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

originally posted by: windword

A "State" doesn't "deem" anything. A court of law makes determinations if laws have been broken and unethical practices perpetrated. Abortion is a constitutionally protected and legal medical procedure. Planned Parenthood has been cleared of any illegal, i.e. "unethical" practices by courts, investigations and hearings.

Ya whatever...lol

You just want to argue I think, not sure why. When I said deem, I assumed we all would see that as though proper channels. I'm not sure why you keep thinking I'm trying to say something else...lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm not sure why you keep thinking I'm trying to say something else...lol

It's simple. You think that, because Planned Parenthood performs abortion, they are unethical and shouldn't be allowed to participate in government funded projects.

You have stereotyped the clients of Planned Parenthood as irresponsible probable alcoholics and chain smokers, at best, that shouldn't have had children and don't deserve access to birth control.

When I said deem, I assumed we all would see that as though proper channels.

What channels would those be?

n/m....

a reply to: dawnstar

A star for your thoughts, my dear.......

a reply to: windword

I misread the date on the article, it was old news that I thought was new...
need new glasses....

this is an interesting tidbit of information though:

• In 2013, publicly funded family planning services helped women to avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in about 1 million unintended births and nearly 700,000 abortions.[10]

• In 2013, without publicly funded family planning services from all sources, the number of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions occurring in the United States would have been 60% higher.

• In 2013, without publicly funded family planning services from centers alone, the number of unintended pregnancies, unplanned births and abortions among all women, as well as the number of teen pregnancies, would have all been 42% higher.

• In 2013, publicly funded family planning services provided at Title X–supported centers helped prevent 1 million unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in about 501,000 unintended births and 345,000 abortions.[5]

www.guttmacher.org...

originally posted by: windword
It's simple. You think that, because Planned Parenthood performs abortion, they are unethical and shouldn't be allowed to participate in government funded projects.

Nope, your words not mine. I said if they have done unethical practices, I didn't say abortions were unethical.

You have stereotyped the clients of Planned Parenthood as irresponsible probable alcoholics and chain smokers, at best, that shouldn't have had children and don't deserve access to birth control.

Once again that is your stereotype. I said that poor people seem to be able afford booze and cigs but not birth control. Everyone has access to birth control so "don't deserve access to birth control" are your words again.... People should have children if they can afford them, and if they choose to have children and can not afford them then they are still their responsibility.

What channels would those be?

The courts... Abortions are legal so I'm not debating abortions.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What channels would those be?


The courts... Abortions are legal so I'm not debating abortions.

You came into this thread promoting the idea of the State of Texas finding a replacement for Planned Parenthood, on the heals of a Texas Grand Jury having cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing or "unethical" practices.

You have accused Planned Parenthood clients of prioritizing booze and cigarettes over their reproductive health.

Your posts! Not my words!

a reply to: Xtrozero

Where does this sterotype of mothers and children come from? What is so fun about being pregnant anymore? Your wife says honey I'm pregenant and that is the end of it for you. Do you know what a woman goes through just find out she is preganant? If men had to suffer having instruments inserted in their orifices every time they went to the doctor, you would have a different view of women. You must believe millions of us are psychotic to want that so bad we want it for free.

a reply to: DJW001

Has any decrease in government spending of any kind ever been shown to have a negative affect on anything in the long term? I am ready to read the studies I will be presented with now. Anyone?

a reply to: centarix

Has any decrease in government spending of any kind ever been shown to have a negative affect on anything in the long term? I am ready to read the studies

Here ya go.....

IT'S OFFICIAL: Cutting Government Spending Is Hurting Our Economy

State Mental Health Cuts: A National Crisis - NAMI

The Effect of Federal Budget Cuts on States and Localities
When the federal government starts reducing its deficit, watch out below!

Happy reading!

This might not related to much to the planned parenthood debate, but I think that it might substantiate my idea that some people's main objection is that they don't want birth control to be on par with healthcare needs. They just don't consider it healthcare! They object to the gov't spending money on it, they object to insurance covering it... because in their minds... it is not healthcare!

This is talking about the current cases the supreme court is deciding on this term over weather or not the idea of having to sign a simple form to get out of insuring employees for birth control is betraying someone's personal beliefs. They are talking about some of the neat ways the gov't could do things to relieve those religious groups of that burden.

The objecting employers in this case are proposing a variety of government programs, including some in which there are government incentives rather than direct government payments. The myriad ideas proposed, often without details, share fatal flaws. They all remove contraception from a woman’s regular insurance system, impose additional logistical burdens, and reinstate the very economic hardships that the contraceptive coverage benefit was designed to remove. The D.C. Circuit, in considering a range of those proposed alternatives, recognized that none would be a less restrictive means, concluding that, “[e]ven assuming that any alternative program had or would develop the capacity to deal with an enormous additional constituency, it would not serve the government’s compelling interest with anywhere near the efficacy of the challenged accommodation and would instead deter women from accessing contraception.”

