Low Income Women to Lose Birth Control

[Tekate]

I am going to say that birth control for many low income mothers is expensive. Tightening up their belts is a no can do event. Many are employed in low paying jobs, and have to juggle childcare expenses on an income of 21K a year.. these low income mothers are: retail workers, home health aides, food industry, all low paying jobs.

https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

many are divorced, widowed or unmarried. I suppose it comes down to our society, do we help or do we hope that with no help that women will make it on their own.. many, MANY things contribute to the USA's problems, global economy, war eats of much of the country's budget.

Free birth control for at least teens is a step in the right direction in allow young women a chance to get that education, get that better paying job so when they choose to have a child they are in a better position to support a child, or be mature enough to have a committed relationship, many teen marriages explode and implode.

(As to Greece, one of their biggest problems is they don't want to raise taxes.. same problem here so who knows but I'd like to think defaulting on our debt would not happen here). Out of control spending by our government could easily be reined in if the government reduces our armed forces budget by half. Places veterans into Obama care and closes the VA down.. there would be huge savings.. no reason why we need a VA now.. vets can get vouchers and go to their own doctors, get into private care, and I think probably get better medical care.. but that is just my opinion.

peace.

I am not going to change anyone's mind about abortion here just as you aren't going to change mine.
To the original topic, I think many Americans, regardless of party, are concerned about the out of control government spending. Too many think they can justify spending for their particular priorities. I once thought that but was wrong. Birth control is not that pricey, and I am comfortable with each of us buying his/her own. We don't want to end up like Greece. Everyone should be willing to reduce spending in every area.
Clearly, I'm in the minority among those in discussion here but thought it important to present another view. I'm not offended and hope no one else is.

 

[House Cat]

It is my thought that something else is going on here. This has much less to do with religious beliefs and much more to do with WHO is getting the $17,000 for each medicaid birth. Republicans are notoriously tied to big business, big health insurance, and big pharma. Republicans are also known for exploiting the American people and their own government in order to fund these businesses.


Food for thought.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,


Since I must only speak to title X, I will start with the fact that, at least in California, they only pay 3% of the funding for reproductive services. The state pays the rest. You have made it sound as if all these services will be discontinued if there is no more Title X. This is not true. In my state, which is not California, the public health Dept in my area will continue to take care of low income women and their reproductive concerns.

Almost 50% of ALL births in America are paid for by Medicaid. I think its an insane amount of the female population that claims it is poor. There is no question that birth costs are ridiculously high, and so students, and anyone who has no insurance can declare poverty.
And they do! I would probably do the same. But the truth is many of these women are not poor.

I love that Colorado was so smart in how they lowered their birth rate among teens.

I believe that Title X will continue to be funded. They already had this fight a few years ago and were defeated. My Rep and my Senator will vote to keep it intact.

Anna-- Thank you for participating in the thread. I'm glad you asked that pointed question as at least I had to think about it. Once a child is born, we, the women here love it and care about the child. It was nice to hear from you.


Annette

PS They do want to get rid of Planned Parenthood. That was the reason for the last uproar.

 

[Tekate]

Smithcmpton, I bolded a part of your posting below..can you tell me where to find information about this, what I'm saying is, how do we know we know they are not poor? I thought to receive medicaid you had to show proof of eligibility, granted I don't really know, just what I have read. I think that your showing that so many births are paid for by medicaid shows a GREAT need for birth control, I know I would prefer to have my tax money go for prevention of pregnancies versus birth... it goes back to the having an unplanned pregnancy, family planning allowed women to leave the home and work. Thank you for your help!

added edit: I did find this.. it's from 2008, it's a great read. https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/public-costs-of-UP.pdf

Hi,


Since I must only speak to title X, I will start with the fact that, at least in California, they only pay 3% of the funding for reproductive services. The state pays the rest. You have made it sound as if all these services will be discontinued if there is no more Title X. This is not true. In my state, which is not California, the public health Dept in my area will continue to take care of low income women and their reproductive concerns.

Almost 50% of ALL births in America are paid for by Medicaid. I think its an insane amount of the female population that claims it is poor. There is no question that birth costs are ridiculously high, and so students, and anyone who has no insurance can declare poverty.
And they do! I would probably do the same. But the truth is many of these women are not poor.

I love that Colorado was so smart in how they lowered their birth rate among teens.

I believe that Title X will continue to be funded. They already had this fight a few years ago and were defeated. My Rep and my Senator will vote to keep it intact.

Anna-- Thank you for participating in the thread. I'm glad you asked that pointed question as at least I had to think about it. Once a child is born, we, the women here love it and care about the child. It was nice to hear from you.


Annette

PS They do want to get rid of Planned Parenthood. That was the reason for the last uproar.

 

[Calliecake]

Anna, I'm not going to comment on the bulk of what you said. But, I do want to explain one thing to you.

To a single mom with a kid who works two jobs just to be able to feed her kid even $30 a month for a prescription is the difference between her kid eating real veggies and meat once a week, instead of starving of malnutrition on crap.

