(The Root) -- There's a scene in the wildly popular TV show Downton Abbey in which a single mother working as a prostitute to support her son is torn between giving him up for adoption by his wealthy grandparents or raising him herself. A well-heeled, well-meaning social activist encourages her to keep the child, saying that while he might not have the same opportunities with his biological mother that he would with the other family, he would have a decent life with her all the same.

Of course, then the child's mother makes the kind of observation that makes most limousine liberals uncomfortable, whether on a television show set in England or in real-life American politics. The mother acknowledges that, yes, her son would have a life with her -- but not the kind of life the nosy social activist's son had growing up, filled with a quality education and plentiful professional opportunities. (Spoiler coming if you watch the show.) The mother decides that her son deserves the same quality of life that this rich woman's son enjoyed, and she is selfless enough to give him to a family who can give that life to him. 

I was reminded of this scene as I read the ridiculous criticism being lobbed by a bunch of well-meaning privileged people at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his support of an ad campaign aimed at curbing teen pregnancy in that city. The campaign pulls no punches, featuring infant children surrounded by quotes about how their lives, and the lives of their families, are likely to turn out in households headed by teen parents. One poster reads, "If you finish high school, get a job, and get married before having children, you have a 98 percent chance of not being in poverty." Another reads, "I'm twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen."

Apparently some liberal critics publicly object to the campaign (including a few of my well-intentioned but misguided friends in media and politics, who won't care for this piece and will probably tell me so). But they don't object to the campaign on the basis of fact, because, of course, the campaign is factually accurate. A child is statistically more likely to have access to greater financial and academic opportunity if not raised by a teen mother. So just what is it about the campaign that has critics so riled up?

Well, according to Planned Parenthood, "The latest NYC ad campaign creates stigma, hostility and negative public opinions about teen pregnancy and parenthood rather than offering alternative aspirations for young people." I'm not sure where to start with this lunacy. First off, I thought that as one of the nation's leading sexual-health organizations, Planned Parenthood would focus on decreasing the number of unplanned pregnancies, not celebrating and encouraging them. Did I miss something?

Second, I'm much less concerned about the stigma teen parents may face than about the lifetime stigma their children face as they miss out on one opportunity after another because their parents weren't ready to realize their full potential as parents while raising them. (As I've mentioned in previous pieces, one of my parents was once a teen parent -- and attests to the challenges it brings and therefore applauds the campaign.)

Considering that one of the most widely covered reality-TV trainwrecks -- second only to the Kardashians -- was the star of a show called Teen Mom, I would think that Planned Parenthood has more pressing media concerns than stopping an anti-teen-pregnancy campaign, but apparently not. The show Teen Mom and other reality shows, such as 16 and Pregnant, are perfect examples of why this campaign is needed.

Studies show that becoming famous is a greater priority to the millennial generation than to preceding generations. So when you have teenagers becoming famous on reality shows just for becoming pregnant, and the most famous reality-TV family in history shows the glamour of having multiple "baby daddies" in the family (here's looking at you, Kim and Kourtney Kardashian), where exactly is the average teen supposed to get the memo that his kid is unlikely to enjoy the upbringing that Kanye West's kid will? And that they are unlikely to enjoy 15 minutes of fame like the Teen Mom stars?

For anyone who thinks shame is not an effective motivator, ask any smokers if that's true. For the record, Attorney General Eric Holder once argued that if we shamed gun owners the way we've shamed smokers, we'd have less crime. No, I'm not comparing teen moms to criminals, but I am comparing them to those with questionable judgment, like smokers.

While we're on the subject, thanks to Mayor Bloomberg's aggressive campaign of shaming, blaming and taxing smokers, the number of smokers in New York has decreased by 27 percent since he took office.

There are many reasons to give Mayor Bloomberg a hard time. The fact that he essentially bullied his way into a third term of his reign is one of them. His administration's questionable response to the city's homeless problem is another. But his genuine effort to address teen pregnancy and its relationship to poverty is not one.

I just wonder if the women of privilege running Planned Parenthood, which has struggled with diversity in the past, realize that children born in poor communities deserve the same opportunities their kids do -- which means not just randomly distributing birth control but actually giving poor women the same information, incentives and life goals that women who grow up in privilege often take for granted. That includes providing accurate information about why when you choose to become a parent matters. 

(The Root) -- If there is one woman who has stolen the show from President Obama during his State of the Union addresses, it has been his wife, first lady Michelle Obama. Her attire and arms have previously garnered almost as much attention as his speeches.

But during his most recent State of the Union address in February, the first lady was upstaged by another woman: 102-year-old Desiline Victor. Victor received a standing ovation from the bipartisan audience. The president praised Victor, saying the following:

We should follow the example of a North Miami woman named Desiline Victor. When she arrived at her polling place, she was told the wait to vote might be six hours. And as time ticked by, her concern was not with her tired body or aching feet, but whether folks like her would get to have their say. Hour after hour, a throng of people stayed in line in support of her. Because Desiline is 102 years old. And they erupted in cheers when she finally put on a sticker that read "I Voted."

Victor not only stole the show; she also stole the hearts of millions of Americans, and now she has inspired a new voting-rights bill in the state of Florida.

Desiline's Free and Fair Democracy Act aims to ensure that future voters don't endure the obstacles to voting that Victor encountered. Judith Browne Dianis, co-director of the Advancement Project, which specializes in voter-rights litigation, told The Root, "Florida has had a history of making voting harder for Floridians, and the state continues to be a voting disaster. It's not just about the long waits in lines. Florida had the voter purging that happened in 2012. In 2000 we had people being purged from the lists erroneously."

But Dianis highlighted an issue that she believes distinguishes Florida as one of the worst of the worst states when it comes to the issue of voting rights. "It's a state that has over 1 million people who can't vote because of felony convictions. They've paid their debt to society. They've done their time, but they still can't vote," Dianis explained.

The bill, if it becomes law, would primarily address the following:

* Enabling people with felony convictions who have completed their sentences to register to vote

* Allowing automatic voter registration at places like the Department of Motor Vehicles

* Creating online voter-registration systems that make it easier to register and vote.

The bill focuses on administrative measures, with good reason. Many of the delays that voters experience tend to have two primary causes: errors related to a voter's registration, such as the polling site not reflecting where someone has moved; and a lack of proper staffing at polling sites, particularly when it comes to early voting. 

Dianis acknowledged that in addition to partisanship, as well as the fear among some that an increasingly brown and diverse electorate threatens their political power, one of the main hurdles to improving the American voting system is funding. It costs money to hire additional staff for polling places and more efficient machines, but Dianis believes that the cost to our democracy is far greater if we don't make the necessary investments. As she explained, Florida is far from the only state with a voting system that any citizen in a first world country should be embarrassed by. "I waited in line seven hours to vote in Maryland," she said.