Stay Up-To-Date!

Get the latest family-related news, research and legislative happenings from Georgia Family Council free by email. To receive the GFC Bulletin, click the button to the right.

May 17, 2012

May 10, 2012

Governor Nathan Deal has signed two important pro-life bills, sealing what has been one of the most life-affirming legislative sessions in Georgia for many years.

The first bill was HB 954, known as the "fetal pain bill." The new law dramatically restricts abortions in Georgia starting at 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Governor Deal signs the fetal pain bill.

GFC President Randy Hicks released the following statement after the bill was signed:

Georgia is one of only seven states with such a law.

The Governor also signed HB 1114, a statewide ban on assisted suicide. The new law outlaws helping someone commit suicide, while continuing to protect an individual's right to make enforceable living wills and durable powers of attorney.

May 10, 2012

According to an Associated Press analysis of data from 2011, 53.6 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 were unemployed or, if they were lucky, merely underemployed, which means they were in jobs for which their degrees weren’t necessary. Philosophy majors mull questions no more existential than the proper billowiness of the foamed milk atop a customer’s cappuccino. Anthropology majors contemplate the tribal behavior of the youngsters who shop at the Zara where they peddle skinny jeans.

I single out philosophy and anthropology because those are two fields — along with zoology, art history and humanities — whose majors are least likely to find jobs reflective of their education level, according to government projections quoted by the Associated Press. But how many college students are fully aware of that? How many reroute themselves into, say, teaching, accounting, nursing or computer science, where degree-relevant jobs are easier to find? Not nearly enough, judging from the angry, dispossessed troops of Occupy Wall Street.

The thing is, today’s graduates aren’t just entering an especially brutal economy. They’re entering it in many cases with the wrong portfolios. To wit: as a country we routinely grant special visas to highly educated workers from countries like China and India. They possess scientific and technical skills that American companies need but that not enough American students are acquiring.

According to an Associated Press analysis of data from 2011, 53.6 percent of college graduates under the age of 25 were unemployed or, if they were lucky, merely underemployed, which means they were in jobs for which their degrees weren’t necessary. Philosophy majors mull questions no more existential than the proper billowiness of the foamed milk atop a customer’s cappuccino. Anthropology majors contemplate the tribal behavior of the youngsters who shop at the Zara where they peddle skinny jeans.

I single out philosophy and anthropology because those are two fields — along with zoology, art history and humanities — whose majors are least likely to find jobs reflective of their education level, according to government projections quoted by the Associated Press. But how many college students are fully aware of that? How many reroute themselves into, say, teaching, accounting, nursing or computer science, where degree-relevant jobs are easier to find? Not nearly enough, judging from the angry, dispossessed troops of Occupy Wall Street.

The thing is, today’s graduates aren’t just entering an especially brutal economy. They’re entering it in many cases with the wrong portfolios. To wit: as a country we routinely grant special visas to highly educated workers from countries like China and India. They possess scientific and technical skills that American companies need but that not enough American students are acquiring.

May 3, 2012

April 26, 2012

Georgia Family Council spoke in opposition last week to plans for a proposed casino in north metro Atlanta.

The Georgia Lottery Board heard plans for a massive entertainment complex in Norcross that would house thousands of video lottery terminals to help fund the Georgia Lottery.

In a 5-minute testimony, GFC policy analyst Toby Tatum reminded the Lottery Board:

"The ends never justify the means. Research has consistently shown that the negative consequences of gambling are inseparable with its existence: Higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, and financial hardship for individuals and families."

(Read Toby's entire testimony below.)

GFC was the only group on hand to speak against the plan.

After the meeting, lottery officials said the casino plans were very unlikely to proceed anytime soon, given opposition in the legislature and from Governor Deal.

Click here to read GFC's commentary about the issue that ran in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Media coverage of the Lottery Board meeting, including Toby's testimony, can be seen here (AJC) and here (CBS).

Toby Tatum's testimony before the Lottery Board on Thursday, April 19th.

Good afternoon. I’d like to thank Chairman Jimmy Braswell and the rest of the Board for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today.

I come to you on behalf of Georgia Family Council, a non-profit research and advocacy organization located in Norcross. Because of our location in Norcross, we have a particular interest in Mr. O’Leary’s proposal. Our mission is to foster the conditions in which individuals, families, and communities thrive. Over the next few moments, I’m going to articulate why a gambling complex in Norcross does just the opposite; it would harm individuals, families, and the surrounding community.

The proposal for a casino has been presented 1) merely as an extension of the lottery that 2) will have nothing but positive results. Both of those points are not entirely true. Casinos are very different from our current lottery because of the venue and more closely resemble traditional, Vegas style gambling. Because of that, a lottery-based casino could be expected to bring with it the costs (crimes, social problems and related economic costs) associated with problem gambling.

While we applaud the intentions of Mr. O’Leary, Mr. Herschel Walker, and others who wish to support higher education in Georgia, we also recognize one simple truth: The ends never justify the means. Research has consistently shown that the negative consequences of gambling are inseparable with its existence: Higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, and financial hardship for individuals and families.

Rather than simply state generalizations, however, I’d like to provide you with some concrete statistics, all of which are cited in the handout you’ve received. After casinos opened in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in 1978, the total number of crimes within a thirty-mile radius increased 100 percent, that is, crime doubled.

Furthermore, the number of independent restaurants dropped from 48 in 1978 to 16 in 1997. Within four years of the casino’s arrival, one-third of Atlantic city’s retail businesses had closed. This phenomenon is known as “the substitution effect” – gambling activity replacing economic activity in the surrounding community.

