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

[koshergrl]

So...they were all tested while on board and you viewed the results of all?

Yeah. You're a liar.

 

[Seawytch]

So...they were all tested while on board and you viewed the results of all?

Yeah. You're a liar.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you never served. Since you never served you have no idea what I knew or didn't know (and I would know if any member of the crew tested positive for STDs), so you're calling me a liar just makes you look even more of an ass than ever...and I didn't think that was possible.

You seem young and unemployed. Have you considered military service?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Haven't you learned yet, little sheep, that there is no such thing as a "free" government program?

 

[Grandma]

The bottom line:

Liberal NOW hags for equal treatment demand everyone pay 9 bucks for their birth control- DEPENDING upon others.

Conservative women are independent and choose to be responsible for their own reproductive health.

End of story.

Prove it.

The fact is that southern whites - translate republicans - are the majority of welfare recipients. Are you able to prove that they buy their own birth control pills? Even though they qualify for medicaid, can you prove they pay cash at the gyno's office?

Didn't think so.


If you want to pride yourself, go ahead, but don't make up stories to do it.

 

[candycorn]

The word " free" should clue in the clueless. There is NOTHING free, someone has to pay for it.

Yes, we pay quite a bit for the unwanted pregnancies in the form of overcrowded class rooms, the cycles of poverty that kids often bring on through no fault of their own, etc.... All of that isn't free either.

So the question is do we pay a little now or a lot later on.

How about letting people find out what responsibility is? A new concept for liberals to be sure.

We know what responsibility is; hundreds of millions of dollars for prisons, classrooms that are failing, etc... That is the responsibility the society has for better or for worse.

 

[candycorn]

The bottom line:

Liberal NOW hags for equal treatment demand everyone pay 9 bucks for their birth control- DEPENDING upon others.

Conservative women are independent and choose to be responsible for their own reproductive health.

End of story.

A great many Catholics are on birth control; at odds with their church's teachings. Do you think that is a good thing or not?

 

[candycorn]

So explain to me why we are paying so much more now that abortion is legal and birth control is available to all...

then we were in 1971?

Inflation has affected everything...I'm not sure what the context of "so much more" is.
I will say that the Title X funding is $300M. That comes from Governor Romney's website. He wants to eliminate it. That $300M is the equivalent of $1 in taxes from each citizen. The Title X funding goes to an exclusive subset of the population so measuring it against the macro is hard to formulate.

Logically looking at it though; doesn't it make sense that fewer kids translate into fewer public resources having to be spent in maintaining the kids?

Governor Romney says, again on his website, that it will cut off funding to "abortion groups" like Planned Parenthood; apparently he feels that the cutting off the funding will lead to fewer abortions. No taxpayer monies go to abortions now--by law. The cutting of the funding will lead to more pregnancies obviously. More pregnancies will lead to more abortions. That is a given.

Today, the Title-X-funded network serves over five million people each year in more than 4500 sites, serving as many patients' usual and even only source of health care. According to the Guttmacher Institute, family planning services at Title-X-funded health centers helped prevent 973,000 unintended pregnancies in 2008, which would likely have resulted in 432,600 unintended births and 406,200 abortions. Title-X-funded services produce significant cost savings to the federal and state governments; services provided at Title-X–supported clinics accounted for $3.4 billion in such savings in 2008 alone. When all 2008 public funds are taken into account, more than $5 billion in public funds were saved — for every public dollar invested in family planning care, nearly $4 in Medicaid expenditures were averted.

Despite the benefit to the public health and the public purse, Title X appropriations have not grown with the need for subsidized care. The program has been chronically underfunded by both Democratic and Republican administrations — if appropriations had kept up with inflation since FY 1980, the program would be funded at $840.1 million rather than the FY 2010 funding level of $317.5 million. Put another way, funding for Title X in constant dollars (i.e., taking inflation into account) is 62% lower today than it was 30 years ago.​

Title X: A Proud Past, An Uncertain Future

Fantastic piece...thanks for posting that.

What I would like to stress is this passage from the above:

Today, the Title-X-funded network serves over five million people each year in more than 4500 sites,

4,500 Sites.

From the Planned Parenthood Website:

In our most populous state, there are 20 PP offices. In our 2nd most populous state, TX, there are 20. Obviously Title X Funding reaches far more than just PP sites.