And if she has to make that choice, and chooses to feed her existing kid instead of buying the birthcontrol and becomes pregnant, then that kid is either going to be aborted, if she is in a state where she can, it it suits her belief system. Or she is going to have it and have to apply for food stamps and other aid from the government just to be able to feed that kid.

That's a fact.

And that will cost the state MORE in subsidies and aid than if we had paid for the birthcontrol in the first place.

So if your goal is to: discourage abortions AND be fiscally responsible subsidized birth control is the logical choice.

So I really don't think that is your goal.

Most people who use that rhetoric but oppose common sense birthcontrol subsidization either think the poor are lazy and undeserving and resent them for every bit of common sense entitlements we have in place-- so really feel they are subhuman and should just crawl off somewhere and die-- or erroneously believe that even basic birthcontrol is a version of abortion because of some 'implantation' theory.

Either way, regardless of what your 'real' reasons are for your position, if you are going to participate in a thread like this, its best to have the courage of your convictions and just come out with it.

Gypsy and Tekete, Thank you for your excellent posts. I cannot for the life of me understand how politicians can not see how much money subsidized birth control will save the country. I also don't understand the lack of empathy these politicians feel. In one of the 2012 debates Paul Ryan went on and on about how he felt when his wife found out she was pregnant with one of their children and how the thought of an abortion could never enter his mind. I wanted to slap the man and say of course you feel that way. You have the money to feed, cloth and put a roof over your child's head. You are not struggling to put food in your children's mouths. You have a partner who helps you with every aspect of raising your child. Is it really that difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is living at poverty levels and has no idea how she can afford to have another child. So many of these woman have no support, emotionally or financially from the fathers of their children. If you have NO money, $20 is a lot of money. The comments Anna made about birth control not being expense does not ring true for these women. People should try walking a mile in someone else shoes before judging them.

I have known many, many women in my lifetime. A few have had abortions when they were young woman. Not one woman I know every took this decision lightly. It was an agonizing heart wrenching decision. Offering subsidized birth control is a smart decision.

We also know abstinence isn't an alternative. All the Republican Party has to do is look at Bristol Palin if they would like proof.

 

[AnnaH]

Gypsy, I've enjoyed your jewelry posts. If memory serves, you are one of the stars here. So I'm disappointed that you choose to personally attack me. My views about birth control are economic; however, my views about abortion are moral. Just because I don't want to be unkind doesn't mean I'm untruthful.
I joined the discussion to briefly speak on behalf of the pre born; that's it. That's a sensitive subject, so I guess I should not be surprised by your unfairly judgmental response.
By the way, I'm not rich. Can't say that I've ever been exactly poor but greatly respect the working poor, which most poor people are.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Tekate- I already wrote you a reply, but its no where to be found. I am not computer savvy, but if you google "% of Us births paid for by medicaid, you will find the info. It shows a graph of the brake-down of the pop stats and who is using the system. Hispanics use Medcaid the most.

If 50% of child bearing age women are using medicaid, I am distressed because I think then there is a huge problem that goes beyond pay difference. But I think students and others have just found a way to not pay that 17,000.

You are ignoring another possibility--not you tekate-- and that is that most of these women want the child they are carrying.


Annette

Edit- I forgot I included some stats for you. In my state you can have 2.000 in cash, own a home even if its mortgage free. own a car, and your personal belongings. You will have deducted any $$ for a pre-paid burial.

 

[packrat]

Annette, I was thinking that too, your last sentence. Maybe it's just b/c of where I live, I don't know. But the prevailing state of mind here is, eh, whatever, Medicaid will take care of me, Medicaid will take care of my baby. Not *I* will take care of me, *I* will take care of my baby. Not just for the young girls either, there's a good n' plenty number of adult women who feel this way.

Free birth control is a better answer than taking care of more and more births. We also should be working on the mind set of girls/women nowadays that that is all they're good for, or that is all they are "worth". Five different babies from five different guys-you can't blame everything on everyone else, at some point you *do* need to take responsibility for your own actions. We just accept it as no big deal. Every time you choose to have sex, you are by default choosing to accept that you could become pregnant, and if you can't take care of that baby, yeah it kinda is a big deal to those of us who are expected then by default to take care of your baby when you can't/won't. We were about as close to the line of qualifying for welfare as we could be, and it cost us $100/month for my pills. Drove JD batshit, spending that, and I hated it too-it's asinine to me to pay thousands and thousands to provide for a baby born to a family who can't afford it over the course of 18 years---rather than make birth control free. Added to the fact that it's a cycle, so that baby is more than likely going to end up in the same boat..it will never end.

Yes birth control should be free. We should fight for it to be free. But there are other things that need to be addressed along with it. And the eh whatever mindset is one of them. Even if it's free, you still have to be a "big girl" and go *get* it and then find the gumption to use it. For a lot of the women who were patients at the office when I worked there, it was a massive inconvenience to come to the office every three months for a depo shot. ("Gawd I have to go the *pharmacy* first bah..why can't you guys just get it here??? ugh but I have to have an appointment to get the shot?? Ugh this is ridiculous")

Free bc is one step in the right direction, provided we acknowledge there are other steps to be taken and it's not a fix-all.