Two that have been repeatedly mentioned are tax credits and manufacturer incentives. A tax credit would require a woman to pay up front for her contraceptive needs, not only an insurmountable financial barrier for many women without the ability to make that payment, but also of little financial benefit to those in most financial need. For example, an IUD, one of the most effective forms of birth control, can have upfront costs of up to one thousand dollars, nearly a month’s full-time salary for a minimum-wage worker.

And, of course, throughout income levels a net tax benefit is hardly equivalent to the no-cost provision in the current accommodation. Beyond the enhanced and for some crushing financial barriers created by this approach, the additional administrative barriers imposed on women to negotiate the tax system can be daunting.

Regarding the proposal that the government provide incentives for manufacturers of birth control to offer their birth control for “free,” there is no guarantee that any manufacturer would even agree that such “incentives” were sufficient, let alone that manufacturers of all of the methods would participate. Nor did the objecting employers who made this suggestion opine on how such a system could be implemented or how it could work in practice.

www.scotusblog.com...

originally posted by: windword
You came into this thread promoting the idea of the State of Texas finding a replacement for Planned Parenthood, on the heals of a Texas Grand Jury having cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing or "unethical" practices.

Boy you just make stuff up as you go along. Do you really read the posts of others or read like three words then make up the rest? What I said was if there is no unethical practices I have no problems with it, but if a State finds unethical practices they still need to fill in the gap if PP is unfunded.

You have accused Planned Parenthood clients of prioritizing booze and cigarettes over their reproductive health .

Your posts! Not my words!

When birth control cost 50 bucks or less per month it was put forth that they can not afford that and feed their kids too. I said it seems they can afford Liqueur and smokes, which are also behaviors. I didn't prioritize them over reproductive health care...that is all you.


As I said before you just see what you want to see in a post just to have something to argue about.

Here is my first post that dealt with the OPs point. It wasn't until 5 posts later that you jump on me about being a PP hater or something along those lines.

BTW the increase in pregnancies went from 7% to 8.4% over the 18 month observation period counties that lost a Planned Parenthood, and we have no way to know what percentage was planned or not. Is that something to worry about, I do not know, but it looks rather insignificant to me.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Xtrozero

Where does this sterotype of mothers and children come from? What is so fun about being pregnant anymore? Your wife says honey I'm pregenant and that is the end of it for you. Do you know what a woman goes through just find out she is preganant? If men had to suffer having instruments inserted in their orifices every time they went to the doctor, you would have a different view of women. You must believe millions of us are psychotic to want that so bad we want it for free.

What stereotype do you see in my post from me? Windword suggested the single mother/family with a bunch of kids all on low income stereotype.

I suggested that it seems PP didn't help them with the first child(s) that they didn't need either at this point in their lives. I'm not attacking PP or the poor. I have suggested a few times that if PP is unfunded then the state needs to fill the gap with another service and all I get is smacked about the head with red-herrings, hence my snarky replies...lol

If the state fails to do that then that state has failed the people who live there.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What stereotype do you see in my post from me? Windword suggested the single mother/family with a bunch of kids all on low income stereotype.

Citing an example, using a single mother with 2 kids, or a struggling family of 4, living off minimum wage jobs, therefore needing Title X (PP) services, is NOT a stereotype. Suggesting that all people in need of Planned Parenthood services prioritize booze and cigarettes over their reproductive health is a stereotype, that you continue to defend.

From your 2nd post in this thread.

I guess the big question is whether PP is the only place these women could go with no other avenue available to them? There are no other clinics in these areas?

No. The question is "Why defund Planned Parenthood?"

originally posted by: reldra
I am not going to rely on condoms.

Then don't...just don't expect me to pay for it. No one pays for the condoms that I use, other than me.

That should not be the only contraception choice besides abstinence for any woman, regardless of the state of her health insurance.

It's not, but just because you don't prefer the other contraceptives that are available over-the-counter doesn't mean that I should pay for your preference--you aren't paying for mine, nor are you paying for my vasectomy that I'm getting next month.

It is in the best interest of the government to fund family planning and Medicaid reimbursements of such. The savings in the end WELL outweigh the costs.

It is in the best interest of the individual to make appropriate choices in regard to their own health. If you don't want to use a condom, that's fine, but don't cry if you pick up some STI because the condom wasn't your preference. Plus, please cite a few studies to back up this claim, because I'll tell ya, claims like this--and even studies that would confirm it--are based on speculation at best.

I definitely do not want to hear from a man that there is ' little to no excuse' for unwanted pregnancies.

Okay...but I'm just repeating things that I've heard my wife say as well, so if you want to shoot the messenger, that's a bit immature, but that's fine. But I'll take solace in the fact that my very intelligent wife--who is also a female--differs with your take on men's opinions, especially when they're backed by both statistics, logic, and provided examples of contraceptive methods and their efficacy against pregnancy.

Let me guess...you avoid male OBGYNs just because they're male, don't you?

"keep their legs closed' ? Go get some 'plenty cheap' condoms? The backwards attitudes I have seen in the responses here are quite stunning.

