendly public policy. And if we’re looking to the hierarchy for authentic leadership on divorce, I’d say they’re pretty tainted by a greater commitment to ambition (not unlike Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and others) than to fidelity.
A Republican packed court in 1973? White, who with Rehnquist dissented, was appointed by JFK. Douglas who wrote a concurring opinion was appointed by FDR. Marshall was appointed by LBJ. Brennan was appointed by Eisenhower, an appointment Eisenhower later lamented as his biggest mistake, but was a Democrat.
It is of course regrettable that so many Republican leaders have been divorced. If only they had shown the same fidelity to their marriage vows that the last Democrat President demonstrated in the Oval office.
I always like when an instance of infidelity is compared to a formal severance of fidelity and abdication of the obligations of marriage. Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-fidelity. I just fail to see how divorce isn’t an order of magnitude worse.
In a democracy where 50% of marriages fail as a result of divorce
I’d be more inclined to say that divorce occurs because marriages fail.
Donald–
Eisenhower said the Earl Warren appointment was his worst mistake, not Brennan’s.
What’s all this c… about who appointed whom; so I’ll just join in. Who appointed Clarence Thomas recognized by all right and left as a total incompetent. Ask a typical right to life fanatic to name one other supreme court decision. I bet most can’t. Jack
another supreme court decision than Roe v.Wade. Sure that was important but so are other cases. (continued frim above)
Clarence Thomas is most certainly not “recognized by all right and left as a total incompetent.” If you want the truth, you should read Jan Crawford Greenburg’s book Supreme Conflict:
Amazon.com: Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court (9781594201011): Jan Crawford Greenburg: Books
“Donald–
Eisenhower said the Earl Warren appointment was his worst mistake, not Brennan’s.”
Actually Mike apparently he said it about both of them according to his biographer Kim Eisler in a letter which appeared in the New York Times in 1997.
“To the Editor:
In your obituary of William J. Brennan Jr. (front page, July 25), you say the evidence is equivocal that President Eisenhower once called the nominations of Justice Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren his two biggest mistakes.
I was able to confirm the origin of this story for my 1993 biography of Justice Brennan from the diaries of Justice Harold Burton. Burton recounts a meeting with Eisenhower in 1957, when he told the President he was leaving the Supreme Court. He confirms that Eisenhower expressed his regrets in appointing Warren and Justice Brennan and described both appointments as big mistakes. The President described the favorable recommendation he had received on Justice Brennan as ”off-base.”
Eisenhower finished his observations to Burton by saying that in finding a replacement, he would pay more attention to ideology than he had in the Warren and Brennan appointments, which were both made for political reasons.
KIM EISLER
Washington, July 25, 1997″
The Catholic Church must begin to investigate State specific family dissolution laws and express their voice to our legilatures.
Many Cathilics believe that divorce is between two people with relationship breakdowns. Fact is, the majority are because of the incentives created by the standing laws. Therse laws are designed to encourage and in some cses force divorce on the couple.
The end result is the that the assets of the family unit are transferred to lawyers and other professionals that surround the divorce industry, parents and children are emotionally destroyed.
Catholics must understand that our laws currently provide billions in Federal tax dollars to the States and the Courts to encourage divorce just like the billions our government provides for pro abortion groups under the guise of “women’s rights”
These policies must stop and the tax dollars of the people must be directed toward pro family policies that encourage family growth.
Dr. Stephen Baskerville has a point, but he overlooks a vital and intriguing story at the heart of divorce in America. This is a story that should mobilize all Catholics and most Christians to demand a Congressional hearing to expose and rectify America’s most grievous fraud.
The American Bar Association through its drafting arm, the Uniform Law Commission furtively gutted all the law supporting marriage and family and replaced it with a ruthless structure enforced by the police state–divorce! They did this with full awareness of how no-fault divorce was used by communist Vladmir Lenin to destroy the social order of Russia beginning in 1917.
Read about the key facts in the article below, then read further at http://www.uniformdivorce about how the ABA defrauded Americans of fundamental Constitutional rights, family relationships and assets by unlawfully violating the contractual value of marriage and effectively eliminating marriage in favor of divorce and co-habitation.
De-coding No-Fault Divorce –
Ten Things They Don’t Want You to Know
— Judy Parejko, Kathy Lawson and Michael T. Ross
What is no-fault divorce anyway?
