It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study measures impact of removing Planned Parenthood from Texas women's health program

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   

The public defunding of Planned Parenthood in Texas may have led to a decrease in highly effective forms of contraceptive services and an increase in Medicaid-paid childbirths among women who previously used injectable contraception, according to a peer-reviewed study by University of Texas at Austin researchers.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Feb. 3, used administrative records to assess rates of the provision of contraceptives, as well as deliveries (childbirth) covered by Medicaid from 2011 through 2014 -- before and after Texas excluded Planned Parenthood affiliates from a publicly funded women's health program.

"Providers who are mission-driven and have the requisite experience and knowledge are critical in providing the most effective methods of contraception -- IUDs, implants and injectables," said Joseph Potter, director of the Texas Policy Evaluation Project and professor in the university's Population Research Center. "From a demographic perspective, this is important because these methods dramatically decrease unintended pregnancy. We also have accumulating evidence of an unmet demand for these methods in Texas."

The study also noted a 27 percent increase in the rate of deliveries paid for by Medicaid among women who received injectable contraceptives prior to funding being barred for Planned Parenthood.


Source.[Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

In other words, in order to appease social conservatives, Texas has cut funding for Planned Parenthood, and the result has been more unwanted pregnancies, increased demand for services from Medicaid, and, ultimately more children born into to poverty, which means that they will become a future drain on state resources. Can you imagine the consequences if this were to happen nationwide.

I suppose someone will come along and say that the state should not be providing Medicaid in the first place, and that the poor children shouldn't be supported by the state. All I can say is: "Jesus loves you anyway."


edit on 5-2-2016 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct typo.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

If they cut funding they will just have to sell more baby parts. (sarc off)

Doesn't say why they cut funding, what funding aren't they cutting nowadays?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Lol yeah I hate it when people are born.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
can you imagine the consequences if a zika virus outbreak was added to the mix? But, they will just come on and say that if we don't want kids, we shouldn't be having sex....
as if that advice was ever helpful...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DJW001

If they cut funding they will just have to sell more baby parts. (sarc off)

Doesn't say why they cut funding, what funding aren't they cutting nowadays?



They are cutting funding because some people believed the body part selling hoax.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
can you imagine the consequences if a zika virus outbreak was added to the mix? But, they will just come on and say that if we don't want kids, we shouldn't be having sex....
as if that advice was ever helpful...


The problem with the zika virus is that it may lead to birth defects, which imposes an additional cost on society. There is not yet enough data to confirm some of the claims (eg; microcephaly) but if true, even a brief epidemic could have consequences that last a generation.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001



and the result has been more unwanted pregnancies, increased demand for services from Medicaid, and, ultimately more children born into to poverty.


See if you aren't killing babies then more babies are born. It is simple math. If the poor can't afford abortions because they are no longer free then it is logical that the "children born into poverty" would go up.

See if you use statics without facts you can twist and turn it any way you want to


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: DJW001



and the result has been more unwanted pregnancies, increased demand for services from Medicaid, and, ultimately more children born into to poverty.


See if you aren't killing babies then more babies are born. It is simple math. If the poor can't afford abortions because they are no longer free then it is logical that the "children born into poverty" would go up.

See if you use statics without facts you can twist and turn it any way you want to


Actually, it's not about abortions, it's about access to contraception. If women had more access to contraception, they wouldn't feel the pressure to have an abortion and both abortions and illegitimate birth rates would go down. The earlier an intervention, the more cost effective it is. That is why education is one of the best investments a society can make.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   


The first blow to Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics in Texas came in 2011, when lawmakers cut family-planning grants by 66% across the state. The money that remained was directed toward community health centers and county health departments that provide more comprehensive care.

This dramatic cut in funding was responsible for the closure of 82 family-planning clinics in the state, researchers said. About one-third of them were affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

News reports at the time suggested the move was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to keep money away from groups that might refer women to abortion clinics.

“Of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything — that's what family planning is supposed to be about,” then-state Rep. Wayne Christian, an East Texas Republican, said in 2011.

