Planned Parenthood prevented over 3 million abortions in 2011

[M14 Shooter]

So, condoms don't prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So you accept the premise that since PPH gave out 3 million condoms that equals 3 million abortions prevented? I got that right?

No, the fact is that making contraception affordable and available will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of abortions. That alone makes PP a valuable resource, and indeed deserving of funding.

However true that may be, it doesnt change the fact that the "prevented 3 million abortions" claim in the OP was a lie.

 

[Zander]

XXXXXXX

Wow, you are so deep.....

 

[Article 15]

XXXXXXX

Wow, you are so deep.....

Sums them up quite succintly.

 

[catzmeow]

Applying your "logic", we should simply subsidize Trojan and other condom manufacturers to offer their products for free directly to the public. Why go through a middle man?

Because condoms aren't the most effective form of birth control, for starters. The failure rate is about 10x higher than methods like IUDs, birth control pills, depo-provera hormone injections, and hormone implants and patches.

But, in some ways, your comment isn't far off base.

Providing free birth control to poor women significantly reduces abortion and unplanned pregnancies:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/

Over the course of the study, which lasted from 2008 to 2010, women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies than expected: there were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, after adjusting for age and race — much fewer than the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women and lower also than the rate in the St. Louis area of 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

The effect of free contraception on the teen birth rate was remarkable: there were 6.3 births per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19 in the study, compared with the national rate of 34.3 births per 1,000 teen girls.

In other words, providing free birth control cut teen pregnancies by 544%. It cut abortions by 261%.

Which do you think is cheaper? Giving away condoms or subsidizing teen moms? Which do you think would have a greater likelihood of increasing these girls' graduation rates and odds of becoming taxpayers--giving away birth control or maintaining our present system?

 

[GHook93]

Pretty impressive. Worth every penny of funding they get.

2011-2012 Annual Report

Where in the report are you getting the 3 million number?

 

[Trajan]

paying for contraception equates caring to avoiding abortions? that's pretty simplistic don't you think?

Ockham's razor.

so you don't have an explanation. or care to share one.

and that works both ways, some apparently don't care about others views of morality in that paying for someones abortion or contraceptives may violate their conscience....?

Do you care about violating my conscience in regards to the Iraq War? No?

I have no idea what that has to do this, ( strawman[?]).

We live in a constitutional republic. That means that if the majority of voters don't share your views, they will overrule your morality.

Welcome to America.

I am not debating that, here;

this is what I said-

and that works both ways, some apparently don't care about others views of morality in that paying for someones abortion or contraceptives may violate their conscience....?


and a part you dropped from the original-


they are making the demand upon others and as I said some may have religious issues or plain issues of conscience for whatever reason, why are they criticized?

 

[Trajan]

Applying your "logic", we should simply subsidize Trojan and other condom manufacturers to offer their products for free directly to the public. Why go through a middle man?

Because condoms aren't the most effective form of birth control, for starters. The failure rate is about 10x higher than methods like IUDs, birth control pills, depo-provera hormone injections, and hormone implants and patches.

But, in some ways, your comment isn't far off base.

Providing free birth control to poor women significantly reduces abortion and unplanned pregnancies:

Study: Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates | TIME.com

Over the course of the study, which lasted from 2008 to 2010, women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies than expected: there were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, after adjusting for age and race — much fewer than the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women and lower also than the rate in the St. Louis area of 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

The effect of free contraception on the teen birth rate was remarkable: there were 6.3 births per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19 in the study, compared with the national rate of 34.3 births per 1,000 teen girls.

In other words, providing free birth control cut teen pregnancies by 544%. It cut abortions by 261%.

Which do you think is cheaper? Giving away condoms or subsidizing teen moms? Which do you think would have a greater likelihood of increasing these girls' graduation rates and odds of becoming taxpayers--giving away birth control or maintaining our present system?

so is it all $$$ and cents? is there room for ones religious objection(s) as to being a part of the framework delivering this?

perhaps the fact that teens are having sex at younger ages (relatively) over decades) is an issue?

