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

a reply to: windword

Thank you for providing evidence that government spending going down could actually be a bad thing. If people went looking for evidence of the effects of government spending, we wouldn't have any as we know it. Two of the three sources you cite are from government employees. Mental health workers are biased to say that their budget going down results in bad things. So to is a college professor funded by government grants and indirectly by government student student loans. I can't help but notice that the people who believe in the most government spending are, invariably, government employees.

Political science has been around what 50 years? So, where are their generational studies of mental health spending, generational studies of declines in government spending, and generational studies of federal budget cuts on state localities? I believe that they don't care about facts. They seem to care about snake-oil type pitches to increase their budget, not about what really works.

Don't you think an organization that has been around for hundreds of years ought to have studies that are at least over many decades?

The most unbiased source you provide is Business Insider. They say that GDP going doing is a sign of a bad economy in Greece. Well, I disagree. I think its a sign of the start of a repairing of an already bad economy. I also believe only private GDP going down is bad for the economy, while government-based GDP going down is good for the economy. Are we really so much better off in the United States because we are now spending $17,000 per family on healthcare instead of $16,000 per family per year? GDP going up is sometimes a bad thing. I prefer other statistics instead that measure the quality of an average household. Do they have clean water, electricity, hot water, etc? These are great measures of economic health, while GDP is a much weaker statistic.

Furthermore, of course all job changes like government layoffs are going to have temporary negative effects. However, that is not true for the long-term and the Business Insider article you cite didn't mention anything about that. I'm entirely unimpressed by the BI article you cite and its very weak. I've done much better studies on my own. A good study of economies is done over at least five years if not many decades.

The Mental Health Spending Study you show at:
www2.nami.org...
Seems to entirely lack evidence that things got any worse by the lack of budget cuts. Where in the article is it telling me what bad things happened from the budget cuts? I scanned the whole thing and don't see any evidence. One thing the study says is a quote of ". I don’t know how I will stay well without the medical care and treatment I need". Okay, so did that guy stay well or not? The study does not say, which I find ridiculous. The study says "The risks of violence among a small subset of individuals may increase when appropriate treatment and supports are not available". Oh, how much do they go up?

How many more crimes are committed in places with low government spending on mental health? The article is trying to convince me to spend more money, so then, convince me.

I believe the evidence you have submitted is incredibly weak. To say Greece is not better off now because government spending went down is not a long-term statement. Iceland didn't spend billions on bank bailouts and they are doing better than anywhere in Europe as a result over the long term. So, there is some evidence for you that government spending going down is good, and I'm sure that the Iceland case can be quantified. So, why are not the political scientists doing that? Because they don't care about evidence. They highlight sob stories. The polished study on Mental health you provided focused on sob stories devoid of hard facts, statistics, and impact data.

Also, its awkward you are using Greece as an example of saying government spending helps people. Well, few places in the world have as high of levels of government spending as a percentage of the economy as anywhere else. And, the country is basically going to hell. Greece is an example that government spending will at some high point convert your country to 3rd world status.

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

Thank you for providing evidence that government spending going down could actually be a bad thing.

Look, I just Googled "reports of the effects of government spending cuts" and I threw you the first 3 that Google spit out! LOL I'm not advocating for any them, just answering your question.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Please note that 1973 and the years following were nothing special in the way of massively declined birth rates (especially including other factors, like prime baby-making aged men being sent off to war in massive numbers).

Yes, I looked at the population increases over the decades from the '60s through 2014, too. What I said actually makes sense, but like I also said, it may not be the reason, or even an accurate correlation. But we need to understand that population increase is not the same as the birth rate--population increases because of factors other than birth, like immigration.

Speaking of possible reasons, though, for a population decrease in the early '70s, let's look at a study that considers something much more intellectually honest than trying to say that Roe v. Wade caused a population decline:

The takeaway from this study is that the relatively massive decline in births in our country in the early 70s was due to the Vietnam draft, and as each year passed, the ability to avoid the draft for things like going to college was chipped away (college students could be drafted starting in Sept. of 1971). And let's not forget the number of people who died because of Vietnam...that affects total population as well, probably way more than abortions.

I'm not saying it has had a huge affect on population growth, well except for maybe African Americans who we have seen a decline in population and are the highest user of abortions accounting for over 50% of all abortions with only 13% of the population. What this all suggests is a reduction in crime as abortions reduce those who would have been born into high crime risk demographics.