Try asking anyone what it is – or better yet – ask how it works. Why don’t you even ask a legislator, a judge, or a lawyer. Most will say it’s a ‘mutual’ process and that it preserves privacy. Or they say, “It means it’s nobody’s fault,” or, “It prevents needless conflict.” Will anyone say, “It’s a one-sided process”?
In truth, very few couples end their marriage ‘by agreement’ and then work out the details to do so. In his research, Frank Furstenberg found that “four out of five marriages ended unilaterally.” 1
So, what happens during the no-fault divorce process to these four out of five couples when it’s not a ‘mutual’ process – when one spouse wants to preserve the family unit or get help for the marriage relationship? Is family preservation supported? Does anyone consider the kids?
An even more revealing question is: Were certain things purposely concealed about ‘no-fault’ divorce when it was being promoted in 1970?
The top ten secrets of ‘no-fault’ divorce:
1 It is still a ‘lawsuit’ – one party is suing the other – even though they changed the name of the legal action to ‘petition.’ The plaintiff was re-named the ‘petitioner’ and the defendant became the ‘respondent’ but a ‘hearing’ is still required – which is a sham.
2 There’s no ‘cause of action’ – in other words, it’s a lawsuit without any real ‘grounds’ (this is unconstitutional). The sole legal ground, ‘irretrievable breakdown,’ is merely symbolic.
3 There are no ‘defenses’ which means the defendant always loses (again, unconstitutional – we are guaranteed the right to a defense in a lawsuit)
4 Without the two essential elements of a lawsuit – a ‘cause’ and a ‘defense’ – there’s no ‘case in controversy’. This means the court process exists only for the sake of appearances – and, simply put, is a ‘fraud.’
5 The judge’s role is ‘ministerial’ (the same as that of a ‘clerk’) – there’s no ‘judicial discretion’ because the ‘judgment’ is an ‘automatic outcome’. The judge’s involvement (once again) is for appearance’s sake – and for enforcement of ‘state authority’ (ensuring the ‘automatic outcome’ of the law’).
6 The fundamental precept of ‘unclean hands’ is set aside. According to this precept, if the party filing the lawsuit caused the problem they are not entitled to a ‘remedy’ in the courts.
7 At the outset, the law was deceptively sold as a ‘mutual agreement’ process – and most people still believe this is how it works: that both people sign an ‘agreement’.
8 The State is not neutral – it always takes the side of the one filing the divorce lawsuit (the ‘petitioner’).
9 No-fault divorce works like the ‘takings’ doctrine – the ‘benefits’ of marriage, such as health insurance, etc., are ‘taken’ with the granting of divorce. Same-sex couples are now clamoring for these very same ‘benefits’ because no-fault divorce laws removed ‘traditional’ marriage protections and opened the door to a multitude of new interpretations of marriage.
10 The State’s police powers can be deployed to ensure the divorce takes place and to enforce the resulting court orders (child support, custody, etc). A spouse that tries to preserve the marriage can be sanctioned with fines or jail for ‘dragging their feet’.
How many of these things did you know? Learn even more at http://www.uniformdivorce.com.
Judy Parejko, MS, is a family mediator and divorce law historian. Dr. Kathy Lawson-Garcia is a clinical psychologist and legal research specialist. Dr. Michael T. Ross is an emergency physician and founder of an interdisciplinary organization called Defending Our Father’s House.
I find Stephen Baskerville’s article extremely on target. I was widowed very young and left with a large family. I remarried a divorced man (we are catholic so he had an annulment) with children. My husband believed that marriage should last a lifetime but his first wife had an affair and refused to end it. She shacked up with the new guy. My husband pays so much child support that he cannot help me pay any bills in our house and he cannot support his new child with me. He is an indentured servant to this adulterous woman. She works full time, gets help from her new guy and gets money from my husband. There is a Federal law on the books that says if a man has a second family he cannot have more that half of his pay taken out. My husband gives 62 percent away. The state of MA broke that law but nobody will enforce it. I have written to Washington DC and they want to sent my husband back to court in MA. Also I lose my social security when my youngest child turns 18. In the State of MA a man has to pay up until the child reaches 23 if they are still in college. He would rather use the child support money to go towards their college tuition but his ex uses it on trips to Hawaii, Bermuda and tons of other camps and activities. She said the kids can figure it out (college costs) when they get to be college age. There is no accountability regarding child support money. It is a way for woman to get rich. My husband is also responsible for half of his kids medical expenses. Now that his youngest will need orthodontic work, he does not know where he will get the money. His ex made out well financially with her divorce. She has three incomes. What a deal. And they call this America??