Are there any demographic peculiarities/standouts?


I am not totally against what you frame there, but I do have a question, lets take sanda fluke, do you think her points her valid?


your remarks and data , 261%- abortions cut due to contraception can hardly be verified, why use it?

 

[Trajan]

So, condoms don't prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So you accept the premise that since PPH gave out 3 million condoms that equals 3 million abortions prevented? I got that right?

No, the fact is that making contraception affordable and available will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of abortions. That alone makes PP a valuable resource, and indeed deserving of funding.

do you think agencies/prgms/organization that benefit from gov. largesse should submit detailed audit inforamtion as to use of these funds?

 

[catzmeow]

so is it all $$$ and cents?

For me, it is, I understand others don't share my views. On the flip side, I don't think that doing nothing works...it creates a cycle of poverty that is repeated from generation to generation. This isn't new information, if you'd talked to people in 1913, they'd have told you that a certain segment of the population (many of them poor) had children they could not afford to raise and this contributed to crime and other social problems in that era.

is there room for ones religious objection(s) as to being a part of the framework delivering this?

Yes, but no one forces religious people to go to a clinic and pick up free birth control, do they? So, what role do you see religious objections playing in the framework?

perhaps the fact that teens are having sex at younger ages (relatively) over decades) is an issue?

teens are also maturing sexually at a much earlier age over the past few decades, as well. Girls have more mature bodies these days at the local middle school by my house than they did in high school in the 1980s, from what I've observed.

Hell, I didn't even grow breasts until I was 18.

Are there any demographic peculiarities/standouts?

I don't understand the question?

I am not totally against what you frame there, but I do have a question, lets take sanda fluke, do you think her points her valid?

I'm not an expert on Sandra Fluke, what was her point?

your remarks and data , 261%- abortions cut due to contraception can hardly be verified, why use it?

I gave you the link to the data...it's based upon a study conducted in St. Louis with several thousand poor women. It's completely verifiable.

 

[catzmeow]

So you accept the premise that since PPH gave out 3 million condoms that equals 3 million abortions prevented? I got that right?

No, the fact is that making contraception affordable and available will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of abortions. That alone makes PP a valuable resource, and indeed deserving of funding.

do you think agencies/prgms/organization that benefit from gov. largesse should submit detailed audit inforamtion as to use of these funds?

Absolutely. I think government programs should do so, as well.

 

[catzmeow]

so you don't have an explanation. or care to share one.

Read your own post. You called my post simplistic, I referred to Occham's razor, which states that the simplest explanation is generally the correct one.

 

[catzmeow]

and that works both ways, some apparently don't care about others views of morality in that paying for someones abortion or contraceptives may violate their conscience....?

they are making the demand upon others and as I said some may have religious issues or plain issues of conscience for whatever reason, why are they criticized?

I'm not criticizing their religious beliefs, but people often disagree with the course that the majority of voters wish to follow. Religious people aren't entitled to infringe on the actions of the majority simply because they have issues of conscience. We have religious freedom here, but that doesn't mean that a Quaker can opt out of paying taxes that fund our military because he is a pacifist.

It's fine to disagree, but often religious people seem to believe that the rest of us should somehow allow them to opt out of paying for programs they don't like or have religious objections to. Our constitutional republic doesn't work that way.

 

[Ravi]

So you accept the premise that since PPH gave out 3 million condoms that equals 3 million abortions prevented? I got that right?

No, the fact is that making contraception affordable and available will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of abortions. That alone makes PP a valuable resource, and indeed deserving of funding.

do you think agencies/prgms/organization that benefit from gov. largesse should submit detailed audit inforamtion as to use of these funds?

Including churches. And their hospitals that get funding from the government.

 

[catzmeow]

And colleges/universities.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Applying your "logic", we should simply subsidize Trojan and other condom manufacturers to offer their products for free directly to the public. Why go through a middle man?