 

[amc80]

I am not going to change anyone's mind about abortion here just as you aren't going to change mine. To the original topic, I think many Americans, regardless of party, are concerned about the out of control government spending. Too many think they can justify spending for their particular priorities. I once thought that but was wrong. Birth control is not that pricey, and I am comfortable with each of us buying his/her own. We don't want to end up like Greece. Everyone should be willing to reduce spending in every area. Clearly, I'm in the minority among those in discussion here but thought it important to present another view. I'm not offended and hope no one else is.

I'm in the minority as well. The problem is that there's a huge lack of personal responsibility. Don't want to get pregnant? The free prevention option has a zero percent failure rate. Other than sterilization, no other option is 0%. If you can't afford birth control pills, you can't afford a baby. And pills have a what, 15% failure rate with actual use?

 

[packrat]

Could be a total buzz-kill/fun hater like me and be on the pill and still expect the guy to use a condom. I figure that's pretty dang close to 100% effective between the two. Guys didn't like that policy so much back in the day but...yanno, if you didn't respect me enough to do your part to prevent a pregnancy for that whole, what 20 minutes hahaha..then chances are you wouldn't respect me enough to help me take care of the baby you might help me make so...sorry 'bout yer luck. If'n you want a piece of this, you have to wear that.

 

[telephone89]

Gypsy, I've enjoyed your jewelry posts. If memory serves, you are one of the stars here. So I'm disappointed that you choose to personally attack me. My views about birth control are economic; however, my views about abortion are moral. Just because I don't want to be unkind doesn't mean I'm untruthful.
I joined the discussion to briefly speak on behalf of the pre born; that's it. That's a sensitive subject, so I guess I should not be surprised by your unfairly judgmental response.
By the way, I'm not rich. Can't say that I've ever been exactly poor but greatly respect the working poor, which most poor people are.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand economics. Comparing this to greece only further shows this.

I think IUDs are the best thing to ever happen in birth control. (for the most part) You dont have to remember anything, you cant use them improperly, you cant be pressured not to use it - and youre good for 3-10 years, and can remove it earlier if you want. Mine was covered by benefits (canada), but it was around $300. I wish I had known more about them earlier, because it is awesome. Colorado is onto the right track.

When talking about low income women, you also need to think about homeless, sex workers, etc. Some of the most taken advantage of folks out there, who are at risk for sex assault and could get pregnant from rape.

 

[katharath]

I am not going to change anyone's mind about abortion here just as you aren't going to change mine. To the original topic, I think many Americans, regardless of party, are concerned about the out of control government spending. Too many think they can justify spending for their particular priorities. I once thought that but was wrong. Birth control is not that pricey, and I am comfortable with each of us buying his/her own. We don't want to end up like Greece. Everyone should be willing to reduce spending in every area. Clearly, I'm in the minority among those in discussion here but thought it important to present another view. I'm not offended and hope no one else is.

I'm in the minority as well. The problem is that there's a huge lack of personal responsibility. Don't want to get pregnant? The free prevention option has a zero percent failure rate. Other than sterilization, no other option is 0%. If you can't afford birth control pills, you can't afford a baby. And pills have a what, 15% failure rate with actual use?

15% failure rate for the pill? After almost 20 years off and on the pill, I guess I'd have a lot more than 2 kids if that were the case!

With "perfect use" you can expect less than 1% failure rate (actually more like .01% I believe). With "typical use" rates are more like 5%, although I've seen as high as 8. (These are the terms researchers actually use).

I just wanted to correct that statistic as it's VERY important for factual information to be considered in discussions like this.

As a young woman, I was incredibly grateful for state and federally subsidized birth control. It made it affordable for me, and allowed me to protect myself while living the life I wanted. No accidents for me, thankfully - but if I had been forced to choose between a baby I didn't want and couldn't afford, I'm incredibly thankful to be able to make that choice MYSELF. Why on earth should ANYONE else be involved in a decision that affects MY BODY, my life, for the entire duration of it? I've never actually seen a credible response to this question.

Subsidized programs helped me so that I didn't have any children until I wanted to - carefully planned, wanted children, that I could afford, and that I had full insurance coverage for. It should clearly remain an option - if you need proof, the Colorado study should be all you need to see. Well, that and Bristol Palin.

 

[amc80]

15% failure rate for the pill? After almost 20 years off and on the pill, I guess I'd have a lot more than 2 kids if that were the case! With "perfect use" you can expect less than 1% failure rate (actually more like .01% I believe). With "typical use" rates are more like 5%, although I've seen as high as 8. (These are the terms researchers actually use). I just wanted to correct that statistic as it's VERY important for factual information to be considered in discussions like this. As a young woman, I was incredibly grateful for state and federally subsidized birth control. It made it affordable for me, and allowed me to protect myself while living the life I wanted. No accidents for me, thankfully - but if I had been forced to choose between a baby I didn't want and couldn't afford, I'm incredibly thankful to be able to make that choice MYSELF. Why on earth should ANYONE else be involved in a decision that affects MY BODY, my life, for the entire duration of it? I've never actually seen a credible response to this question. Subsidized programs helped me so that I didn't have any children until I wanted to - carefully planned, wanted children, that I could afford, and that I had full insurance coverage for. It should clearly remain an option - if you need proof, the Colorado study should be all you need to see. Well, that and Bristol Palin.

