Sign in to follow this  
Larry

CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law

Recommended Posts

Also, I've been wanting to post this one for some time, and this seems like a good fit.  

 

DnD_1.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, twa said:

 

LARCs certainly help if you can get them to do it......but those results are just for that type of contraceptive.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colorado-birth-control-facts/

 

they also provided emergency contraceptives

 

 

 

Does it really matter what method was used? Results are results.  Imagine what the numbers would look like if they included birth control pills, etc.  They also saved millions for their Medicaid program.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Does it really matter what method was used? Results are results.  Imagine what the numbers would look like if they included birth control pills, etc.  They also saved millions for their Medicaid program.  

 

Which methods are more effective and why are critical if you care about results and return on public spending.

 

Of course the numbers don't reflect the lack of disease protection.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Which methods are more effective and why are critical if you care about results and return on public spending.

 

Of course the numbers don't reflect the lack of disease protection.

 

 

They offered one type of birth control to be covered free of charge, giving women a choice to take advantage of this particular type or not.  Regardless of how many women chose to use it or not is irrelevant imo.  The results were a huge drop in abortions, unplanned pregnancies and millions in savings on healthcare costs like Medicaid.  

 

It's early and I'm tired, are you trying to argue that the IUTs Colorado is making available for free is not one of the most effective methods of birth control?  

 

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf

 

The point of providing this method of birth control is to save money and lower the unwanted pregnancy rate, not to reduce STDs.  The majority of methods cant prevent the risk of getting an STD during intercourse anyhow.  A condom is probably the best chance against that and they are given out free at a ton of places (health dept. clinics, etc.), but it's also not nearly as effective when it comes to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you need a nap. 

 

LARCs are certainly the most effective, as I already pointed out the huge drop was a result of those specific methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Does it really matter what method was used? Results are results.  Imagine what the numbers would look like if they included birth control pills, etc.  They also saved millions for their Medicaid program.  

 

At least when I read it, The Snopes article actually says that when Obamacare kicked in, and most contraceptives became free, it didn't have much impact. 

 

But that, when the state made long term control free, then the results were the dramatic ones posted in the meme. 

 

Yes, unintended pregnancies went down 40%, for the state as a whole. (Not just for the people who took the birth control). But only when the state paid for that one kind. 

 

(And yeah, the state saved like 5 bucks for every dollar spent.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes down because you reduce the human factor that reduces the effectiveness of the pill ect.

 

I think it should be mandated for those getting abortions (aside from clear health reasons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, twa said:

I think it should be mandated for those getting abortions (aside from clear health reasons)

 

Because you're a Republican, and whenever you see something that works, and is producing desirable results, the first thing you look for is how to make it more Nazi-like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

I think it should be mandated for those getting abortions (aside from clear health reasons)

 

This makes zero sense.  Mandated LARCs for those getting abortions, kind of a little late for that when it comes time for them to choose to get an abortion........

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

This makes zero sense.  Mandated LARCs for those getting abortions, kind of a little late for that when it comes time for them to choose to get an abortion........

 

 

 

 

 

I think the point is if they’ve wound up getting an abortion, then this would help prevent another one (since they don’t want a child, but however they were doing it before obviously didn’t work...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

This makes zero sense.  Mandated LARCs for those getting abortions, kind of a little late for that when it comes time for them to choose to get an abortion........

 

 

 

 

 

Almost 50% of those having abortions have already had one or more , and since that is self reporting the number could be higher.

 

Don't you want those not wishing to get pregnant to have the best birth control????

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, twa said:

Don't you want those not wishing to get pregnant to have the best birth control????

I want them to have access to it.  But forcing it is wrong.

 

I'd consider some sort of motivation for people to get it though.  $500 tax rebate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

  But forcing it is wrong.

 

 

 

So is abortion, it's not like they are being sterilized or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I want them to have access to it.  But forcing it is wrong.

 

I'd consider some sort of motivation for people to get it though.  $500 tax rebate?

 

 

Its only wrong if the state isn’t paying for the abortion.  If they are paying stipulations that affect a woman’s ability to get pregnant for a limited duration seems reasonable to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

a mother recklessly endangered her child by attacking another woman and then did not seek aid for it.....might be a interesting case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Taxpayer-funded family planning clinics must stop referring women to abortion providers immediately, the Trump administration said Monday, declaring it will begin enforcing a new regulation hailed by religious conservatives and denounced by medical organizations and women’s rights groups

Forget about the docs let's see what Bubba has to say about a woman's body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Re: planned parenthood is about a lot more than abortion 

 

they just fired their new president after 10 months on the job

she says it’s because the board wants to double down on abortion, but she wanted to focus on general healthcare issues for women (that thing all the planned parenthood defenders tell us it’s really about)

 

listening to multiple npr segments on it this morning, their abortion rights reporter says her sources in planned parenthood were unhappy with her because she was focused on general women’s health topics and not abortion. 