Because condoms aren't the most effective form of birth control, for starters. The failure rate is about 10x higher than methods like IUDs, birth control pills, depo-provera hormone injections, and hormone implants and patches.

But, in some ways, your comment isn't far off base.

Providing free birth control to poor women significantly reduces abortion and unplanned pregnancies:

Study: Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates | TIME.com

Over the course of the study, which lasted from 2008 to 2010, women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies than expected: there were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, after adjusting for age and race — much fewer than the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women and lower also than the rate in the St. Louis area of 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

The effect of free contraception on the teen birth rate was remarkable: there were 6.3 births per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19 in the study, compared with the national rate of 34.3 births per 1,000 teen girls.

In other words, providing free birth control cut teen pregnancies by 544%. It cut abortions by 261%.

Which do you think is cheaper? Giving away condoms or subsidizing teen moms? Which do you think would have a greater likelihood of increasing these girls' graduation rates and odds of becoming taxpayers--giving away birth control or maintaining our present system?

Slightly off topic but your statistics just blew the women dont use abortions as birth control argument apart

 

[MeBelle]

No, the fact is that making contraception affordable and available will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which in turn will reduce the likelihood of abortions. That alone makes PP a valuable resource, and indeed deserving of funding.

do you think agencies/prgms/organization that benefit from gov. largesse should submit detailed audit inforamtion as to use of these funds?

Including churches. And their hospitals that get funding from the government.

Not sure what is meant by churches, but as far as hospitals, they have strict adherence policies with the Government in order to receive Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements.
I really like the new policy where if a hospital releases a patient to a LTC facility too early and the patient has to be re-admitted to the hospital, the hospital gets dinged.

 

[Ravi]

do you think agencies/prgms/organization that benefit from gov. largesse should submit detailed audit inforamtion as to use of these funds?

Including churches. And their hospitals that get funding from the government.

Not sure what is meant by churches, but as far as hospitals, they have strict adherence policies with the Government in order to receive Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements.
I really like the new policy where if a hospital releases a patient to a LTC facility too early and the patient has to be re-admitted to the hospital, the hospital gets dinged.

Churches get tax exemptions and many of them receive funding thru faith based initiatives.

 

[catzmeow]

Applying your "logic", we should simply subsidize Trojan and other condom manufacturers to offer their products for free directly to the public. Why go through a middle man?

Because condoms aren't the most effective form of birth control, for starters. The failure rate is about 10x higher than methods like IUDs, birth control pills, depo-provera hormone injections, and hormone implants and patches.

But, in some ways, your comment isn't far off base.

Providing free birth control to poor women significantly reduces abortion and unplanned pregnancies:

Study: Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates | TIME.com

Over the course of the study, which lasted from 2008 to 2010, women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies than expected: there were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, after adjusting for age and race — much fewer than the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women and lower also than the rate in the St. Louis area of 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women.

The effect of free contraception on the teen birth rate was remarkable: there were 6.3 births per 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19 in the study, compared with the national rate of 34.3 births per 1,000 teen girls.

In other words, providing free birth control cut teen pregnancies by 544%. It cut abortions by 261%.

Which do you think is cheaper? Giving away condoms or subsidizing teen moms? Which do you think would have a greater likelihood of increasing these girls' graduation rates and odds of becoming taxpayers--giving away birth control or maintaining our present system?

Slightly off topic but your statistics just blew the women dont use abortions as birth control argument apart

Given that I've never made that argument, I don't really give a fuck. Nor do I think it's even relevant.

Of course women use abortion as birth control when they don't have access to reliable, safe, effective birth control. But, when they do, abortions are substantially reduced. I'd advise that people who really hate abortion should reconsider their opinions on providing free birth control to poor women, given that it clearly is the lesser of two evils.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Because condoms aren't the most effective form of birth control, for starters. The failure rate is about 10x higher than methods like IUDs, birth control pills, depo-provera hormone injections, and hormone implants and patches.