Sorry, I was wrong. Typical use failure rate is 9% for the pill, not 15. And not 6. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

ETA I must have been thinking about condoms which are 18%.

 

[katharath]

http://www.healthcenter.vt.edu/assets/docs/contra-fail-rate.pdf

It clearly varies per study.

My typical use has been 100% effective over almost 20 years off and on; only going off for children.

 

[House Cat]

Could be a total buzz-kill/fun hater like me and be on the pill and still expect the guy to use a condom. I figure that's pretty dang close to 100% effective between the two. Guys didn't like that policy so much back in the day but...yanno, if you didn't respect me enough to do your part to prevent a pregnancy for that whole, what 20 minutes hahaha..then chances are you wouldn't respect me enough to help me take care of the baby you might help me make so...sorry 'bout yer luck. If'n you want a piece of this, you have to wear that.

This was the policy I taught my son. Also, because he couldn't trust whether or not the girl was faithful to taking her pills, he needed to have control in preventing an unwanted birth.

Also, there is that "little" thing called AIDS that needed to be prevented...

 

[Tekate]

I understand what you say but there is the old horniness problem.. emotions, youth, many many things go into teen pregnancy, the guy will pull out! Yes there is personal responsibility and that is to use birth control... sex is a great and wonderful thing and young people like it and want to do it.. I was young once!... I just think it's easy to say just abstain but hard to do, and that is why we have birth control.. for young, reproductive women (I say young as in 17-45 so free and or subsidized B/C will help all of us, medicaid use for birth will go down, abortions will continue their decline, young women can work and are free to go to school and better themselves, in the end it's a plus for all of us.

 

[JaneSmith]

When discussing rights, I think it is important to also consider the reasons you believe the pre born have no rights or the reasons you think they do.

The pregnant person has the right to bodily autonomy. Even if a fetus, embryo, or zygote had the same rights to life as the person carrying it, it still does not have the right to occupy and use another person's body against their will. Just like you cannot take organs or blood from a fully grown autonomous adult without consent.

There is a common thought experiment that goes something along the lines of you waking up one morning to find a famous musician or scientific genius attached to you via a tube in your belly button because they need constant person-to-person dialysis for nine months (not a real thing) until a kidney becomes available for them. If you disconnect, they will die. There are a few more details to this thought experiment, but you get the idea. Would you be cool with being hooked up to someone without your consent?

Here's another one from a professor of biology:
"How about a thought experiment? Scientists are supposed to like that sort of thing. Imagine that an alien species envelops the earth in a cloud of infectious DNA, and little needles carrying embryos rain down on us. If you’re struck by one, you’ll start growing an alien cyst in your body; it will fester for a bit less than a year, draining you of energy and making movement awkward, before rupturing and releasing a semi-autonomous intelligent creature. This process kills roughly 20 in 100,000 infected individuals, so it only has a small but very real chance of being lethal. The released creature is also going to demand approximately 20 years of full time care from its host.
Just to add an ironic twist, by some peculiar quirk of physiology, human women are totally resistant to the infection, so only men experience it.

Another unique feature of the alien cyst is that it is capable of communication. Shortly after infection, it extends a small neuronal process directly into the host’s brain, and begins talking — reciting alien history, literature, and culture. It’s fascinating stuff. Scholars, the military, and the government have a serious interest in compelling all the infected individuals to carry the cysts and share their information.

Of course, there is also a very simple surgical procedure to remove the cyst at any time, with very little risk; there are also drugs — you take one pill, and the cyst is expelled from your body, relatively painlessly.

What do you do? Personally, I’d find it extremely interesting to have a conversation with an alien intelligence, and if infected, I’d be tempted to keep it. I’m also financially stable with good health care, so I could probably cope with the financial burden, and would get the medical assistance to minimize any risk.

On the other hand, though, if I were more insecure economically, or had risk factors that made carrying the cyst more dangerous, or simply did not want to support this alien entity (maybe I have more interesting and important things to do with my life), who are you to tell me that I do not have the right to resist this invasion? Maybe it has brilliant things to whisper to me; maybe it will be unbearably adorable once the cyst breaks; maybe society is saying it really wants me to share the words of the alien; but ultimately, it ought to be my decision to make the sacrifices necessary to carry this creature. And if it is unwanted, it should be my right to end it. Who are you to tell me that the life of this parasite is more valuable than my own?

Being ordered about what I’m allowed to do with this infection would also be particularly galling if the people most insistent about it also happened to be a group of people who were totally immune from any possibility of ever having to host an alien themselves."

I am not just pro choice, I am pro abortion. Anyone who wants one should be able to have one, easily and safely.




