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

[swizzlee]

And Republicans wonder why they are seen as being anti-women.

And Democrats wonder why they are seen as being stupid.

Stupid enough to get the Women's vote in nearly every presidential election. Scoreboard.

Except for those women who vote Pub......

 

[AmyNation]

"Cutting access" = Someone else won't pay for services rendered and products consumed.

Or that we are spending money smartly.

We spend 300 million a year on birth control.

We spend 32 billion on prisons, mostly inhabited by people born to single parents who had no business having kids.

We spend hundreds of billions on welfare, mostly people who had babies before they got the skills to support them.

Stuff is going to happen. It's spending smart vs. spending stubbornly.

Why not sterilize everyone, that is the progressive solution.

Drama.llama.

 

[candycorn]

"Cutting access" = Someone else won't pay for services rendered and products consumed.

Or that we are spending money smartly.

We spend 300 million a year on birth control.

We spend 32 billion on prisons, mostly inhabited by people born to single parents who had no business having kids.

We spend hundreds of billions on welfare, mostly people who had babies before they got the skills to support them.

Stuff is going to happen. It's spending smart vs. spending stubbornly.

My point exactly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or that we are spending money smartly.

We spend 300 million a year on birth control.

We spend 32 billion on prisons, mostly inhabited by people born to single parents who had no business having kids.

We spend hundreds of billions on welfare, mostly people who had babies before they got the skills to support them.

Stuff is going to happen. It's spending smart vs. spending stubbornly.

Why not sterilize everyone, that is the progressive solution.

Drama.llama.

Tell me that you think Joe actually deserves anything more.

 

[Plasmaball]

I carry strict liability insurance, the only thing it covers is my driving. It doesn't cover me getting hit by anyone else. the reason for that is I trust my driving, but not theirs, and I do not want to pay for their accidents.

Face it, you are wrong, I am not paying for them.

When you have insurance you pay into a pool. The reason your rate is low is because you have a lot of people pitching in. So yes you are paying for them.

Keep trying, but you can't avoid how a insurance system works skippy.

The reason my rate is low is I do not have accidents. If I have accidents my rate will go up even though the size of the pool does not change. If the number of drivers decrease my rates go down because fewer drivers actually mean less chance of my mistake causing damage I am liable for.

i guess this needs to be explained to you again. Your policy is low because you have other people paying in as well. You really think if your insurance had ten people you would be paying such a low rate?
You get into an accident your rate goes up, but not by much. That new rate is still low because you have other people paying into the system to keep your rate down period.
Like this, lets say your company does a point system.
Lets say you are a level 1 and all level ones pay a X amount depending on car value and such. Now lets say you get a ticket for being a moron. This bumps you up into a level 2 point bracket. Which depending on your car will be a preset rate. Why? Because you have thousands of other people paying into the system to keep your motherfucking costs down you dipshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you have insurance you pay into a pool. The reason your rate is low is because you have a lot of people pitching in. So yes you are paying for them.

Keep trying, but you can't avoid how a insurance system works skippy.

The reason my rate is low is I do not have accidents. If I have accidents my rate will go up even though the size of the pool does not change. If the number of drivers decrease my rates go down because fewer drivers actually mean less chance of my mistake causing damage I am liable for.

i guess this needs to be explained to you again. Your policy is low because you have other people paying in as well. You really think if your insurance had ten people you would be paying such a low rate?
You get into an accident your rate goes up, but not by much. That new rate is still low because you have other people paying into the system to keep your rate down period.
Like this, lets say your company does a point system.
Lets say you are a level 1 and all level ones pay a X amount depending on car value and such. Now lets say you get a ticket for being a moron. This bumps you up into a level 2 point bracket. Which depending on your car will be a preset rate. Why? Because you have thousands of other people paying into the system to keep your motherfucking costs down you dipshit.

I guess you think you proved something.

The reason my rate is so low is I get to chose what is, and is not covered on my policy. I get the bare minimum, and could actually get by with less if I was willing to post a bond and assume all the risk myself because California allows drivers to not have insurance at all.