The state’s federally funded Medicaid program was not allowed to steer funds away from Planned Parenthood clinics. So in 2013, the state ditched it and set up the state-funded Texas Women’s Health Program, which could legally withhold funds from any clinic affiliated with an abortion provider.

www.latimes.com...


What everyone has been claiming all along, that we don't need to fund groups like planned parenthood since there are plenty of other places they can go, well, Texas already tried that with their state funds. This is the results of just the state funding being cut. Now they want to double down, cut the federal funding also....

Without birth control the average women could very well have over 10 pregnancies throughout their lifetime, more if she doesn't breastfeed. Besides the fact that this eliminates her ability to participate in the workforce, having this many kids increases the risks to her health a great deal! It is just as valid part of healthcare as any other,



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Cause you see that's what it is about. The nuts are furious that people are having sex and "my god" ENJOYING it.
One thing about religious nuts be they Muslim or Christian, they can't stand everyone not suffering as they do



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

OK,

Think about this. Why should the US Taxpayer give Planned Parenthood, a non-government organization, almost half a billion dollars a year "for their services" so that they can kick back millions back into the DNC election coffers?

Planned Parenthood has supported the Democratic party. It poured $18 million into outside spending groups in 2014 and 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
edit on 5-2-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DJW001

If they cut funding they will just have to sell more baby parts. (sarc off)

Doesn't say why they cut funding, what funding aren't they cutting nowadays?



They are cutting funding because some people believed the body part selling hoax.

Whats your source? Linked article doesn't state that.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Well, maybe the women of Texas should give them what they want, state wide abstinence.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

perfect logic!! except the federal and state tax money weren't paying for the abortions. There are non-profits that might help in that area, but if there wasn't well, then the women would be forced to come up with the money themselves. and, well, we are talking about the lower incomes, so in many cases, it might not be possible.
But, I imagine that there were lots of women in the higher income brackets who had no trouble getting their birth control or having abortions at all.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Also note that by rejecting Federal funding because of the "strings," more of the burden is shifted to the state taxpayers.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Yeah, but you gotta admit there was a sharp drop in baby murders. That was what the pro life crowd was trying to achieve.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DJW001

If they cut funding they will just have to sell more baby parts. (sarc off)

Doesn't say why they cut funding, what funding aren't they cutting nowadays?



They are cutting funding because some people believed the body part selling hoax.

Whats your source? Linked article doesn't state that.


Pay attention to current events, please:


The state’s move to end the HIV prevention funding is the latest in its ongoing efforts to cut off taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood. It comes two months after Texas Republican leaders announced they would kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid, the joint federal-state insurer of the poor.

That action was spurred by the release of undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials purportedly showing that the organization improperly harvested aborted fetal tissue for researchers — a claim the group has vehemently denied.

While the group's abortion services are separate from its health care programs, the flare-up propelled Republican leaders to call for defunding Planned Parenthood entirely, including the $3.1 million it receives through Medicaid in Texas to help low-income women access family planning and well-woman services.


www.texastribune.org...

Of course, there has always been opposition to Planned Parenthood from religious Conservatives who are opposed to any form of contraception.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Yeah, but you gotta admit there was a sharp drop in baby murders. That was what the pro life crowd was trying to achieve.


Really? Got any statistics about "baby murders" that include the back alley ones or the ones that involve crossing state lines?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22
I bet if you looked back in history, to the time before modern birth control and where trying to control birth was considered sinful, you'd find that the access to effective birth control caused a much bigger drop baby murders!! and don't forget to include the number of kids that died in those state institutions like the workhouses and poor houses!

and, by the way, that was also a time when women were secretly getting four or more abortions in their lifetime!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Well, maybe the women of Texas should give them what they want, state wide abstinence.


That will be great for people who want to support unmarried teenage mothers!


The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In an effort to reduce these rates, the U.S. government has funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, a public controversy remains over whether this investment has been successful and whether these programs should be continued. Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates.


journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0024658



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join