Here are a bunch of incredibly cool facts and stats from Planned Parenthood about the dramatic economic, educational, and societal benefits women and the country they live in gain from their access to birth control.

"The broad positive impact of birth control on the U.S. economy is one reason why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named family planning, including access to modern contraception, one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.1 The U.S. and state governments saved $13.6 billion in 2010 and it is estimated that for every $1 invested in family planning programs, federal and state governments save $7.09 in part because of unintended pregnancies that were prevented from publicly supported contraception.2

Birth Control Advances Women’s Economic Empowerment.

Highlighting the fact that birth control is a top economic driver for women, Bloomberg Businessweek recently listed contraception as one of the most transformational developments in the business sector in the last 85 years.3 Fully one-third of the wage gains women have made since the 1960s are the result of access to oral contraceptives. And while the wage gap between men and women is still significant (partic- ularly for women of color) and must be addressed, access to birth control has helped narrow the gap. The decrease in the gap among 25–49-year-olds between men’s and women’s annual incomes “would have been 10 percent smaller in the 1980s and 30 percent smaller in the 1990s” in the absence of widespread legal birth control access.4 "

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/1614/3275/8659/BC_factsheet_may2015_updated_1.pdf

Most of the push towards restricting birth control and abortion comes from old puritanical notions about sex and purity and that women and girls who have sex should have to suffer the consequences of being dirty slutty sluts.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, I've enjoyed your jewelry posts. If memory serves, you are one of the stars here. So I'm disappointed that you choose to personally attack me. My views about birth control are economic; however, my views about abortion are moral. Just because I don't want to be unkind doesn't mean I'm untruthful.
I joined the discussion to briefly speak on behalf of the pre born; that's it. That's a sensitive subject, so I guess I should not be surprised by your unfairly judgmental response.
By the way, I'm not rich. Can't say that I've ever been exactly poor but greatly respect the working poor, which most poor people are.

Anna, I am happy you are a part of pricescope and that you have enjoyed my jewelry posts. But I do feel the need to clarify a few things.

1. I am, sadly, not a star on PS or anywhere. Being a star has too many attendant responsibilities and I am afraid I simply do not have the time. But, thank you.

2. Addressing comments to you is not a personal attack. If you are unclear as to what a personal attack is, feel free to post on the knot or the nest for a day or two, and I'm sure you will experience what a true personal attack is. And if at any time you DO feel personally attacked here, by me or anyone else, please report that post to the moderators and they will be happy to judge whether they consider the offending post to be a personal attack or not. That is their job.

3. I reject the term 'pre-born'. Do you mean fetus? Because that's what a 'pre-born' baby is. Calling it anything else is emotionally manipulative propaganda.

4. My post merely pointed out that MORALLY any one who feels the need to speak for fetus' as you do, should be in favor of anything that limits the need for and cause of abortions. Which is the result of free birth contol.

5. Further I pointed out that anyone who is ECONOMICALLY concerned should also favor birth control as it actually SAVES the government money.

6. Therefore, MORALLY and ECONOMICALLY the logical conclusion of your stated beliefs is that you SHOULD support free birthcontrol for those poor people whom you so greatly respect (though they could do with more empathy and less respect from you, in my personal opinion).

7. And yet, despite that, you do not IN FACT support free birthcontrol despite all moral and logical arguments.

8. Which is why I asked you to be honest with us about why you REALLY oppose free birthcontrol. Because it cannot possibly be for either the MORAL or the ECOMONIC reasons you stated.

9. And you still haven't answered that.

 

[Gypsy]

But the prevailing state of mind here is, eh, whatever, Medicaid will take care of me, Medicaid will take care of my baby. Not *I* will take care of me, *I* will take care of my baby. Not just for the young girls either, there's a good n' plenty number of adult women who feel this way.

Free birth control is a better answer than taking care of more and more births. We also should be working on the mind set of girls/women nowadays that that is all they're good for, or that is all they are "worth". Five different babies from five different guys-you can't blame everything on everyone else, at some point you *do* need to take responsibility for your own actions. We just accept it as no big deal. Every time you choose to have sex, you are by default choosing to accept that you could become pregnant, and if you can't take care of that baby, yeah it kinda is a big deal to those of us who are expected then by default to take care of your baby when you can't/won't. We were about as close to the line of qualifying for welfare as we could be, and it cost us $100/month for my pills. Drove JD batshit, spending that, and I hated it too-it's asinine to me to pay thousands and thousands to provide for a baby born to a family who can't afford it over the course of 18 years---rather than make birth control free. Added to the fact that it's a cycle, so that baby is more than likely going to end up in the same boat..it will never end.

Yes birth control should be free. We should fight for it to be free. But there are other things that need to be addressed along with it. And the eh whatever mindset is one of them. Even if it's free, you still have to be a "big girl" and go *get* it and then find the gumption to use it. For a lot of the women who were patients at the office when I worked there, it was a massive inconvenience to come to the office every three months for a depo shot. ("Gawd I have to go the *pharmacy* first bah..why can't you guys just get it here??? ugh but I have to have an appointment to get the shot?? Ugh this is ridiculous")

Free bc is one step in the right direction, provided we acknowledge there are other steps to be taken and it's not a fix-all.