In 1991, the year Colorado legalized casino gambling, there were 31 retail businesses in the Gilpin County. By 1993, there were only 11 such businesses still open. Gilpin County is home to prominent gambling towns Black Hawk and Central City.

In the 1990s, Biloxi, Mississippi, saw an increase in divorces correlated with the growth of casinos. Harrison County, which houses Biloxi, saw a triple increase in divorce, that is an average of 850 more divorces per year after casinos were legalized in 1990, despite a mere 15 percent growth in population from 1990 to 2000. Crime increased exponentially, with a doubling in both the number of rapes and robberies.

Data from Gamblers Anonymous reveals similar trends regardless of location. In a survey of 400 members, 28 percent of gamblers report being either separated or divorced as a direct result of their gambling problems. Moreover, one fourth of Gamblers Anonymous members report a loss of job due to gambling.

As I prepare to close, allow me a moment to address the suggested increase in “white-collar” gambling that the proposed Norcross casino is designed to attract. Despite good intentions of raising revenue for Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship, the fact of the matter is that a casino is still bound to attract those most vulnerable to suffering severe economic hardship.

Research conducted by Drs. Ross Rubenstein and Ben Scafidi, both of whom are affiliated with our own University System of Georgia, reveal that low-income, minorities are disproportionately active in the Georgia Lottery. Other research suggests that “players” with household incomes under $10,000 bet nearly three times as much on lotteries as those with incomes over $50,000.

And the vast majority of people who frequent casinos are “locals.” Evidence from several states reveals that around 80 percent or more of casino patrons consist of in-state residents. Often times a majority come from within a 30 to 50 mile radius.

The question we must ask ourselves is this: Are we willing to sacrifice the well-being of families and individuals in the Norcross and surrounding community for the sake of money? Overwhelming evidence shows that the establishment of a gambling facility or casino is correlated with an increase in crime, an increase in divorce, and unintended economic consequences. Is this what we want for Norcross? Is this what we want for Georgia?

In conclusion, I'd reiterate that the concept of a casino or destination gambling is a total departure from how the lottery has been operated to date and will generate problems most closely associated with traditional gambling. Because it will be used mostly by locals, local businesses will suffer. Because it will mostly be used by locals, the impact of problem gambling will be felt most acutely locally.

While the casino may very well generate more funds for the HOPE scholarship, I'd encourage the Board to consider at what potential cost to our neighbors, our families and to the quality of life in our community of Norcross and across Georgia.

The ends do not justify the means. On behalf of Georgia Family Council, I urge you to reject Mr. O’Leary’s proposal.

Again, I’d like to thank the Board for your time and consideration. Thank you.

April 26, 2012

Steep rise in births to cohabiting couples means more kids in less stable homes

Randy Hicks, President of Georgia Family Council
April 20, 2012

It’s hardly news to hear about the huge number of couples who live together outside of marriage. The numbers have risen sharply over the past few decades, such that a majority of young adults will cohabit with their significant other at some point and most couples who marry today are already living together.

Now that cohabitation is becoming so common, it shouldn’t surprise us that more kids are being born into homes where mom and dad aren’t married. But it should concern us.  

Recently released government statistics confirm this rise, but the numbers are actually a bit troubling. The percentage of first births to unmarried, cohabiting moms has jumped 83 percent since 2002. Ten years ago, 12 percent of births were to moms living with a male partner. By the years 2006-10 that percentage jumped to 22 percent.

That’s a lot of kids born into a home that doesn’t benefit from a mom and dad bound by the committed bonds of marriage. That isn’t to say these children aren’t loved by their parents. The vast majority of them certainly are. It’s just the likelihood of that child being raised in a stable home and enjoying positive outcomes in life is measurably higher if mom and dad are married.

There really isn’t much debate about this. We know from a couple decades worth of research that kids do best when raised by their married parents. And cohabitation is not a worthwhile substitute for getting married, no matter what the social trends are.

Unmarried cohabitation is a topic I’ve written about quite a bit. And I’ve done so because it’s an issue about which there’s much confusion and upon which false hopes are built. Simply put, it doesn’t accomplish what many couples assume it does.

There’s evidence that living together creates an uncertain foundation for future marriage. The obligations created by the living arrangement make it harder to objectively assess the health of the relationship. If someone is having doubts, it’s not as easy to call things off like it would be in a traditional dating relationship.

Couples who slide into cohabitation (as so many do) often slide into marriage because it’s easier than breaking up. The result is a poor basis for the lasting commitment required in a lifelong relationship.

At its best marriage seals a relationship in a unique and meaningful way that is more likely to be enduring. It’s a man and woman signifying to one another (and the public) their commitment to each other to the exclusion of all others.

On the other hand, when cohabiting precedes the marriage certificate it’s less like a seal than it is a slide – not a hard and fast declaration of faithfulness, but more like a change to one’s Facebook relationship status. There’s less permanence in cohabitation and therefore less incentive to fight for a cohabiting relationship. Not exactly good news for the children involved.

For kids, it’s much better to be raised in a home where both parents have committed to one another and have more incentive to make things work, even if times get hard. After all, children must deal with the wreckage of a fractured family as much as their parents. In many ways, it’s harder for them to process and cope as they are forced to make sense of mom and dad’s separate worlds.

Randy Hicks is the president of Georgia Family Council, a non-profit research and education organization committed to fostering conditions in which individuals, families and communities thrive. For more information, go to www.georgiafamily.org, (770) 242-0001, stephen.daniels@georgiafamily.org.