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

[AmyNation]

Nowhere on this planet does 'free' birth control exist. So, where did this 'study' take place?

Free birth control does exist, it's called abstinence. Costs nothing to keep your panties on. Oh, I forget, that's a forbidden concept in the liberal lexicon.

Guys dont know how to keep their pants zipped?

 

[WillowTree]

Free birth control, as in no upfront cost to the individual, is a good idea. However it should be a state issue, not a federal one.

why in the world do you think other people should pay for your shit?

 

[AmyNation]

I wish they would invent male birth control.

 

[alan1]

A bipolar government would simultaneously pay for birth control and give tax breaks or welfare for people with children.

I am willing to pay for government sponsored birth control (not abortion) if that means I no longer have to pay for supporting the progeny of those that have children.

 

[AmyNation]

Free birth control, as in no upfront cost to the individual, is a good idea. However it should be a state issue, not a federal one.

why in the world do you think other people should pay for your shit?

Why do you hate states rights?

See, I can do that stupid shit too.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Nowhere on this planet does 'free' birth control exist. So, where did this 'study' take place?

Free birth control does exist, it's called abstinence. Costs nothing to keep your panties on. Oh, I forget, that's a forbidden concept in the liberal lexicon.

Guys dont know how to keep their pants zipped?

Hey, no argument from me about that point. The guys need to be responsible, too. But right now it's the gals who are being told to "vote like your lady parts depend on it". It's the gals who are being told that evil repubs are targeting them as some kind of weak sister who can't manage to just say no. It's the gals who are being told that without Big Sister government, they'll be surrounded by echelons of unwanted brats.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I wish they would invent male birth control.

They already have, it's called keep it in your pants...a point you already broached, I beleive.

 

[AmyNation]

I wish they would invent male birth control.

They already have, it's called keep it in your pants...a point you already broached, I beleive.

I believe everyone on this forum is an adult, so we are all aware that abstinance prevents pregnancy, you dont have to keep repeating that.

However, any rational adult also knows that a majority of people don't abstain and when discussing unwanted pregnancy you need to address the issue in a multifaceted way.

Sex education, abstinance education, birth control. For both boys and girls.

Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I wish they would invent male birth control.

They already have, it's called keep it in your pants...a point you already broached, I beleive.

I believe everyone on this forum is an adult, so we are all aware that abstinance prevents pregnancy, you dont have to keep repeating that.

However, any rational adult also knows that a majority of people don't abstain and when discussing unwanted pregnancy you need to address the issue in a multifaceted way.

Sex education, abstinance education, birth control. For both boys and girls.

Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

Seems like abstinence fulfills demands from all sides. It's free, doesn't cost any of us a dime. It prevents unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and disease transmission. Education of the young should be multifaceted, I agree. But education should also emphasize both consequences and personal responsibility. We send a distinctly counterproductive and conflicting message when we hand out 'free' contraceptives.

 

[alan1]

I wish they would invent male birth control.

They already have, it's called keep it in your pants...a point you already broached, I beleive.

I believe everyone on this forum is an adult, so we are all aware that abstinance prevents pregnancy, you dont have to keep repeating that.

However, any rational adult also knows that a majority of people don't abstain and when discussing unwanted pregnancy you need to address the issue in a multifaceted way.

Sex education, abstinance education, birth control. For both boys and girls.

Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

I'm curious, why do you think "poor" is a qualifying statement?
Although I am opposed to government (my taxes) paying for anybody, I at least think it would be more fair if those government dollars (my taxes) applied equally to all.

 

[Full-Auto]

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

Assuming the study isnt another liberal facade, and there have been many.


Who pays?????

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Study: Free money leads to fewer bank robberies.

Study: Free plane tickets ease congestion on highways.



Wow, this shit is easy

 

[Katzndogz]

If you think that human beings are just mindless biologically driven animals with no free will beyond instinct, then it is the obligation of the public to deal with the results of mindless rutting.

This is a disctinctly islamic view. It's the seminal reason why women are veiled. Women can't control themselves, and will drive men to insanity at the sight of a woman with whom they MUST couple.

 

[AmyNation]

They already have, it's called keep it in your pants...a point you already broached, I beleive.

I believe everyone on this forum is an adult, so we are all aware that abstinance prevents pregnancy, you dont have to keep repeating that.

However, any rational adult also knows that a majority of people don't abstain and when discussing unwanted pregnancy you need to address the issue in a multifaceted way.

Sex education, abstinance education, birth control. For both boys and girls.

Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

Seems like abstinence fulfills demands from all sides. It's free, doesn't cost any of us a dime. It prevents unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and disease transmission. Education of the young should be multifaceted, I agree. But education should also emphasize both consequences and personal responsibility. We send a distinctly counterproductive and conflicting message when we hand out 'free' contraceptives.