 

I guess the whole “they’re about way more than abortion, it’s only 3% of their budget” defense was cute while it lasted

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, tshile said:

Re: planned parenthood is about a lot more than abortion 

 

they just fired their new president after 10 months on the job

she says it’s because the board wants to double down on abortion, but she wanted to focus on general healthcare issues for women (that thing all the planned parenthood defenders tell us it’s really about)

 

listening to multiple npr segments on it this morning, their abortion rights reporter says her sources in planned parenthood were unhappy with her because she was focused on general women’s health topics and not abortion. 

 

I guess the whole “they’re about way more than abortion, it’s only 3% of their budget” defense was cute while it lasted

 

If it only remains 3% of their budget, has anything really changed?

 

(Obviously, access to abortion is important to Planned Parenthood.  The fact that they've been involved in  lawsuits for years should make that clear.  But that doesn't also mean it is only 3% of their business.)

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

If it only remains 3% of their budget, has anything really changed?

 

(Obviously, access to abortion is important to Planned Parenthood.  The fact that they've been involved in  lawsuits for years should make that clear.  But that doesn't also mean it is only 3% of their business.)

 

Um. Yes?

 

their entire defense for years has been that they are primarily focused on the general health of women. And that defunding them was an attack on providing healthcare to women - specifically poor and minority women. 

 

They had a president who was well respected by her peers who was there to fight for and further the general healthcare of women. 

 

She was fired because in her view she wouldn’t focus on abortion. Npr’s Abortions rights reporter (that clearly doesn’t have a reason to fight against abortion’s rights activists) says her own sources within PP were unhappy with her because she wouldn’t focus on abortion. 

 

 

Their whole defense against defunding and argument for gov’t funding is that abortion is an insignificantly small portion of their business

 

Actions speak louder than words. 

 

Although maybe that means the answer to your question is no. Planned parenthood is who they always were. They’re just admitting it now, and so there shouldn’t be much question about who they are, only whether it’s appropriate that tax payer money goes to them. 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard she was released because of her pronoun use, of course rumors vary.

 

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dr-leana-wen-out-as-planned-parenthood-president_n_5d2e2f45e4b0a873f6430017?guccounter=1

 

Wen, a Chinese immigrant who was the head of Baltimore’s health department,  was appointed president last September. She was the first physician in nearly 50 years ― and only the second ever ― to be named Planned Parenthood’s president.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, tshile said:

Although maybe that means the answer to your question is no. Planned parenthood is who they always were. They’re just admitting it now, and so there shouldn’t be much question about who they are, only whether it’s appropriate that tax payer money goes to them. 

 

They are an organization that spends 97% of their money on basic female health care issues.  That hasn't changed.

 

And defunding them will hurt healthcare access, especially to poor women.

 

(To my knowledge) nobody has ever claimed that access to abortion wasn't an important issue to PP.  You're acting like people were saying that because it was only 3% access to abortion wasn't/isn't important to PP.  PP has been involved in court cases involving abortion as long as I can remember (and I'd guess my whole life).

 

Nothing has changed (now, if that 3% number goes up, then that changes things).

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

They are an organization that spends 97% of their money on basic female health care issues.  That hasn't changed.

And fired their president because she was focused on that 97% and not the 3%

 

You don’t think that matters. I get it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, tshile said:

And fired their president because she was focused on that 97% and not the 3%

 

You don’t think that matters. I get it. 

 

Was she fired because she was more focused on the 97% than the 3% or was she fired because she was more focused on the 97% than the board wanted?

 

Especially at a time when the 3% is coming under attack.

 

Did the board want an 90/10 focus and she wanted to give a 99/1 focus?

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emaoconnor/leana-wen-out-planned-parenthood-president

Did she say there was no money for "“the long-term future of abortion access work that had already been going on, saying there was no budget for it,” the source said,"?

 

Her own statement does not suggest that she was fired over how much to focus on the 3%, but how to phrase the focus of the 3%.

 

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/16/742390932/planned-parenthood-removes-leana-wen-as-president-after-less-than-a-year

 

""I believe the best way to protect abortion care is to be clear that it is not a political issue but a health care one, and that we can expand support for reproductive health care as the fundamental health care that it is," the 36-year-old former health commissioner in Baltimore added."

 

Was the board actually okay with the amount of focus on the 3%, but not the way it was being focused on?

 

The 3% plays an important role in PP.  It has as long as I can remember.  That they want a President that will actively defend the 3% isn't surprising.

 

Realistically, she was a PP President for a short period of time and came from the outside.  The last President was not a doctor and had a political/fund raising bent.  They tried something different, and from the Board's perspective it wasn't working.  That they want to go back to what they know isn't surprising or changes anything.

 

So, no, in the context of the larger conversation and what PP is and was, I don't think it really matters that they fired a President that isn't what they were and doesn't fit their historical philosophical makeup.

 

It isn't like they fired somebody who had been there for 5 years and is now saying that PP has changed from what they were.  That would actually be significant. 

 

There's no real reason to believe that PP is anything other than what it has been for as long as I can remember.

 

The only way this seems like it is really news or changes anything is if you didn't realize that protecting abortion rights was important to PP.

 

(Like with the Hillary being a bad candidate discussion.  I think you are taking a case where you don't really have a lot of facts and are stretching the facts to fit your pre-conceived political view point.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.