Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions; Romney wants to cut access.

No, I just realize that good schools, good roads, clean water are more important than rich douchebags having dancing horsies...

  • Fact: We spend more on education now than any point in US history, and we have worse results (so much for your theory on that - like all of your other inaccurate bullshit theories)

  • Fact: We've always had clean water (more JoeB. bullshit)

  • Fact: we've always had "good roads" (more JoeB. bullshit)
I just realized, the "B" in JoeB. stands for bullshit. Joe Bullshit. He's FULL of it!


Fact- We don't spend enough on education. NOw, I would agree with you that what we do spend is spent badly, and there is serious need for reform in a lot of areas. But a large part of the problem is how big corporations have corrupted the process. For instance, because the State of Texas is the biggest purchaser of textbooks, they dumb down the textbooks so Texas will buy them.

Also, we spend less per student than we did 30 years go, adjusted for inflation.

Fact- Obviously, you never heard of the Cayahuga River. When I was a kid, it used to catch on fire on a regular basis. The Chicago river used to be so polluted that it became a joke when Boss Daley talked about some day fishing in it. But then that radical commie, socialist bastard Richard Nixon (no, really) came along and established the EPA and started work on cleaning that stuff up.

Fact- We used to have really crappy roads before another "Communist" named Dwight D. Eisenhower looked at the German Autobahns and realized how inadequate our roads were. Now while there were some military considerations in his plan (Need for possible mass evacuations of cities, Need to move military units across the country quickly), the economic benefits were also there for people to see, and the private sector never would have taken such an undertaking on its own.

Sadly, because now our priorities are on Dancing Horsies for Mitt's Ugly Wife, we have roads that are crumbling pretty badly. That's not from me, that's from the ASCE.

America's infrastructure crumbling, says American Society of Civil Engineers
 
Because they want to have sex with people they don't want to have babies with.

A second ago it was a different story.

Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies.

Now contraception does prevent pregnancies. This is almost as crazy as your assertion that your premiums don't pay for your drugs on your PDP.

You're in rare form today--well; not so rare for you.
 
What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Now that is an interesting point you make; Aside from the logistical imperative that such implants and IUDs be done by a physician/NP....

IUDs and these Norplants are not indicated for everyone but you bring up a very good point.

A point that anyone with a scintilla of reading comprehension has already come to.

You've been sold a crap bill of goods because they count on you being retarded. And their faith in you is absolutely reasonable.

What point was that? Make hormonal implants and IUD's non-prescription?
 
I don't think any politician anywhere cares jack squat about anyone but themselves.

I don't think that is true. I think there are concentric circles that explain a professional politician's order of concern. People like you and I are on the outer circle. Donors are further in. Party used to be somewhere in the middle but it is probably even closer than some donors. But there are some who re-order these often competing interests and you're closer with some than others.

Let me repeat, no politician anywhere in the universe cares about anything or anyone other than himself.

Repeating an ignorant post doesn't add any value to it except in the comedic realm.
 
Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?

What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Now that is an interesting point you make; Aside from the logistical imperative that such implants and IUDs be done by a physician/NP....

IUDs and these Norplants are not indicated for everyone but you bring up a very good point.

Some states allow midwives to dispense IUDs. Implants are even easier to use than an IUD and can dispensed by a trained pharmacist. The only reason the government requires a prescription is that politicians are afraid of the negative impact of making the Pill OTC.
 
Because they want to have sex with people they don't want to have babies with.

A second ago it was a different story.

Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies.

Now contraception does prevent pregnancies. This is almost as crazy as your assertion that your premiums don't pay for your drugs on your PDP.

You're in rare form today--well; not so rare for you.

So the rate of unplanned pregnancies today must be much lower than it was, say, in the 1910's?
 
Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies. As a glance at the incidence of unplanned pregnancies down through the years shows in spades.

Does Romney have a plan to make contraception illegal that I haven't heard of?

No; he wants to eliminate Title X funding which will save (according to his website) $300M or the equivalent of about $1 per year per citizen. The stated reason on his website is that it will starve funding for abortion groups.

It's a mystery why he thinks more pregnancies (what you get when you don't use contraception) will lead to less abortions but then again, he's your candidate.

In other words, you are opposed to any attempt to balance the budget.
 
I don't think that is true. I think there are concentric circles that explain a professional politician's order of concern. People like you and I are on the outer circle. Donors are further in. Party used to be somewhere in the middle but it is probably even closer than some donors. But there are some who re-order these often competing interests and you're closer with some than others.

Let me repeat, no politician anywhere in the universe cares about anything or anyone other than himself.

Repeating an ignorant post doesn't add any value to it except in the comedic realm.

Feel free to prove me wrong by providing an example of any politician that is willing to do something for someone else even if they get nothing in return.
 
What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?

Now that is an interesting point you make; Aside from the logistical imperative that such implants and IUDs be done by a physician/NP....

IUDs and these Norplants are not indicated for everyone but you bring up a very good point.

Some states allow midwives to dispense IUDs. Implants are even easier to use than an IUD and can dispensed by a trained pharmacist. The only reason the government requires a prescription is that politicians are afraid of the negative impact of making the Pill OTC.