Why the Governor wants to eliminate the funing to supposedly eliminate abortions is quite a paradox since it will only lead to more babies being carried to term.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The bottom line:

Liberal NOW hags for equal treatment demand everyone pay 9 bucks for their birth control- DEPENDING upon others.

Conservative women are independent and choose to be responsible for their own reproductive health.

End of story.

A great many Catholics are on birth control; at odds with their church's teachings. Do you think that is a good thing or not?

I think that is a decision for them to make, not you or I.

 

[koshergrl]

Inflation has affected everything...I'm not sure what the context of "so much more" is.
I will say that the Title X funding is $300M. That comes from Governor Romney's website. He wants to eliminate it. That $300M is the equivalent of $1 in taxes from each citizen. The Title X funding goes to an exclusive subset of the population so measuring it against the macro is hard to formulate.

Logically looking at it though; doesn't it make sense that fewer kids translate into fewer public resources having to be spent in maintaining the kids?

Governor Romney says, again on his website, that it will cut off funding to "abortion groups" like Planned Parenthood; apparently he feels that the cutting off the funding will lead to fewer abortions. No taxpayer monies go to abortions now--by law. The cutting of the funding will lead to more pregnancies obviously. More pregnancies will lead to more abortions. That is a given.

Today, the Title-X-funded network serves over five million people each year in more than 4500 sites, serving as many patients' usual and even only source of health care. According to the Guttmacher Institute, family planning services at Title-X-funded health centers helped prevent 973,000 unintended pregnancies in 2008, which would likely have resulted in 432,600 unintended births and 406,200 abortions. Title-X-funded services produce significant cost savings to the federal and state governments; services provided at Title-X–supported clinics accounted for $3.4 billion in such savings in 2008 alone. When all 2008 public funds are taken into account, more than $5 billion in public funds were saved — for every public dollar invested in family planning care, nearly $4 in Medicaid expenditures were averted.

Despite the benefit to the public health and the public purse, Title X appropriations have not grown with the need for subsidized care. The program has been chronically underfunded by both Democratic and Republican administrations — if appropriations had kept up with inflation since FY 1980, the program would be funded at $840.1 million rather than the FY 2010 funding level of $317.5 million. Put another way, funding for Title X in constant dollars (i.e., taking inflation into account) is 62% lower today than it was 30 years ago.
​

Title X: A Proud Past, An Uncertain Future

Fantastic piece...thanks for posting that.

What I would like to stress is this passage from the above:

Today, the Title-X-funded network serves over five million people each year in more than 4500 sites,

4,500 Sites.

From the Planned Parenthood Website:

In our most populous state, there are 20 PP offices. In our 2nd most populous state, TX, there are 20. Obviously Title X Funding reaches far more than just PP sites.

Why the Governor wants to eliminate the funing to supposedly eliminate abortions is quite a paradox since it will only lead to more babies being carried to term.

And God knows, babies is de debbil!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I'll bet you are wondering why the GOP is having problems with women these days...

To tell the truth, what I want to know is why anyone thinks that women have a problem with Republicans.

Because Obama enjoys a double digit lead over the Weird Mormon Robot amongst women.

If we were to believe that poll we would have to be really stupid. You might qualify on that, but I do not.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Here's a suggestion for all the bleeding heart, enabling libtards who apparently believe that it is a woman's right, (in some twisted sense), to take funds from those who have earned them in order to facilitate their irresponsible sexual behavior, whether it be for birth control, abortions, or to support the outcome of their choices.
Why don't you libtard thieves step up and found you very own charitable organization, the goal of which would be to provide 'free' coverage for bc and abortions? Then you all can be free to donate your little wallets empty, if that's what you want to do. That way, you can all get your warm fuzzies, jerk each other off, and congratulate yourselves about what fine, decent people you all are. 'Cause personally, I'm tired of paying for your cum-crusted drawers, too.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He is a she who is smart enough to know when I'm seeing a married woman. I also never claimed to have fun on port calls (not that kind anyway). I was in a relationship whenever I was deployed.

So you are psychic, can you tell me what the lottery numbers will be for my birthday?

Why do I have to be psychic to know I've never slept with a married woman? It would seem to me that your insistence that I have speaks volumes about you, not me.

