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

a reply to: Bennyzilla

If they are relying on "their man" for all their family support then wouldn't the man also be willing to support her birth control needs (that is if she wishes to continue having sex).

What part of "maybe she doesn't really want to have sex" do you not understand? That is not a rhetorical question. Do you really think that there is no such thing as a coercive relationship?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No, and this comment was either derived from ignorance or ideological malice.

Please see my comment as to why both women and men should carry a male condom (it's quite a bit more effective than a female condom).

According to your own chart, condoms, male or female are not the ideal option to avoid pregnancy. Condoms are more to protect against STDs than pregnancy.

At any rate, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to determine what birth control options should be available to, or are "good enough" poor women?

Further, how available, cheap and easy to use are female condoms? Would you rely on them knowing that 21% of the time they don't prevent pregnancy?

a reply to: windword

Thats the thing about personal responsibility you aren't getting - It isn't allowed by anyone - you do it yourself.

The fact that you think removing cheap contraceptive from women is blocking there ability to exercise personal responsibility shows you have no idea what personal responsibility means.

Hint: If you have to rely on someone else for it to happen, then it isn't personal

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, I am painfully aware that nothing I can say will make a selfish person care about anyone but themselves. That's why I am glad that the selfish ones aren't the only ones running things.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would suggest that the women not rely on a condom, or many of those other least effective methods on that list. I would suggest that if they aren't using a method that is listed higher on that chart, it's better to just not have the sex.
but by removing the funding for family planning, or just funding those lower levels, like the condoms, well, you are removing all those more effective ones as options for many poor women.
by the way, I had one of my kids using a combination of spermicide and condoms, the other I was trying to just predict when I would be ovulating. I would have preferred to have been on the pill, but there were health reasons why that wasn't the best option. So, my firstborn was by choice, the second two was because of crappy birth control methods. and, I was married, didn't have to worry about std's since neither my hubby or me were fooling around on the side!

a reply to: Bennyzilla

Thats the thing about personal responsibility you aren't getting - It isn't allowed by anyone - you do it yourself.

The fact that you think removing cheap contraceptive from women is blocking there ability to exercise personal responsibility shows you have no idea what personal responsibility means.

Hint: If you have to rely on someone else for it to happen, then it isn't personal

Okay. How about you opt out of your auto or homeowner insurance, since you're against public safety nets. Put up a $100,000 bond, just in case. That's about how much it cost to raise a kid from birth to 13 years of age.

a reply to: DJW001

If she really doesn't want to have sex then she doesn't have to...If her husband still wants to have sex after she's made this decision then they should divorce and other ways, as they now want different things.

If she's in a coercive relationship than her issues go far beyond needing contraception and into the realm of needing to get the hell out of there. There are tons of resources for that.

If they're being abused to the point where they don't feel they can get help from anyone, and there best bet is to get contraception so that at least they don't have another child, what makes you think they could sneak out long enough to get contraception. For that matter if they can sneak away long enough for that then why can't they sneak away long enough to get help?

Either way once again were down a rabbit hole of very specific problems that happen to a very small minority.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: dawnstar

If they are relying on "their man" for all their family support then wouldn't the man also be willing to support her birth control needs (that is if she wishes to continue having sex).

As for a married woman not wanting to have sex with her husband, yeah they should get divorced, if you have no sexual desire towards your significant other than you are robbing them of the ability to experience sex as they probably still want to and in my mind I would leave a woman for that.

Also that device is a mechanical piece of hardware that I would never pay to have put into my body. If a woman wishes to have an implant with hormonal release and all that then super. She should go pay for it just like I'd have to pay to have that piston inserted into my body.

gee, I don't know maybe the man would rather have another boat!
I didn't think you would go for the thing, I was kind of "oh my god" myself about it. but those hormones that women take don't come with no negative side effects either.
and of course, you feel that having sex is an important part of marriage, most people do! But well, without decent birth control, well, women would probably end up having 10 or more kids in their live times like in the old days! which causes alot of health problems for women. thus as I see it, birth control is just as valid healthcare as chlorestorol medication is!

originally posted by: infolurker
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.

So since they donate to a political party they don't deserve funding? Man that would screw over lots of companies if we extended that logic out further.

a reply to: windword

LOL not even close to being the same.

Cute though.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

Either way once again were down a rabbit hole of very specific problems that happen to a very small minority.

A group of human beings you feel morally superior to and therefor whose plight does not affect you.

Edit to add: Ironically these are the poor souls religious organizations used to be dedicated to helping.

a reply to: DJW001

OMG...I'm turning into...STRAAAWWWMAN

And my mouth...it's full of words i never said....

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: DJW001

OMG...I'm turning into...STRAAAWWWMAN

And my mouth...it's full of words i never said....

Well then, provide the statistics that show how small a percentage of Planned Parenthood's clientele women in coercive relationships are, and what you suggest should be done about them?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SlapMonkey

First, do you have some statistics that show that only the minority of unwelcome pregnancies are from abusive relationships, rape, or incest?