We have NPs doing insertions and removals. You're right about that. I never heard of a pharmacist inserting the norplant.

I don't know enough about body chemistry but we do feature 11 different brands of Oral Contraceptives all with different amounts of hormones (Ortho Cept, Gildess, Micronor, Levlen etc...). It would stand to reason if they were all interchangeable, there would be only one of them being purchased; i.e. we purchase one type of 200mg ibuprofen, one type of 400mg ibuprofen....
 
So is the rate of unplanned pregnancy today much lower than it was before the pill was available?
 
Let me repeat, no politician anywhere in the universe cares about anything or anyone other than himself.

Repeating an ignorant post doesn't add any value to it except in the comedic realm.

Feel free to prove me wrong by providing an example of any politician that is willing to do something for someone else even if they get nothing in return.

Happily

Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon on 9/11.

642_rumsfeld_help2050081722-9252.jpg


John Glenn was the first American to orbit the earth after a career in the Marines. You're speculation that he didn't care about anyone but himself as soon as he ran for office is humorous. As it would be with with John McCain who was a POW in Vietnam.

Again, there are levels of how much concern they have; to be certain. But to make such blatantly absolutist statements is silly.
 
So is the rate of unplanned pregnancy today much lower than it was before the pill was available?

No, it's higher because these things do not happen in a vacuum for the 4th time. That is if you were responding to something I wrote. It would be even greater if there were no contraception. Or are you back to claiming that contraception doesn't prevent pregnancy?
 
Does Romney have a plan to make contraception illegal that I haven't heard of?

No; he wants to eliminate Title X funding which will save (according to his website) $300M or the equivalent of about $1 per year per citizen. The stated reason on his website is that it will starve funding for abortion groups.

It's a mystery why he thinks more pregnancies (what you get when you don't use contraception) will lead to less abortions but then again, he's your candidate.

In other words, you are opposed to any attempt to balance the budget.

So in other words, you'll make asinine statement after asinine statement because you have nothing better to do.
 
So is the rate of unplanned pregnancy today much lower than it was before the pill was available?

No, it's higher because these things do not happen in a vacuum for the 4th time. That is if you were responding to something I wrote. It would be even greater if there were no contraception. Or are you back to claiming that contraception doesn't prevent pregnancy?

No, I'm claiming the availability of contraception does nothing to lower the pregnancy rate or the abortion rate.

As it demonstrably does NOT. Despite the repeated lie that it does.
 
So is the rate of unplanned pregnancy today much lower than it was before the pill was available?

No, it's higher because these things do not happen in a vacuum for the 4th time. That is if you were responding to something I wrote. It would be even greater if there were no contraception. Or are you back to claiming that contraception doesn't prevent pregnancy?

No, I'm claiming the availability of contraception does nothing to lower the pregnancy rate or the abortion rate.

As it demonstrably does NOT. Despite the repeated lie that it does.

The data in the study suggests otherwise; as does common sense...hence why would a woman take contraceptives otherwise except to correct hormonal imbalance.
 
No, that small study doesn't prove that.

And the fact that women take contraceptives does not prove that the availability of contraceptives results in a lower rate of unplanned pregnancy..
 
The Guttmacher report shows “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.” These figures are similar to those of a report in Spain showing abortions doubling despite increased family planning promotion.

The January issue of the journal Contraception contains results of a 10-yr study “to acquire information about the use of contraceptive methods in order to reduce the number of elective abortions,” reads the abstract.



Study: Contraception use up, abortions double; researchers can't figure out why | Jill Stanek
 
Now that is an interesting point you make; Aside from the logistical imperative that such implants and IUDs be done by a physician/NP....

IUDs and these Norplants are not indicated for everyone but you bring up a very good point.

Some states allow midwives to dispense IUDs. Implants are even easier to use than an IUD and can dispensed by a trained pharmacist. The only reason the government requires a prescription is that politicians are afraid of the negative impact of making the Pill OTC.

We have NPs doing insertions and removals. You're right about that. I never heard of a pharmacist inserting the norplant.

I don't know enough about body chemistry but we do feature 11 different brands of Oral Contraceptives all with different amounts of hormones (Ortho Cept, Gildess, Micronor, Levlen etc...). It would stand to reason if they were all interchangeable, there would be only one of them being purchased; i.e. we purchase one type of 200mg ibuprofen, one type of 400mg ibuprofen....

The reason there are so many different brands is because the government makes people get a prescription for them. If they were all OTC and had to compete on price and effectiveness you would be buying them the same way you do Ibuprofen, you would simply choose between the does and whether you wanted to pay extra for the brand name Advil.
 
Repeating an ignorant post doesn't add any value to it except in the comedic realm.

Feel free to prove me wrong by providing an example of any politician that is willing to do something for someone else even if they get nothing in return.

Happily

Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon on 9/11.

642_rumsfeld_help2050081722-9252.jpg


John Glenn was the first American to orbit the earth after a career in the Marines. You're speculation that he didn't care about anyone but himself as soon as he ran for office is humorous. As it would be with with John McCain who was a POW in Vietnam.

Again, there are levels of how much concern they have; to be certain. But to make such blatantly absolutist statements is silly.

Not everyone that actually runs for political office is a politician, some of them are actually people.
 

Forum List

Back
Top