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

you realize no Birth control costs 9 dollars right? The only reason might be because of a co-pay due to private insurance.

But why use logic.
 
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.

The problem with that is, as you saw with Obamacare, you get the politically motivated "opt out" if you don't make it a federal program.

I'm speculating here but I saw this the other day:

Mississippi Is The Poorest And Fattest State In America

We have hospitals in Mississippi through one of our affiliated brands. I haven't called over there but I would be interested to see how many "Larry Chairs" they have to purchase--armless chairs for patient and waiting rooms because tubby people can't fit in ones that have arms. I would speculate that if you were to ask the average Mississippian about the Federal Government or Michelle Obama's childhood obesity cessation initiatives, you'd get an earful about how they don't want it.

And it's no coincidence that a great many other states on that list of poorest are traditional "red states"

Maryland is the richest state; Mississippi is the poorest - Bottom Line

It's no coincidence that largely these same poorest states are also the fattest:

fatasiam.jpg


We all could shed a few pounds I know--me included but the point is that there is a bias against federal initiatives. For fun, lets look at the graduation rates:

graduation-rates-in-us1.png


These would probably be the first states to tell you they don't need no stinkin' department of education.
 
Mississippi is a shit hole. They also have the highest rate of teen pregnancy and have done everything in their power to ban planned parenthood.

However, if the people of Mississippi like being fat, stupid with lots of 14 year old moms on welfare, that's their right.
 
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

tanstaafl
 
Old, white Republican men have a better understanding of women and woman's bodies. That's why they need to be in charge.

If wimmen folks don't want me talking about them they can stop asking me to pay for their wimmen problems.
 
That money comes from somewhere.

Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.

Tired of paying for Sandra....

Fluke off.

Yes, indeed, Heaven forbid we have some kind of positive result that contradicts the ideology of the pro-birth crowd.
 
Birth Control and abortions should have a separate charity. If you want women to have free BC pills, donate to the cause. If you think that there should be an abortion in every belly, kick in some bucks.
 
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.

And it's not free, by the way. Someone is paying for it, like me.

Which is why I didn't say "free". You're also paying for schools that aren't doing a good job of preparing our children, entitlements to feed impoverished people, and prison cells to house criminals.

None of which justify nor have any relevancy whatsoever to handing out "free" birth control to people.

I would like to pay less; paying a little up front prevents you paying a lot later on.

Not paying for it at all saves the most

And also, the irony is that the elimination (not cut--elimination) in Title X funding is supposedly being done to prevent funding from going to "abortion groups like Planned Parenthood."

Planned Parenthood is a strong enough organization to stand on their own two feet without my money.

Riddle me this; what do you think happens when you have more unwanted pregnancies that contraception would have prevented?

Obviously, you have more abortions or more children running around. What was the riddle, Batman?
 
Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

True, it may reduce the number of abortions, but regarding saving taxpayer money that is a false dichotomy predicated on the idea that we have to pay for their bastard child rather than choosing to pay for him.
 
Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

True, it may reduce the number of abortions, but regarding saving taxpayer money that is a false dichotomy predicated on the idea that we have to pay for their bastard child rather than choosing to pay for him.
You and I do have to pay for it, because that poor woman qualifies for pages of government programs and assistance she didn't qualify for as soon as that baby pops out, some even before than.
 
Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.

True, it may reduce the number of abortions, but regarding saving taxpayer money that is a false dichotomy predicated on the idea that we have to pay for their bastard child rather than choosing to pay for him.
You and I do have to pay for it, because that poor woman qualifies for pages of government programs and assistance she didn't qualify for as soon as that baby pops out, some even before than.

We pay for it because the government chooses to pay for it. They are under no Constitutional obligation to do so. It is a choice, plain and simple.
 
True, it may reduce the number of abortions, but regarding saving taxpayer money that is a false dichotomy predicated on the idea that we have to pay for their bastard child rather than choosing to pay for him.
You and I do have to pay for it, because that poor woman qualifies for pages of government programs and assistance she didn't qualify for as soon as that baby pops out, some even before than.

We pay for it because the government chooses to pay for it. They are under no Constitutional obligation to do so. It is a choice, plain and simple.
We pay for it because we live in a society that has decided to do so. While I believe we are in desperate need of welfare reform, I am also under no illusion that when that comes we will end up not paying for poor women who choose to have babies they can't afford.
 
If women know, in advance, that they won't get a benefit from having children, and won't get a free abortion perhaps they might become a teensy bit more responsible. To assume that women can't do anything, are totally controlled by their urges and have no way of dealing with them other than having sex indiscriminately, is a disservice to women.

The realization is painful. Women are not in control of their own bodies, how can they be trusted to run a business? Women cannot control themselves, at all and needs someone else to come along and help them clean up the mess they made of their lives. We're really going backwards to the days when women were not given positions of responsibility at all. Women simply did not have the judgment to be responsible. It took decades to force society to trust women. Now, women are taking great effort to prove that they never could be trusted in the first place. If they can't control their own bodies they can't control anything.
 
So ... let me buy your condoms so you can have sex, is different than me giving you 10.00 bucks for a blowjob how?
 
That money comes from somewhere.

Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.

Tired of paying for Sandra....

Fluke off.

So...a woman who is still young, but she and her husband have had enough children should just never have sex because they might get pregnant?

Are conservatives retarded, or are they living in a dream world?

If your married you should be adult enough to go to walmart and get a damn condom. The're is also you can do natural methods where you take your temp and chart .. You are only fertile 2 to 3 days a month.. If you chart every day you will know your safe zones and guess what that is only the cost of a Thermometer and a chart and pen . Shoot the're websites you chart your cycle.. I am so tired of excuses..
 
You and I do have to pay for it, because that poor woman qualifies for pages of government programs and assistance she didn't qualify for as soon as that baby pops out, some even before than.

We pay for it because the government chooses to pay for it. They are under no Constitutional obligation to do so. It is a choice, plain and simple.
We pay for it because we live in a society that has decided to do so. While I believe we are in desperate need of welfare reform, I am also under no illusion that when that comes we will end up not paying for poor women who choose to have babies they can't afford.

What you do is take babies they can't afford away from them. That's how you handle it. You give the woman nothing, not a cent, not a sou or a ha'penny, and take the child away. You give a price to pay, consequences, and when the benefit is gone, behavior changes.

When I was little and we were homeless as a chosen lifestyle, my parents lived on the street and ate out of garbage cans until a judge said "the child goes". I was taken away and sent to live with an aunt until such time as my parents got an act together, got a job and paid rent on an apartment. Had we gotten welfare instead, my Dad would never have worked a day in his life.
 

Forum List

Back
Top