Anyone that claims they can tell if a woman is married simply by looking at them is a liar. If you prefer to be called a lair to being mocked for being psychic I will gladly call you a lair.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not while I was on it. I did have a student contract HIV when I was an instructor.

Liar.

Really? That's what you come up with, that I'm a liar?

To what end? What purpose would it serve? You do realize there were only about 100 people on my ship, not the hundreds that would deploy on a Navy ship.

I'm not a liar, but you definitely are a complete asshole.

Unless you were on that boat for less than 10 minutes someone got an STD while you were on it. Even if every single sailor used a condom, something I am sure even you are not dumb enough to actually believe, condoms only reduce the risk of transmission, they do not prevent it.

You are right that I am an asshole, but that does not change the fact that your statement is scientifically impossible for anyone to believe, which makes you a liar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because there's no way that you could know that nobody had an std.

Therefore, when you state that you know that nobody had an std, you're lying.

There is that too. Even if she had been the medic instead of a radio operator, there is no way she could know that no one got an std. Some STDs do not produce symptoms for years, making it impossible to say no one got an STD.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because there's no way that you could know that nobody had an std.

Therefore, when you state that you know that nobody had an std, you're lying.

Actually I could. As leading Chief of the Mess and as a Radioman who processed all communications from the ship, I knew a lot more about the crew than I ever cared to.

Still lying.

 

[g5000]

Sorry, Seawytch, but STDs have always been a problem in the military. That's why they show all those gross films in boot camp.

Sexually-Transmitted Diseases Rise Among Deployed Troops, In Line with Civilian Rates

Sexually-transmitted diseases are on the rise in troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a study which recommends more screening and health education.

Gonorrhea rates ranged from 5 per 100,000 deployed personnel in 2005 to 17.6 per 100,000 deployed personnel in 2008 and 2009. Despite the increase, the rates of gonorrhea in the deployed troops to Iraq were either lower than or not statistically different from U.S. rates reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Chlamydia rates were highest among those who deployed to Iraq and peaked in 2009 with a total rate of 246.3 per 100,000 deployed personnel with higher rates in women (770.9 per 100,000), than in men (192.6 per 100,000). According to the CDC, chlamydia is the most commonly reported STD in the U.S.

While the incidence rates in male troops were statistically lower than the U.S. rates of chlamydia, rates in troops have been increasing since 2006. For women, during and after 2007, the chlamydia rates among female troops approximated U.S. infection rates.

“Each year of the analysis reveals an increasing number of infections with more chlamydia than gonorrhea infections and more males than females being positive, in large part due to the small numbers of females deployed,” the study authors stated.

But if it is any consolation, that is evidence that heteros are just as dirty with STDs as gays!

.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Mosst people that want to get free birth control probably spend $40-$100 on a night of booze and food before they engage in sex....but of course they can't afford birth control after spending their money on themselves, eh?

 

[g5000]

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

You assumptions are wrong.

The St. Louis study was a cost above and beyond current funding. And if current federal funding is $300 million, then to expand the St. Louis CHOICE experiment nationwide would cost billions of taxpayer dollars.

By the way, here's the study if anyone wants to read it beside me: Preventing Unintended Pregnancies by Providing No-Cost Contr... : Obstetrics & Gynecology



.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So...they were all tested while on board and you viewed the results of all?

Yeah. You're a liar.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you never served. Since you never served you have no idea what I knew or didn't know (and I would know if any member of the crew tested positive for STDs), so you're calling me a liar just makes you look even more of an ass than ever...and I didn't think that was possible.

You seem young and unemployed. Have you considered military service?

I was in the Navy, and visited foreign ports. One guy in my division came down with NSU while deployed despite the fact that he had condoms. The only testing we got was during our annual physical, and not everyone gets one of those before a transfer. only a liar, or a fool, would claim that no one ever got an STD on a boat during their entire tour.

Do you prefer to be called a fool?

 

[GHook93]

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

The primary source of free birth control is condoms you douche bag!

This is one area the GOP is dead wrong on. Condoms should be readily available at all highschools in a don't ask/don't tell policy. I won't have used condoms in highschool if I wasn't able to grab some from the fish bowl in the nurse's office. It didn't have to do some much with the money issues, rather the embarrassment of buying condoms from a cashier when your so young!