While the former quote is nothing I've ever said, the latter is actually sound advice according to every health organization, doctor, and even government-sponsored comments concerning family planning that I've ever heard. Just because you, like other people on here who wear their ideological glasses on this topic, don't prefer that method means nothing--it's not a "backwards attitude," regardless on how loud or often you say it.

originally posted by: windword
prioritize booze and cigarettes over their reproductive health is a stereotype, that you continue to defend.

I give up on this, believe what you will...

From your 2nd post in this thread.

I guess the big question is whether PP is the only place these women could go with no other avenue available to them? There are no other clinics in these areas?

No. The question is "Why defund Planned Parenthood?"

That is your question..lol

As I said before, so many times now...lol, if they have no unethical practices I have no issues with PP. I also said if people do not like the state they live in then move, or vote in reps that agree with them, if you do not like the place you work at then go work some place else. There are many states and work places I would to live or work at.

Maybe everyone but a few should leave so you can all agree on everything.

originally posted by: Edumakated
When I hear someone say they go pregnant accidentally, it really means they didn't use protection.

Well, or that they used protection incorrectly. Condoms have around an 18% of failure to stop pregnancy when used incorrectly, and only a 2% rate of failure when used correctly.

Even the hormonal treatments have a small, but significant, chance of failure if improperly used.

You can't assume that they didn't use protection, but you can assume that they didn't use it properly if they did.

originally posted by: reldra
Odd, the CDC is telling me male condoms are closer to 82% effective and female condoms are closer to 79% effective,
CDC- warning small PDF

Odd, I made sure to specify multiple times that I'm talking about--and let me put some emphasis on it so that you don't miss it this time--condoms that are used properly.

The CDC's graphic does not distinguish between the differences...the one I posted contained both statistics. I'm sorry, but only posting the worse-case-scenario arguments is intellectually dishonest and an inappropriate tactic in such a serious debate.

Here, I'll post it again, just for you.



Let's keep the discussion based in reality and fully honest, shall we?

ETA: Looking at it the way you did, if a female were to improperly use the pill, she would only have a 91% efficacy rate, on average. If a male were to properly use a condom, he would have a 98% efficacy rate, on average. Plus, he would be protected against STIs--she would not be.

But, if they both use said contraceptive correctly, there is less that a 2% difference in efficacy, yet the condom protects against STIs. If you are truly trying to argue that condoms are a ridiculous consideration for good contraception, you're just not being honest.

a reply to: Xtrozero

When birth control cost 50 bucks or less per month it was put forth that they can not afford that and feed their kids too. I said it seems they can afford Liqueur and smokes, which are also behaviors. I didn't prioritize them over reproductive health care...that is all you.

and you are not assuming that all those women who might be running a tight budget that can't handle an additional expense of $50 a month are smokers or drinkers? oh, ya, let's drag in the cell phones, the $100 pairs of sneakers, the internet services, and all the other crap that some seem to think the poor waste their money on!
want to know the truth, at least in my case....
my husband was a danged hard worker, even had a second occupation to fall back on when the machine shops dried up.
we earned enough throughout my kid's childhoods to not qualify for any gov't assistance....
but here's the catch....
we move out of hud subsidized housing because it became to costly for us.
I developed a habit of eating every other day and piece mealed meals, sometimes cooking two or more one serving meals because there wasn't enough of anything to make one meal for all of us.
I went years without really ever going into a clothing store, or department store, I still don't go into them much because well, they just cause sadness in me.
when I broke my ankle, it took the action of a danged state legislature to convince a surgeon to to set the danged thing when we didn't have the $2,000 laying around he wanted for a down payment.
I kept one of my kids home from time to time waiting for payday to come around and we had the money for that second inhaler that he needed for school.
That kid eventually ended up quitting school and getting his ged instead because I couldn't come up with a losey $30 to buy him clothes that actually fit him so he could go....from the salvation army thrift store.
and all through this those great politicians, both local and federal were telling us how they had to increase the taxes and fees for gov't services..... to help offset the cost of medicaid...
we always ended up owing taxes at the end of the year, paid out the arse at every corner.

so, I am asking you....
why should they have to fork out the money for their birth control?? if they are insured, then their insurance should be covering 100% of the cost, if they are poor, their medicaid should be covering it, if they don't fit either of those categories, then title x should be at least taking much of the bite out of it.

through the decades our taxes have been used to not only pay for the healthcare of the poor, disabled, and retired, but also to build this great healthcare system, from research into diseases, to drug and vaccine development, to building hospitals and helping purchasetheir equipment, to training healthcare professionals. no one in this country should have to lay in a bed for a week wondering just how the heck they were gonna convince a doctor to set their ankle, buy their insulin, or even get their birth control perscription filled! the idea that we should be treating birth control as something other than healthcare is garbage, just like the idea of helping certain groups of people get their medical care while saying tough crap to others is!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

the way I am reading it is that it is almost double the chance of getting pregnant than the protection that the birth control pills gives. and what you are saying about proper use is true for all the methods listed.