Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That money comes from somewhere.
Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.
Tired of paying for Sandra....
Fluke off.
Yes it does. In the case of Ms. Fluke, it would come from her premiums. In the case of the study, the money spent today is nominal compared to the money spent on new classrooms, prisons, and entitlements in 10-20 years.
You almost gotta laugh if it wasn't such a serious issue. Radical lefties manage to blame republicans because a "study" indicates that girls who endure surgical contraceptive implants (at taxpayer expense) have less pregnancies. Well no shit but I don't want to have my taxes raised because the left wants to offer surgical contraceptives to underage girls who can't even get an aspirin in school without parents permission. Get the rich socialist left to finance free contraceptive implants. I'm sure the tax exempt Media Matters conglomerate could afford a grant it if a couple of the cheerleaders were thrown their way.
You almost gotta laugh if it wasn't such a serious issue. Radical lefties manage to blame republicans because a "study" indicates that girls who endure surgical contraceptive implants (at taxpayer expense) have less pregnancies. Well no shit but I don't want to have my taxes raised because the left wants to offer surgical contraceptives to underage girls who can't even get an aspirin in school without parents permission. Get the rich socialist left to finance free contraceptive implants. I'm sure the tax exempt Media Matters conglomerate could afford a grant it if a couple of the cheerleaders were thrown their way.
I was quoting Governor Romney's website. I don't think it's blaming republicans; it's stating the facts.
If you don't pay now, you'll pay later. The upshot is that it won't be the federal government paying; it will be Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, etc... Schools are largely funded locally. Prisons are built by States. Entitlements are a mixed bag of local and federal programs.
Cutting $300M--less than we spend the NEA and CPB--is a short term gain; long term loss.
And the upshot is that it will lead to an increase in abortions which is what the bone-headed cutting of the program is supposed to stop. More unwanted pregnancies leads to more abortions.
OP is a Progressive in the ilk of Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger.
Forced sterilization would be even a more effective means of birth control.
As to her congressional testimony, you're wrong. No other way to put it. I'm not sure about every statement she made on the topic but you're wrong about Ms. Fluke's congressional testimony...at least.That money comes from somewhere.
Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.
Tired of paying for Sandra....
Fluke off.
Yes it does. In the case of Ms. Fluke, it would come from her premiums. In the case of the study, the money spent today is nominal compared to the money spent on new classrooms, prisons, and entitlements in 10-20 years.
No dumbass, it wouldn't. If that were the case, they'd tell her to buy it herself. That was what she was whining about.
Not sure what you mean by that but a lot of unwanted pregnancies carried to term do not get the home life that a lot of wanted pregnancies receive and they end up turning to a life of crime and end up in prison. Or have you not noticed the US Prison Population increase?As to prisons....a typical liberal answer to something that worked a long time ago (keep your drawers on). Or were we always building prisons at this rate ?
ESAD
You almost gotta laugh if it wasn't such a serious issue. Radical lefties manage to blame republicans because a "study" indicates that girls who endure surgical contraceptive implants (at taxpayer expense) have less pregnancies. Well no shit but I don't want to have my taxes raised because the left wants to offer surgical contraceptives to underage girls who can't even get an aspirin in school without parents permission. Get the rich socialist left to finance free contraceptive implants. I'm sure the tax exempt Media Matters conglomerate could afford a grant it if a couple of the cheerleaders were thrown their way.
I was quoting Governor Romney's website. I don't think it's blaming republicans; it's stating the facts.
If you don't pay now, you'll pay later. The upshot is that it won't be the federal government paying; it will be Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, etc... Schools are largely funded locally. Prisons are built by States. Entitlements are a mixed bag of local and federal programs.
Cutting $300M--less than we spend the NEA and CPB--is a short term gain; long term loss.
And the upshot is that it will lead to an increase in abortions which is what the bone-headed cutting of the program is supposed to stop. More unwanted pregnancies leads to more abortions.
