Plasmaball
Gold Member
- Sep 9, 2010
- 20,629
- 2,194
- 175
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.
But why use logic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
the Associated Press calling for population control by the hands of the Government
but hey, nothing commie about that
that is why Obama is for abortions and Free Contraceptives
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.
this from the associated press.
-----------
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: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.
Associated Press | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregoneliminate title x family planning funding savings: $300 million. Title x subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like planned parenthood.
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
Old, white Republican men have a better understanding of women and woman's bodies. That's why they need to be in charge.
That money comes from somewhere.
Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.
Tired of paying for Sandra....
Fluke off.
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.
I would like to pay less; paying a little up front prevents you paying a lot later on.
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."
Riddle me this; what do you think happens when you have more unwanted pregnancies that contraception would have prevented?
I wish they would invent male birth control.
Providing low cost/free birth control to poor women saves taxpayers money and reduces the number of abortions.
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.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.
Amazing how that skyrocketed after the implementation of the welfare state.
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.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.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.
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.
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?
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.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.