I love this post. I can't tell you how much.

 

[Gypsy]

Subsidized programs helped me so that I didn't have any children until I wanted to - carefully planned, wanted children, that I could afford, and that I had full insurance coverage for. It should clearly remain an option - if you need proof, the Colorado study should be all you need to see. Well, that and Bristol Palin.

Not to mention this guy's daughter http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/05/1311905/-GOP-Abstinence-Only-Rep-Cassidy-s-unwed-teen-daughter-is-pregnant-Can-he-work-AND-be-good-father

In the realm of fantasy abstinences only may work. For those of us here in reality, however, the "free love" cat is out of the bag. So the solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies also has to be a realistic one. So, free birth control is the best solution, I am afraid.

 

[the_mother_thing]

We, as women take the responsibility for our own decisions, and for those that oppose, you may do the same.

*IF* this were true, there should be NO expectation nor reason for others to pay for things like BC, abortions, family planning, etc. The issue of free/subsidized BC (for me) is not one of religious beliefs, but personal responsibility. On one hand, you have a group of people who say, "stay out of my bedroom", "it's my body, my choice", etc. But when *your* (speaking generally) choice increases anothers's tax burden, takes their hard earned money off their table, out from under their roof, and consequently from their future, when you didn't bother to consult them on *your* choice, that is where I personally draw the line. At that point, "assistance" should be a choice of the impacted individual (which many of us do via donations to programs we support, etc); it should not be the government's (and by default, 'my') responsibility to pay for other's *mistakes*.

As people (male or female), you can't have it both ways. You can't say "stay out of my personal decisions, except when it comes to writing the check." I am all for everyone having the same freedoms, access to whatever, equal pay, etc, until that freedom/access encroaches upon someone else or takes away from them in some way. That is the fine line where the decision-maker's "rights" cease, and the impacted person's/people's rights begin.

At some point, this country veered away from being personally accountable for one's actions, and went down the path of "ehhh, whatever ... the government should cover it." And a PP was correct - we ARE on a fast & furious path toward being the next Greece if we do NOT rein in government spending in this country. These WILL be hard choices - no arguing that - but they will have to be made if we are to remain sustainable as a nation.

Pack rat hit the nail on the head when noting that people making these choices with their private lives (and "parts") need to be educated and encouraged to make smarter choices when it comes to understanding and accepting the consequences of those choices.

 

[iLander]

The idea that not spending money on birth control for women is going to make even a tiny dent in the federal budget is not correct.

The government spends enormous amounts of money killing people, or at least trying to.

Take the new F-35 fighter. It's a Single engine plane that weighs more than 35 tons. It has the manueverability of a bank building and flies about as well as I do. It won't be combat ready until 2019.

“The F-35 is double-inferior,” John Stillion and Harold Scott Perdue concluded in their written summary of the war game, later leaked to the press. The new plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” they warned.

Yet the F-35 is on track to become by far the military’s most numerous warplane. It was designed to replace almost all current fighters in the Air Force and Marine Corps and complement the Navy’s existing F/A-18 jets. The Pentagon plans to acquire roughly 2,400 of the radar-evading F-35s in coming decades, at a cost of more than $400 billion.

more http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

So what does this piece of flying debris cost? $400 BILLION dollars. Yup. Billion with a B.

But, hey, I guess it's more important that those Pratt and Whitney guys buy summer homes than it is for poor women to catch a break.

 

[iLander]

At some point, this country veered away from being personally accountable for one's actions, and went down the path of "ehhh, whatever ... the government should cover it." And a PP was correct - we ARE on a fast & furious path toward being the next Greece if we do NOT rein in government spending in this country. These WILL be hard choices - no arguing that - but they will have to be made if we are to remain sustainable as a nation.

Pack rat hit the nail on the head when noting that people making these choices with their private lives (and "parts") need to be educated and encouraged to make smarter choices when it comes to understanding and accepting the consequences of those choices.

I agree with the education part. But I think you should know that the conservatives have made it so that the majority of sex education these days is abstinence only. That's right, my bright, intelligent AP Scholar DD had no idea how women became pregnant when she finished the "sex ed" course at her high school.

 

[iLander]

Here's the result of the Texas state government saying "It's time for you to take personal responsibility":

When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens, according to the nonpartisan state Legislative Budget Board. The other result was more unintended pregnancies and, presumably, more abortions.

more: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-fiscal-conservatives-case-for-spending-more-money-on-birth-control/254442/

So, essentially, you can either tell people "tough toadies, be responsible" and end up paying more, or you can say "let me help you out a little" and pay less. The holier-then-though option is a pretty expensive.

 

[the_mother_thing]

The idea that not spending money on birth control for women is going to make even a tiny dent in the federal budget is not correct.