As marriage is a contract, there is an ongoing invitation for couples to specify in WRITING their intentions to be married in accordance with the rules of their chosen religious affiliation. While I would love to see no-fault divorce disappear for everyone, it is not a constitutionally viable option if both people going into marriage promise to uphold a particular set of promises.
Most people don’t even know that when you marry in the Catholic churh you promise to follow the laws of the church which includes laws on separation and divorce. For example both parties are requred to maintain ONE marital home. If one is an abuser, or an adulter that is gounds for separation of the guilty spouse – but no where does it say the guilty one keeps the children.
Bai
Michael Says:
January 14, 2008 at 11:56 pm
In a democracy where 50% of marriages fail as a result of divorce
I’d be more inclined to say that divorce occurs because marriages fail.
Michael, I’d say that divorce occurs because marriages become unhappy. But these people vowed for better or worse until death. They knew, we all know, that “worse” happens in every marriage, first, second, third. . ., but we’re bound by the vows made the first time anyway.
And the “worse” does go away eventually if we hang in there.
Nothing is worse than kids losing the home they were born into and having to visit mom in her house and dad in his. Then boyfrieds/girlfriends enter the picture. Yikes. No kid should have to suffer so much.
Sheryl
Divorce occurs because it is not merely permitted as a civil remedy for extraordinary cases, but because it is treated as a fundamental human right. Modern people are terrified of nothing quite so much as consent which cannot be revoked.
Michael Ross: you might be interested to know that Baskerville quotes Judy Parejko at length in his book. His book is very much worth buying and reading and sharing. I reviewed it in the National Catholic Register. http://ncregister.com/site/article/7342/
I was raised a Catholic, went to Catholic schools through high school. My parents divorced when I was 16 and shortly after that I fell out of Catholicism.
I have repeated my past by making babies with two women who are just like my parents. Shame-based, I call it after being introduced to the concept by the Esteemed John Bradshaw who had been my teacher at a Catholic High school, but from whom I learned much 15 yers later.
My parents and the mothers of my daughters are shame-based.
So is and are the systems to which we bring our troubles. When I had to fight for my oldest daughter I experienced another department of the Evil, the shame based systems and processes of Bar associations, Family Courts, judges, attorneys, even psychologists. Read Anne Wilson Schaef’s When Society Becomes An Addict, Harper and Row, 1986.
Dare I suggest that perhaps even religions have this disease too. Why is it then that seldom do we ever hear of a religion fighting for the very welfare of the planet Earth on the brink of destruction, or a delving into an investigation and action regarding divorce and rampant babymaking among the unwed and the youth, (right now in Texas at 41/1000) ?
Dr. Stephen Baskerville brings to us the succinct description of the problems. It is for us to become aware of them with, I think, an understanding of shame and addiction, and take them on, (soon and vociferously) as these have existed at least since my parents got divorced and my father was basically driven from my life as I have been via government imposition with the assistance of some advocacy groups, Justice for Children among them( diseased too) from the lives of my precious two daughters. The oldest is now 21 and still cannot talk to me.
Thank you for linking your review Dr. Morse. It was a quite enjoyable read.
Donald R. McClarey Says: “I find the current divorce laws abhorrent, but there is simply no broadbased political movement battling for change,”
The propagandists that helped create the current destructive pork-barrel driven divorce industry and its abhorrent laws; launched a pre-emptive strike against those who they knew would be on the front line against them – divorced and never-married fathers. The old established politically controlled media decided to pay little to no attention to the battle, leading the general public to believe there is none – with “bipartisan support” for the corruption their only measure of abense of contraversy.
The coalition in the battle is expanding. Many right-wing Christian radio stations have been interviewing Stephen Baskerville on this topic. More is needed. I’ve given a personal pledge not to vote for any candidate that isn’t on board.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/07/three-election-pledges/
Nothing is worse than kids losing the home they were born into and having to visit mom in her house and dad in his. Then boyfrieds/girlfriends enter the picture. Yikes. No kid should have to suffer so much.
If you think that nothing’s worse than that, we disagree.
I think that’s a great article by Stephen Baskerville.
What may be missing, in some of these debates, is what all this is costing us as a society. If you begin to look at the cost to the taxpayer, it doesn’t take long to figure out that the divorce, and single mother “industries”, are costing the “taxpayer” simply *staggering* and completely *mind-boggling* sums of money.