I disagree that providing free birth control to kids sends conflicting messages. Honestly that sounds like an argument my grandfather would make. You give teens the information, and the tools to make the right decision, and you also give them a condom knowing they may make a decision you don't agree with.

 

[AmyNation]

They already have, it's called keep it in your pants...a point you already broached, I beleive.

I believe everyone on this forum is an adult, so we are all aware that abstinance prevents pregnancy, you dont have to keep repeating that.

However, any rational adult also knows that a majority of people don't abstain and when discussing unwanted pregnancy you need to address the issue in a multifaceted way.

Sex education, abstinance education, birth control. For both boys and girls.

Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

I'm curious, why do you think "poor" is a qualifying statement?
Although I am opposed to government (my taxes) paying for anybody, I at least think it would be more fair if those government dollars (my taxes) applied equally to all.

I'm talking about what we're currently doing, which is funding free/low cost birth control to poor people.

However if it was on the ballot in my state, I would vote for free birth control for anyone. I also support state paid for sterilization for those who want it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I believe everyone on this forum is an adult, so we are all aware that abstinance prevents pregnancy, you dont have to keep repeating that.

However, any rational adult also knows that a majority of people don't abstain and when discussing unwanted pregnancy you need to address the issue in a multifaceted way.

Sex education, abstinance education, birth control. For both boys and girls.

Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

Seems like abstinence fulfills demands from all sides. It's free, doesn't cost any of us a dime. It prevents unwanted pregnancy, abortion, and disease transmission. Education of the young should be multifaceted, I agree. But education should also emphasize both consequences and personal responsibility. We send a distinctly counterproductive and conflicting message when we hand out 'free' contraceptives.

I disagree that providing free birth control to kids sends conflicting messages. Honestly that sounds like an argument my grandfather would make. You give teens the information, and the tools to make the right decision, and you also give them a condom knowing they may make a decision you don't agree with.

Seems like all this spiffy information hasn't helped one iota, it's made things worse. Given my age (not knowing yours), I might qualify as a peer to your grandfather.
When I grew up, sex Ed was addressed into ways: the first was about hygiene and the physical changes we could expect to experience. These topics were addressed in PE or gym class because it allowed boys and girls to be addressed specifically without making a public spectacle of separating the two sexes. Yes, PE was separate for boys and girls back in the days. The second way that sex Ed was addressed was in high school biology class, where reproduction was learned, but not the gritty mechanics of just how reproduction was achieved. How to accomplish that was a subject left to parents, and all-too-frequently explored as an extra curricular activity undertaken by the young themselves. Birth control in those days included few choices, the main being either condoms or mutual masturbation if abstinence was forsaken.

That being said, my generation had far fewer unwanted pregnancies, and abortions were also almost unheard of, being an almost unbearable shame for all involved. Should their paramour find herself "in the family way", boys were expected to step up, man up, and do the responsible thing. And most of them did.

Now, tell me again how this liberal 'free' shit is better than what we did before?

 

[driveby]

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

By this logic, if the OP taught a blow job instructional class, it would lead to less pregnancies.....

 

[gallantwarrior]

I believe everyone on this forum is an adult, so we are all aware that abstinance prevents pregnancy, you dont have to keep repeating that.

However, any rational adult also knows that a majority of people don't abstain and when discussing unwanted pregnancy you need to address the issue in a multifaceted way.

Sex education, abstinance education, birth control. For both boys and girls.

Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

I'm curious, why do you think "poor" is a qualifying statement?
Although I am opposed to government (my taxes) paying for anybody, I at least think it would be more fair if those government dollars (my taxes) applied equally to all.

I'm talking about what we're currently doing, which is funding free/low cost birth control to poor people.

However if it was on the ballot in my state, I would vote for free birth control for anyone. I also support state paid for sterilization for those who want it.

I see a great opportunity to compromise here! If you mandate that I must pay for your birth control, than I can mandate who gets sterilized. Hell, I'd kick in for forced sterilization, think of all the costs we'd save if the irresponsible were no longer capable of forcing me to pay for their poor decisions and the resulting 'mistakes'.

 

[AmyNation]

The abortion rate had been dropping steadily for more then 10 years, so I'd say it was working pretty well.

There was a point where being an unwed mother was a source of shame, being born out of wedlock was a stigma and a red mark on your birth certificate. Fear of social ostracism kept many from having sex, this is true. However that time is past. Sex no longer carries the shame it once did. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The abortion rate had been dropping steadily for more then 10 years, so I'd say it was working pretty well.

There was a point where being an unwed mother was a source of shame, being born out of wedlock was a stigma and a red mark on your birth certificate. Fear of social ostracism kept many from having sex, this is true. However that time is past. Sex no longer carries the shame it once did. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

What a shame.