BC itself ... no, it won't. But BC in addition to every other warm-fuzzy, "make you feel good", 'pet' pork project to study frogs, and foreign aid payout that IS in the federal budget comprise a large amount of waste, IMO.

Military spending, however, benefits us ALL because it enables the continuity of our nation & freedom by enabling us to remain secure. If you don't like the jet, by all means, design something better.

I do not begrudge anyone who is successful from reaping the rewards of their efforts ... be it a beach house or a 10 ct diamond. I am not the person who went out on a limb, took the risk, and used my personal funds to launch the company, and endures the stress and angst of dealing with the challenges as a business owner/CEO. Until I walk in their shoes, it's not my place to judge.

I agree with the education part. But I think you should know that the conservatives have made it so that the majority of sex education these days is abstinence only. That's right, my bright, intelligent AP Scholar DD had no idea how women became pregnant when she finished the "sex ed" course at her high school.

Again, I point to personal responsibility. I don't want the school telling my kid it's okay to be promiscuous. They should teach anatomy, how babies are made (FACTS), and it can/should stop there. How about a class on dealing with consequences of decisions - be it sex, bad budgeting, living beyond one's means, etc. I'm not sure where your child was schooled, but those sex-ed basics were taught to my daughter in 5th grade and again in middle school. Beyond that, it's MY job as the parent to instill morals and self-respect in my child; not some liberal teacher who thinks the government (e.g., other taxpayers) should fund my child's 'mistakes'.

 

[iLander]

For those that think the government making abortion illegal is a good idea, I ask you this; how is that different than the Chinese government restricting births? Here's a communist regime writing rules that invade the womb, and directly affect a woman's reproductive freedom. How is regulating abortion any less an example of government overreach?

If we let the government makes decisions about a woman's womb, where will that invasion stop?

What if the government decides that handicapped children should not be born? They use resources, they need assistance and funds for mainstreamed public schooling, don't they cost a lot? If the government has womb power, who's to say this slippery slope won't appear?

Where would the womb invasion stop? What if, in the future, testing shows embryos that are predisposed to cancer, Parkinson's, mental illness, schizophrenia, even criminality? Wouldn't it behoove the government to terminate those pregnancies? Save all that long-term money? The technology to detect these genes exists today, and it would be easy to use it on embryos.

But why stop the womb invasion there? Gene technology could detect parents that are likely to pass on genes for MS, cancer, developmental delays, and any other thing the government would like to test for. Perhaps the government should forbid these parents from reproducing. Imagine all the money saved!

Be careful, more regulation is a slippery slope. Who knows what door you're opening that will be walked through 20 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years . . .

 

[the_mother_thing]

Here's the result of the Texas state government saying "It's time for you to take personal responsibility":

When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens, according to the nonpartisan state Legislative Budget Board. The other result was more unintended pregnancies and, presumably, more abortions.

more: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-fiscal-conservatives-case-for-spending-more-money-on-birth-control/254442/

So, essentially, you can either tell people "tough toadies, be responsible" and end up paying more, or you can say "let me help you out a little" and pay less. The holier-then-though option is a pretty expensive.

I reiterate my stance is NOT religion based, so I'm not demonstrating a holier-than-thou attitude.

It wouldn't cost one extra DIME in medicaid if the government (Fed and State) stopped paying for those things/services. By increasing the funnel to "easy street" solutions for individuals' poor decisions, you're only increasing the likelihood of more of that behavior.

The problem is we have become wayyyy too soft on individual consequences - be it for "personal choices" or crime. People aren't as thoughtful about what they do because they know there's a way around it, a government handout/bailout, or the punishment won't be all that stiff.

 

[iLander]

The idea that not spending money on birth control for women is going to make even a tiny dent in the federal budget is not correct.

BC itself ... no, it won't. But BC in addition to every other warm-fuzzy, "make you feel good", 'pet' pork project to study frogs, and foreign aid payout that IS in the federal budget comprise a large amount of waste, IMO.

Military spending, however, benefits us ALL because it enables the continuity of our nation & freedom by enabling us to remain secure. If you don't like the jet, by all means, design something better.

I do not begrudge anyone who is successful from reaping the rewards of their efforts ... be it a beach house or a 10 ct diamond. I am not the person who went out on a limb, took the risk, and used my personal funds to launch the company, and endures the stress and angst of dealing with the challenges as a business owner/CEO. Until I walk in their shoes, it's not my place to judge.

I agree with the education part. But I think you should know that the conservatives have made it so that the majority of sex education these days is abstinence only. That's right, my bright, intelligent AP Scholar DD had no idea how women became pregnant when she finished the "sex ed" course at her high school.

Again, I point to personal responsibility. I don't want the school telling my kid it's okay to be promiscuous. They should teach anatomy, how babies are made (FACTS), and it can/should stop there. How about a class on dealing with consequences of decisions - be it sex, bad budgeting, living beyond one's means, etc. I'm not sure where your child was schooled, but those sex-ed basics were taught to my daughter in 5th grade and again in middle school. Beyond that, it's MY job as the parent to instill morals and self-respect in my child; not some liberal teacher who thinks the government (e.g., other taxpayers) should fund my child's 'mistakes'.