Admittedly, no, I don't, and you know why? Because if there are statistics on that (which I can't find any), it would all be based on the claim of the woman anyhow, without any proof of the veracity of the claim, so there would be no reason to trust said statistics. It'd be nice to have them, but they certainly could not be regarded as set in stone, and I would bet that multiple studies would yield quite different results, but I can't prove that.

Do you have a link that you can share to prove to me that your comment concerning unwelcomed pregnancies is accurate? I mean, you imply that it's a major part of those who need/use PP for contraception, so in all fairness, you need to back up your claim if you expect me to back up mine. Otherwise, it would appear that we are both caught in the middle of an unsubstantiated stalemate.

Secondly, does it really matter what the percentage is if anyone has to suffer? Have you no compassion whatsoever?

Yes, it does matter, unless the public funding only went to those types of people.

As for your second question, your appeal to emotion is distasteful and inappropriate. You have zero idea what I do on behalf of women who are abused, my donations to women's shelters, and what my own mother has been through, both witness and not witnessed by me.

Don't you dare presume to understand my level of compassion--what an absolute pathetic attempt to try and win an argument. Just because I don't advocate money to PP does not equate to an utter lack of compassion for the women you describe. You are a pathetic human being if this is how you are going to discuss this issue with me.

You don't deserve to be a part of this conversation.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes, I am painfully aware that nothing I can say will make a selfish person care about anyone but themselves. That's why I am glad that the selfish ones aren't the only ones running things.

Why is it selfish to endorse people taking responsibility for their own actions?

You're endorsing irresponsibility with no consequences.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You seem convinced that you can't trust that women are telling the truth about being raped or abused. In your opinion, what percentage of women actually need to be raped or abused in order to justify spending government money to help them? Personally, I think that any woman in need of help deserves it, and as I have said, some spending on social services can be a wise investment.

originally posted by: windword
According to your own chart, condoms, male or female are not the ideal option to avoid pregnancy. Condoms are more to protect against STDs than pregnancy.

Illogical argument, as the percentage of efficacy lost compared to the methods rating higher than that really is inconsequential. And no, condoms are not more to protect against STDs, it's just awesome that they are the only contraceptive method that does (for both the man and woman).

A 98% efficacy rate is pretty ideal. If you had a 98% chance of winning the lottery, wouldn't you play? Sounds like a pretty ideal probability to me. Maybe I'm just a big dumb man, though...numbers hard. Mathing no easy.

At any rate, who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to determine what birth control options should be available to, or are "good enough" poor women?

I did dictate anything to anyone, I was just arguing against dawnstar's comment seen here:

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: SlapMonkey

these condoms that you are speaking of, are they made for the man to use, or the women? The man??? oh, so who is being the irresponsible one here???
condoms are one of the least effective methods of birth control!!!

When did I dictate anything to anyone, except to maybe assert the reality that there are many other available methods of birth control that are quite effective at low-to-zero cost in many, many places.

Further, how available, cheap and easy to use are female condoms? Would you rely on them knowing that 21% of the time they don't prevent pregnancy?

No, I would rely on male condoms, and do what I'm scheduled to have done in three weeks--get a vasectomy. I'm doing that for my wife, who does not do well on hormonal birth control, and we're both tired of spending money on condoms.

But don't distort the percentages...when used properly, the female condom is 95% effective, according to what I posted. But quite honestly, I'd prefer the better protection from both pregnancy and STIs. Call me nuts.

a reply to: DJW001

Provide statistics for something that usually only exists as long as it is unreported (because the moment it is reported it is usually dealt with by the law.) and also solve the problem of coercive abusive relationships all in one post?

How about you solve the energy crisis and then I'll deal with abusive relationships and then well meet up and trade notes when we've both solved them?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Edumakated
The lack of personal responsibility of some of these people is astounding. I'm supposed to pay for people medical services who can't either keep their legs closed or are too cheap to go buy condoms. I am no prude and certainly screwed my way through my teenage years, but I had enough sense to know you need to use protection. I always wore a condom. They were plenty cheap. Anyone can afford them, even broke hood rats.

The reality is that there is a segment of our population that is simply irresponsible who want to go "raw dog" and then expect others to pay for their mistakes.

Yep.

But you forgot the reality that condoms are available discounted or free at many clinics, hospitals, schools, and health departments across the country, not to mention other organizations with a focus on "family planning" who are not PP.

I'm with you--there is very-little-to-no excuse for the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies. And this is coming from a guy whose sister got pregnant at age 16 and had an abortion way back in the 90s. She would agree with that comment.

I am not going to rely on condoms. That should not be the only contraception choice besides abstinence for any woman, regardless of the state of her health insurance. 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.

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

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

ya know what's funny those catholic based hospitals that are beginning to become so prominent in our country won't allow a doctor to do a tubal litigation on a cancer patient when he performs a c-section delivering her baby, and will allow pregnant women to go through hell till a non-viable fetus' heartbeat stops, well, they have no problem prescribing viagra! and gee the gov't doesn't sit there and tell them that since they have so much money that they can go around buying up hospital after hospital, and paying their ceo's such high salaries, well, they don't need to have their medicaid reimbursements!
and I wouldn't be surprised if hobby lobby's insurance plan covers viagra!

they only have a problem with WOMEN trying to control the size of their families!