 

[Plasmaball]

The reason my rate is low is I do not have accidents. If I have accidents my rate will go up even though the size of the pool does not change. If the number of drivers decrease my rates go down because fewer drivers actually mean less chance of my mistake causing damage I am liable for.

i guess this needs to be explained to you again. Your policy is low because you have other people paying in as well. You really think if your insurance had ten people you would be paying such a low rate?
You get into an accident your rate goes up, but not by much. That new rate is still low because you have other people paying into the system to keep your rate down period.
Like this, lets say your company does a point system.
Lets say you are a level 1 and all level ones pay a X amount depending on car value and such. Now lets say you get a ticket for being a moron. This bumps you up into a level 2 point bracket. Which depending on your car will be a preset rate. Why? Because you have thousands of other people paying into the system to keep your motherfucking costs down you dipshit.

I guess you think you proved something.

The reason my rate is so low is I get to chose what is, and is not covered on my policy. I get the bare minimum, and could actually get by with less if I was willing to post a bond and assume all the risk myself because California allows drivers to not have insurance at all.

Sigh.....you really are stupid huh? Those things you get to pick and choose are PRESET and low because you pool your resources together with other people.

I proved you are a moron, who thinks your rate is the only reason you pay so little.

Also the bond thing is irrelevant.

I see you are in Cali, thank god i left that state.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Amazing how that skyrocketed after the implementation of the welfare state.

And when was the "welfare state" implemented in your view?

 

[Plasmaball]

Amazing how that skyrocketed after the implementation of the welfare state.

And when was the "welfare state" implemented in your view?

if you look at the chart you will notice it peaked under Reagan.....Just saying

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

First, you must first stop operating from the proposition that unintended pregnancy only results from a failure to be responsible. For someone who says we shouldn't assume such low things of women, you sure seem to be assuming that there's a whole lot of women out there being totally controlled by their urges with no way of dealing with them other than having sex indiscriminately. I have to tell you, that's really a disservice to women.

 

[Jackson]

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

First, you must first stop operating from the proposition that unintended pregnancy only results from a failure to be responsible. For someone who says we shouldn't assume such low things of women, you sure seem to be assuming that there's a whole lot of women out there being totally controlled by their urges with no way of dealing with them other than having sex indiscriminately. I have to tell you, that's really a disservice to women.

Where's the responsibility of the male in all of this?

 

[JoeB131]

"Cutting access" = Someone else won't pay for services rendered and products consumed.

Or that we are spending money smartly.

We spend 300 million a year on birth control.

We spend 32 billion on prisons, mostly inhabited by people born to single parents who had no business having kids.

We spend hundreds of billions on welfare, mostly people who had babies before they got the skills to support them.

Stuff is going to happen. It's spending smart vs. spending stubbornly.

Why not sterilize everyone, that is the progressive solution.

Oh, something about letting people control their own bodies...

Conservatives... they want government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Conservatives are not interested in ‘reducing’ teen pregnancy; that would require acknowledging facts, cooperation, and an open mind.

Conservatives are only interested in compelling others to conform to rightist social dogma. In this case ‘absence only’ is their ‘solution.’

Indeed, most conservatives adhere to the fallacy that providing contraceptives free of charge to young people would condone and facilitate teen sex.

It’s tragic many citizens must suffer as a consequence of conservative ignorance and stupidity.

 

[candycorn]

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

Conservatives are not interested in ‘reducing’ teen pregnancy; that would require acknowledging facts, cooperation, and an open mind.

Conservatives are only interested in compelling others to conform to rightist social dogma. In this case ‘absence only’ is their ‘solution.’

Indeed, most conservatives adhere to the fallacy that providing contraceptives free of charge to young people would condone and facilitate teen sex.

It’s tragic many citizens must suffer as a consequence of conservative ignorance and stupidity.

At the end of the day, it is the woman's responsibility to be responsible for her body. That being said, we all pay for the irresponsibility. We can pay a little now or a lot more later on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i guess this needs to be explained to you again. Your policy is low because you have other people paying in as well. You really think if your insurance had ten people you would be paying such a low rate?
You get into an accident your rate goes up, but not by much. That new rate is still low because you have other people paying into the system to keep your rate down period.
Like this, lets say your company does a point system.
Lets say you are a level 1 and all level ones pay a X amount depending on car value and such. Now lets say you get a ticket for being a moron. This bumps you up into a level 2 point bracket. Which depending on your car will be a preset rate. Why? Because you have thousands of other people paying into the system to keep your motherfucking costs down you dipshit.