I agree there is much pork, but this saves more money than it spends. Do you really want 1 million more babies to pay for? EVery year, another million? Frog studying does not save money, but this does. It's an investment.

The thing about that jet is that we have something better; any of the jets we already have are better. Why isn't this project pork?

And I consider it my place to judge when these companies receive billions of dollars From Me and You and exceed their budget by 1000%. Why aren't they personally responsible enough to stay within budget?

You don't understand the new abstinence only education, that is the only thing offered in many conservative states; there are no facts, not even the biology. I Wish it was a liberal teacher, maybe she'd squeeze in a few biology facts. I, of course, filled her in, but judging by the actions of her classmates, much of it remained a mystery to them.

 

[iLander]

Here's the result of the Texas state government saying "It's time for you to take personal responsibility":

When Texas cut $73 million from state family planning services, the increase in unplanned pregnancies ended up costing $230 million in additional Medicaid burdens, according to the nonpartisan state Legislative Budget Board. The other result was more unintended pregnancies and, presumably, more abortions.

more: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-fiscal-conservatives-case-for-spending-more-money-on-birth-control/254442/

So, essentially, you can either tell people "tough toadies, be responsible" and end up paying more, or you can say "let me help you out a little" and pay less. The holier-then-though option is a pretty expensive.

I reiterate my stance is NOT religion based, so I'm not demonstrating a holier-than-thou attitude.

It wouldn't cost one extra DIME in medicaid if the government (Fed and State) stopped paying for those things/services. By increasing the funnel to "easy street" solutions for individuals' poor decisions, you're only increasing the likelihood of more of that behavior.

The problem is we have become wayyyy too soft on individual consequences - be it for "personal choices" or crime. People aren't as thoughtful about what they do because they know there's a way around it, a government handout/bailout, or the punishment won't be all that stiff.

Not saying that you in particular, are holier than though. New post, directed to the universal you, not you in specific.

I am presenting you with actual facts and figures. I am showing how it costs more, with actual facts and figures that are verified. Maybe you're saying it's not a medicaid expense? But I am showing how it became millions more in welfare expenses.

 

[Tekate]

JoCoJenn, I just understand why you say the government will pay for it... We as taxpayers are going to pay somehow, we will pay for birth control for the poor or we will pay for their pregnancies and birth, and the child's schooling, food etc. Me, I'll take paying for birth control easey peasey! People are gonna have sex.. they are gonna get buzzed, they are gonna have babies... the birth rate for children in the USA is at an ALL TIME LOW.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/01/28/u-s-birthrate-falls-again/

it's one of the reasons why the boomers are in a fix as there were tons of boomers and so we (us boomers) paid our SS for our parents with ease, but behind us, not as many. This is why we need a lot of immigrants but that is ANOTHER thought for another day

I think people should have as many children as they can afford and want. But then we can evolve into a whole scenario of just 'certain' people will be able afford to have children.. scary conversation I think.

As far as I know, the American taxpayer does not pay for any abortions, but I am most familiar with the state of Texas. I'm a big proponent of: it's my body and therefore my choice, take personal responsibility and use birth control, if you can't afford it then I'm willing to give you a helping hand to a degree, I'd REALLY like to see you get a job and pay your own way, that is the key I think.

(Greece: they have a retirement age of 57! they don't pay their taxes, they evade taxes, and they did not cut benefits and spending.. I don't see that happening here.)

We, as women take the responsibility for our own decisions, and for those that oppose, you may do the same.

*IF* this were true, there should be NO expectation nor reason for others to pay for things like BC, abortions, family planning, etc. The issue of free/subsidized BC (for me) is not one of religious beliefs, but personal responsibility. On one hand, you have a group of people who say, "stay out of my bedroom", "it's my body, my choice", etc. But when *your* (speaking generally) choice increases anothers's tax burden, takes their hard earned money off their table, out from under their roof, and consequently from their future, when you didn't bother to consult them on *your* choice, that is where I personally draw the line. At that point, "assistance" should be a choice of the impacted individual (which many of us do via donations to programs we support, etc); it should not be the government's (and by default, 'my') responsibility to pay for other's *mistakes*.

As people (male or female), you can't have it both ways. You can't say "stay out of my personal decisions, except when it comes to writing the check." I am all for everyone having the same freedoms, access to whatever, equal pay, etc, until that freedom/access encroaches upon someone else or takes away from them in some way. That is the fine line where the decision-maker's "rights" cease, and the impacted person's/people's rights begin.

At some point, this country veered away from being personally accountable for one's actions, and went down the path of "ehhh, whatever ... the government should cover it." And a PP was correct - we ARE on a fast & furious path toward being the next Greece if we do NOT rein in government spending in this country. These WILL be hard choices - no arguing that - but they will have to be made if we are to remain sustainable as a nation.

Pack rat hit the nail on the head when noting that people making these choices with their private lives (and "parts") need to be educated and encouraged to make smarter choices when it comes to understanding and accepting the consequences of those choices.