And keeping your pants on lead to fewer.
Simple math.
One has to wonder why the Governor wants to cut off the primary source for low cost contraception to financially challenged women.
One has to wonder why the Governor wants to cut off the primary source for low cost contraception to financially challenged women.
Well, you know, it's that pesky thing called personal responsibility, something I doubt you would understand.
Does the radical left concede that decades of condom on a cucumber sex ed is a failure and the only option left to teenage girls is surgical contraceptive implants at taxpayer expense? What a Country.
Does the radical right concede that the trillions spent on defense have been a waste since we haven't fought the Soviets or China?
What I think the report is saying is that contraception is a good thing. Access to contraception is a better thing. And fault-free contraception is a great thing. Nothing is better than abstinence in my view but thats hardly a widely held viewpoint in practice.
One has to wonder why the Governor wants to cut off the primary source for low cost contraception to financially challenged women.
Well, you know, it's that pesky thing called personal responsibility, something I doubt you would understand.
Using contraception is irresponsible?
I'm beginning to suspect the right actually likes unwanted pregnancy and abortion for some bizarre reason.
I was quoting Governor Romney's website. I don't think it's blaming republicans; it's stating the facts.
If you don't pay now, you'll pay later. The upshot is that it won't be the federal government paying; it will be Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, etc... Schools are largely funded locally. Prisons are built by States. Entitlements are a mixed bag of local and federal programs.
Cutting $300M--less than we spend the NEA and CPB--is a short term gain; long term loss.
And the upshot is that it will lead to an increase in abortions which is what the bone-headed cutting of the program is supposed to stop. More unwanted pregnancies leads to more abortions.
And keeping your pants on lead to fewer.
Simple math.
Simple biology rather. How's that working? Not too good. We've been down this road before which lead to Title funding being created in the first place.
This from The Associated Press.
-----------
WASHINGTON (AP) Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concludes. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
One has to wonder why the Governor wants to cut off the primary source for low cost contraception to financially challenged women. From his website:
Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
Associated Press | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon
For $300M (or less than 1/3 the cost of a new destroyer the Navy is building), we could prevent a great many abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and help ensure women's health choices. The $300M spent now will be a lot less than building more schools, expanding entitlements, and building more prisons later on when the unwanted pregnancies are carried to term.
Also it should be noted that Title X money is not only provided to Planned Parenthood (no Title money is used for abortions by the way) but to public health departments across the nation; in red states as well as blue states. It is used to pay for everything from iron tablets to condoms to contraceptive foams and creams.
Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety and requires that you provide a link.
~Oddball
As to her congressional testimony, you're wrong. No other way to put it. I'm not sure about every statement she made on the topic but you're wrong about Ms. Fluke's congressional testimony...at least.Yes it does. In the case of Ms. Fluke, it would come from her premiums. In the case of the study, the money spent today is nominal compared to the money spent on new classrooms, prisons, and entitlements in 10-20 years.
No dumbass, it wouldn't. If that were the case, they'd tell her to buy it herself. That was what she was whining about.
Not sure what you mean by that but a lot of unwanted pregnancies carried to term do not get the home life that a lot of wanted pregnancies receive and they end up turning to a life of crime and end up in prison. Or have you not noticed the US Prison Population increase?As to prisons....a typical liberal answer to something that worked a long time ago (keep your drawers on). Or were we always building prisons at this rate ?
Personally, I think that there are alot of people in prison who do not pose much of a threat to the society. It's become an industry that requires more and more laws and more and more inmates to keep it afloat.
But I tend to think that having fewer prisoners is better for taxpayers since it costs roughly the same to house an inmate as it does to send him or her to college for the same amount of time. But thats just me.
ESAD
Lame response. I guess when you see your posting career coming to an end, you have to lash out. You won't be missed.
That money comes from somewhere.
Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.
Tired of paying for Sandra....
Fluke off.