I remember being a kid in the '80s and knowing what HIV/AIDS was and there was a pretty big issue about it on the news and that is was scaring a lot of people.

I was sowing my oats back then, it didn't slow me down. Once again I gave you a good example of the group that had been affected the most from HIV, but are still today the highest risk group for any STD, gays. Can you not then say that if a group that had the highest risk were not curbed then lower risk groups would have even less chance to be influenced?

I was arguing that just enabling these people when even some of them can be reached over time...maybe even over generations...has a worse effect on society as a whole. Sometimes learned behavior takes generations to overcome.

I agree, but it seems the popular political party has taken the subsistence route by the horn and the masses love it.

Plus, what makes you assume that all unplanned/unwanted births are in horrendous environments and are an absolute drain on the system? That's not the case at all.

I do not think all, but a large amount of the 1 million per year come from women who can not afford a child.

oh, quick, we need to start a petition demanding!!!
why not, it seems to be the rage of late...

Two state health researchers in Texas are under fire for co-authoring a study suggesting what Republican leaders have long disputed: cuts to Planned Parenthood are restricting access to women's health care.

Texas Health Commissioner Chris Traylor has not said whether the researchers, one a high-level director with more than 20 years in state government, will be disciplined. But a spokesman made it clear that the agency agrees with outraged Republicans over the researchers' contributions to a study that the GOP sees as flawed and biased.

abcnews.go.com...

guess the texan republicans didn't like the study?

a reply to: dawnstar

Lol. Don't like the results of a study? Discipline the people who carried it out. That'll show them for presenting their facts!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't know, maybe there's something that bars gov't researchers for doing research in their spare time or something. but, you'd think that if they did this in their spare time, and distanced themselves from their position in the actual paper so no one would get the idea that the gov't had nothing to do with it, it shouldn't matter.

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm pretty sure it's just the result of politicians not liking that their rhetoric being proved wrong so they instead try to silence the source. You know, old school coverup techniques?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fiorina is out of the race, right? Good!! I now officially hate the lady!!!

Carly Fiorina’s latest campaign stop in Iowa has upset some Des Moines-area parents, who say the GOP presidential candidate “ambushed” a group of kids on a preschool field trip — and led them to an anti-abortion rally.

On Wednesday morning, Fiorina attended the Iowa Right to Life Presidential Forum, where she emphasized her support for defunding Planned Parenthood and passing a national abortion ban.

The anti-abortion event was held at the Greater Des Moines Botanical Garden. At the same time, a group of preschoolers was also visiting the botanical garden for a field trip.

According to the Des Moines Register, Fiorina “headed straight for a group of giggling 4- and 5-year-olds” when she first arrived at the botanical garden. She reportedly ushered them toward the makeshift stage set up for the anti-abortion event — which featured a large poster of a fetus — without asking permission for the children to sit with her.

thinkprogress.org...

what the heck, did the teacher turn around and suddenly her kids were gone? Did she search forever for them? or was she so awestruck that a presidential candidate was paying attention to her class? My God, if the politicians expect the media to keep their kids out of spotlight, then well, they should refrain from abducting ours and leading to abortion rallies? it not a fight that should be fought with little preschoolers! I am liable to go and sit across the street from some religious school and pass condoms out to little preschoolers if I keep hearing much more crap like this... just to let them know just how it feels like.

a reply to: dawnstar

Unfortunately, that is a common tactic. To just show up in front of children, awestruck the legal guardian, then abscond with them to a new location so they can be politicized for the politician's election.

It should be a crime to use children to advance political gains.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Gee I guess they really didn't like that study!!!

A senior Texas health official who co-authored a report that criticized the state's funding cuts to Planned Parenthood for reducing access to reproductive healthcare will retire from his post next month, a Texas commission said on Friday.

Rick Allgeyer, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's director of research, faced criticism from the state's Republican leaders over the report published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine this month. The report said state funding cuts to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates had an adverse effect on family planning for lower-income people.

Allgeyer is eligible to retire and decided to do so effective on March 31, the commission said. Allgeyer, who has been at the commission for 16 years and was one of the study's five listed authors, declined to comment.

www.reuters.com...

Maybe he just got a better job offer.