But, in some ways, your comment isn't far off base.

Providing free birth control to poor women significantly reduces abortion and unplanned pregnancies:

Study: Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates | TIME.com



In other words, providing free birth control cut teen pregnancies by 544%. It cut abortions by 261%.

Which do you think is cheaper? Giving away condoms or subsidizing teen moms? Which do you think would have a greater likelihood of increasing these girls' graduation rates and odds of becoming taxpayers--giving away birth control or maintaining our present system?

Slightly off topic but your statistics just blew the women dont use abortions as birth control argument apart

Given that I've never made that argument, I don't really give a fuck. Nor do I think it's even relevant.

Of course women use abortion as birth control when they don't have access to reliable, safe, effective birth control. But, when they do, abortions are substantially reduced. I'd advise that people who really hate abortion should reconsider their opinions on providing free birth control to poor women, given that it clearly is the lesser of two evils.

I admitted the statement was slightly off topic and never implied that you personally made such an argument. I've known you less than a month, I take you at your word that you never have.

Likewise, I have never made the argument that I hate abortion. Fact is, for myself it would take some pretty odd circumstances for me to countenance it to a family member, but I am a firm believer in mind your own fucking business when it comes to what other people do.

BUT I am just as firm of a believer in that when it comes to TAXPAYER money that you are spending then yes the TAXPAYER gets a say in what you do. It is no longer YOUR business. It's the way I run my personal life Catzmeow. I don't care what you do with your money, but if I am helping support you then I am going to expect certain things in return.

I don't even have anything against funding Planned Parenthood myself, except that it is just one more thing out there that the "poor" can use to grab taxpayer money.

People can only make so many grabs before the rest of us get sick of it.

So, I have a personal objection to abortion , that's true; but that isn't what this is about to me.

 

[catzmeow]

The thing is...if you don't prevent a lot of these births, you will end up spending more TAXPAYER money. And, I'm not even talking about welfare.

I'm talking about kids who grow up in poverty with irresponsible parents who abuse/neglect them (i.e., committing a crime against society) that then require the intervention of a system of protection for children that is inordinately expensive (and underfunded to serve the amount of children who are in it for substantiated cases of neglect/abuse).

So, you have the unwanted pregnancy, which often results in an unwanted child that is abused/neglected or represents nothing more than a check to subsidize the mom's dependency. You pay for all of that.

Then, you pay for juvenile court judges who preside over these cases of abuse/neglect.
You pay for prosecutors who prosecute them.
You pay for probation officers for mom/dad.
You pay for prison time for parents in extreme cases.
You pay for healthcare and mental health costs for these children.
You pay to house these children in foster homes and group homes (of which there are never enough because it costs a lot to house a child).
You pay for that child's lack of success in school and ongoing issues with trauma and mental health issues and the disruptions they cause in their school environment that involve teachers, administrators, counselors, and school resource officers.
You pay for that child's lack of a male role model and early involvement in the juvenile justice system.
You pay for that child's offenses against innocent members of society in higher insurance rates and harm to innocent people.
You pay for that child's probation officer, case workers, and juvenile court judges.
You pay for the police officers who respond to the scene of the crime, investigate, and provide reports to prosecutors.
You pay for the prosecutors of that child.
And, you pay for that individual's court sanctions, including probation officers, prisons, halfway houses, and parole officers.
And, in a lot of cases, you ultimately pay to house that child for years in prison (at the cost of $50k annually, most of which goes to pay for guards and constructing large secure buildings to keep the inmates from harming each other and the guards and from escaping back into society to victimize people again).

and the list goes on and on and on.

How many current American prison inmates came from the very scenario which I just described?

It makes birth control look incredibly cheap.

And that doesn't even touch on preventing abortions or welfare costs.

I don't work in the welfare system, I work with violent offenders. There is a cycle here that results in the people I work with.

I'd like to see that cycle stopped. It would have untold benefits for all of us in the long run, even if it might make my job obsolete.