Nancy D., in her comment posted above, illustrates the cost to her family and the insanity of the way she and her husband are treated by the “system”, and I’m sure we all feel for her. In fact, her dilemma is shared by literally millions of others across the nation.
However, what’s happening to her, and millions of others, is relatively minor in comparison to the plight of the taxpayer and our society as a whole. We are being robbed of our heritage, as a free nation, in order for the people orchestrating this injustice to extract a living.
Nancy states that her husband’s ex-wife is getting rich from the divorce, but she is merely feasting on the scraps that hit the floor. The lion’s share of the booty is being devoured by the multitude of parasitic freeloaders who make their living exploiting our children, at the expense of the taxpayer.
I also believe that the catalyst for this morass was Roe vs. Wade. If we refuse to protect the rights of the unborn child, we establish a precedent that will ultimately affect us all.
If the unborn child is not worthy of our protection, then who is.
Kevin Merck
As a Christian, I am opposed to divorce outside of God’s laws just as I am against the murder of unborn children.
Stephen Baskervilles quotes are right on track. If anything, his articles and his new hit book “Taken Into Custody”, understate many issues for the sake of not turning many off to his message. His books attack many of the myths upon which our current Anti-Christian, feminist inspired, marriage policy is based.
A little research will horrify even the most jaded.
Our families and children are being murdered and we argue over which political party did the most. They both did. Lets keep voting in anyone else but the incumbents until they get the message.
No fault divorce was first adopted in California and signed into law by . . . Ronald Reagan. Republicans have sought to destroy marriage and fatherhood. Democrats have sought to destroy marriage and fatherhood. Anyone who supports a candidate based upon membership in either of those parties is contributing to the problem. Between those two parties I have only seen one candidate who supports the family . . . Ron Paul. Until politicians are voted for based upon their position and voting record, not as the one who has the perceived best chance of beating the one you oppose, then the problem will continue.
I left a few essential pieces out of my treatise. Since my father and mother were shame based they could not stand being condemned (excommunicated) from the Catholic Church. It was like the Catholic Church abandoned them. If any of you know much about Shame, it is about being hyprevigilant and guarded. It is a disease of being rather than for example of being guilt based which is more like a disease of doing. Shame based cannot objectify therefore any little blip in being ‘perfect’ is like major destruction. The Church is not to blame for this per se but none the less it constitutes a huge impact on the shame based. Read Richard Wilbur’s Poem: The Undead.
And of course the shame based must always find an outlet to dump thier shame. So I became the target for each of my parents, that I was to blame for the divorce, a belief that has prevailed to this day, especially from my father. My own mother sued me to help take my ( now 21 yr old) daughter from me and my father is suing me right now over my mother’s estate, one for which I had been named the executor, via my adopted sister, who came via Catholic Charities and who never had a life of love either, they both are now working to destroy me further. Yes my sister is shame based too and hungry for her ‘share’, (partly due to the sense of entitlement compelling the shame based) which for her has never come, partly due to having married a man who has spent his life in prison, conditions of her health, and lately having a daughter in prison too, not to mention her family life in our household when she too was a child.
So the GAME Dr. Baskerville describes has generational roots in me. It has destroyed me several times probably to the point I had developed cancer last year right after I had put a years effort into the matters of my mothers estate and house for its sale.
Catholics need to take note of this systematized destruction Baskerville describes. And it should take note of whom it bore, John Bradshaw and his message. They along with Anne Wilson Schaef’s thought go hand in hand.
There is still time for the living. I for one am still alive and am standing at the door of America waiting for it to get off its binge of international predation and internal consumption.
To Robert Gartner, Robert, we both hear stories of these generational destructions of family and individuals from within the divorce industry. We both, as have tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of America have reaped the grief and pain for the profit of a few who sit back on their wealth and laugh at the destruction they have wrought. Stephen has outlined this destruction well.
Men are particular targets. And our government is not concerned with any ancillary damage to the generations of children affected. The men are driven to desperation.
Male suicide rates for the U.S. in the adult ranges are 4 times higher than for females in the same age range. Initial studies showed this higher rate was due to “relational difficulties” and then all studies stopped. There are grants to study why women and children commit suicide, but nothing for the men.
This is an example of ignoring the elephant in the Living Room.
You can find these figures at http://www.suicidology.org . You can also see the information on grants available. Nothing is there for men.
Stephen covers this in his book “Taken Into Custody”.
Thanks to everyone for their comments. Many of the comments here should move people to prayer. We will probably revisist the topic in the future. Thanks everyone again.