I guess you think you proved something.

The reason my rate is so low is I get to chose what is, and is not covered on my policy. I get the bare minimum, and could actually get by with less if I was willing to post a bond and assume all the risk myself because California allows drivers to not have insurance at all.

Sigh.....you really are stupid huh? Those things you get to pick and choose are PRESET and low because you pool your resources together with other people.

I proved you are a moron, who thinks your rate is the only reason you pay so little.

Also the bond thing is irrelevant.

I see you are in Cali, thank god i left that state.

You keep talking about those pools like they control my rate. They don't, they control the risk the insurance company takes. This enables them to charge rates based on the individual choices I make and my driving record. This works in auto insurance because the companies are not mandated to take everyone regardless of risk, and charge them all the same rate while offering full coverage that cover things most drivers do not wont, or need.

That is not how Obamacare works, so claiming that the huge pool will help keep rates low is stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Amazing how that skyrocketed after the implementation of the welfare state.

And when was the "welfare state" implemented in your view?

if you look at the chart you will notice it peaked under Reagan.....Just saying

The word you are looking for there is plateaued.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Or that we are spending money smartly.

We spend 300 million a year on birth control.

We spend 32 billion on prisons, mostly inhabited by people born to single parents who had no business having kids.

We spend hundreds of billions on welfare, mostly people who had babies before they got the skills to support them.

Stuff is going to happen. It's spending smart vs. spending stubbornly.

Why not sterilize everyone, that is the progressive solution.

Oh, something about letting people control their own bodies...

Conservatives... they want government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus.

If you want to control your own body don't ask for my money, which I control.

Just saying.

 

[JoeB131]

Why not sterilize everyone, that is the progressive solution.

Oh, something about letting people control their own bodies...

Conservatives... they want government small enough to fit in a woman's uterus.

If you want to control your own body don't ask for my money, which I control.

Just saying.

Tell you what, you pay for aid to Israel and F-22 Raptors, I'll pay for PBS and birth control.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Plasmaball]

I guess you think you proved something.

The reason my rate is so low is I get to chose what is, and is not covered on my policy. I get the bare minimum, and could actually get by with less if I was willing to post a bond and assume all the risk myself because California allows drivers to not have insurance at all.

Sigh.....you really are stupid huh? Those things you get to pick and choose are PRESET and low because you pool your resources together with other people.

I proved you are a moron, who thinks your rate is the only reason you pay so little.

Also the bond thing is irrelevant.

I see you are in Cali, thank god i left that state.

You keep talking about those pools like they control my rate. They don't, they control the risk the insurance company takes. This enables them to charge rates based on the individual choices I make and my driving record. This works in auto insurance because the companies are not mandated to take everyone regardless of risk, and charge them all the same rate while offering full coverage that cover things most drivers do not wont, or need.

That is not how Obamacare works, so claiming that the huge pool will help keep rates low is stupid.

well yes these large pools do control your rate. I already explained as to why they do, and it seems you are ignoring that fact. Your driving record is only part of the reason as to why your rates are lower but not the main reason.

Well yes you are mandated to get insurance ( minus New Hampshire ) or you don't get to drive. Well you can drive but if something happens you are fucked. Just like health insurance.

Anyways its the same deal with Healthcare. The reason co-pays and such are low is because you have a large pool to create funds to cover people. Obamacare goes slightly further in Mandating people have private insurance. Which really has nothing to do with why things cost what they cost. Sure it increases the pool and resources more, which should lower costs in theory.

The end result is still the same. large pool, preset rates depending on what you pick, costs etc. The more fat people Private insurance companies have the higher the risk for more expensive procedures. Thus your rates may go up and thus you pay for those procedures.

Its really simple, and you are making it into something its really not. I know you like to find one little area of a debate and center around that. It doesn't matter what you do, you are wrong.

 

[Plasmaball]

And when was the "welfare state" implemented in your view?

if you look at the chart you will notice it peaked under Reagan.....Just saying

The word you are looking for there is plateaued.

nope peaked.