Planned Parenthood videos

[Jenksismyhero]

Youre going to have to pay either way, so why not pick the cheapest option?

 

Morals? Principles? Slavery is pretty cost effective, but, you know, it's wrong.

[cabiness42]

And that is fine. But what I am saying is that people who are poor in America, are real lives as well. So when Republican's (not saying you) argue that they want to reduce social services for real people while at the same time arguing against abortion, it just does not make any sense. Either lives matter or they do not.

 

My personal belief is based on science in that until X time a fetus can not live on its own. Therefore until X time, it is entirely up to the mother whether she wants to go forward with the pregnancy. After X time has passed, abortion is no longer okay.

 

That way you balance the right of the mother versus the rights of the potential life.

 

If you ever run for office, good luck getting funding from any left-wing PAC's with that position.

[cabiness42]

Chisoxfn isn't one of them, but there's a strong overlap between people who strongly oppose abortion and also oppose good, useful sexual education for teenagers and widely available reproductive health services/information including contraceptives. Defunding Planned Parenthood would virtually guarantee that the number of unwanted pregnancies would increase.

 

Totally agree with the first sentence. As to the second sentence, the bill that just got shot down in Congress would have taken every dollar that was supposed to go to PP and given it to other organizations that do all of the same things PP does except abortions, so that would not have been true in this case.

[caulfield12]

If you ever run for office, good luck getting funding from any left-wing PAC's with that position.

 

Unless he said six to seven months, when the fetus becomes viable.

 

Doublespeak, of course. You're pro-choice, but you're not expressly pro-abortion.

 

Like when candidates say I would never want my wife or daughter to go through that process (unless life-threatening situation, severe birth defects, etc.) but I don't feel that I have the right as a man to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

[cabiness42]

Unless he said six to seven months, when the fetus becomes viable.

 

Doublespeak, of course. You're pro-choice, but you're not expressly pro-abortion.

 

Like when candidates say I would never want my wife or daughter to go through that process (unless life-threatening situation, severe birth defects, etc.) but I don't feel that I have the right as a man to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

 

There is not a single left-wing PAC I'm aware of that is OK with the position of banning abortions after 24 weeks.

[caulfield12]

Totally agree with the first sentence. As to the second sentence, the bill that just got shot down in Congress would have taken every dollar that was supposed to go to PP and given it to other organizations that do all of the same things PP does except abortions, so that would not have been true in this case.

 

Which is the point we liberals always make...are all those who are pro-life also willing to adopt all these unwanted kids (or they simply can't afford to provide them a good life) and assume responsibility for them through adulthood?

 

If not, the long-term governmental costs in terms of prison/incarcerations and social safety net programs are going to be at least 20x the cost of sex education and condom handout programs, not to mention health care costs for STD treatment.

 

If that doesn't work, there's always the overpopulation, global warming/diminishing natural resources argument.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which is the point we liberals always make...are all those who are pro-life also willing to adopt all these unwanted kids (or they simply can't afford to provide them a good life) and assume responsibility for them through adulthood?

 

If not, the long-term governmental costs in terms of prison/incarcerations and social safety net programs are going to be at least 20x the cost of sex education and condom handout programs, not to mention health care costs for STD treatment.

 

If that doesn't work, there's always the overpopulation, global warming/diminishing natural resources argument.

 

Isn't the myth that most abortions are obtained by poor inner city women, when in fact the biggest chunk are middle class suburban women?

 

[caulfield12]

There is not a single left-wing PAC I'm aware of that is OK with the position of banning abortions after 24 weeks.

 

Not even for rape/incest, late emerging birth defects or where the mother's life is in imminent danger?

[Balta1701]

Isn't the myth that most abortions are obtained by poor inner city women, when in fact the biggest chunk are middle class suburban women?

No. That was the case back in the 1970s, it no longer is based on the available statistics. Middle class suburban white women are able to obtain more regular birth control which has been denied to lower income women.

In the ’70s, this image of the typical abortion patient was largely accurate. According to the Guttmacher Institute, women ages 18-19 accounted for 33 percent of the total abortions performed in 1974, with those in their early 20s made up another third. Fifty-four percent were childless, and 72 percent were unmarried. Data about the racial breakdown of abortion recipients in the early years after Roe v. Wade is hard to come by; racial data only began being tracked in the 1980s. But extrapolating back, it’s clear that for most of the first decades after Roe, a large majority of abortion patients were white.

 

Since then, the demographics of abortion patients have changed dramatically. Women under 20 now account for only 18 percent of abortions. The percentage of women without children seeking an abortion has dropped to 39 percent, and non-Hispanic white women only account for 36 percent of abortion patients. The only thing that hasn’t changed is that women seeking abortion tend to be unmarried; around 85 percent of those seeking abortion aren’t married. While the discourse around abortion still focuses on scared white teenagers, the reality is that the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of color.

 

The shift is the result of economic pressures and changing patterns of contraceptive use. Improved contraception use has led to a drop in the abortion rate for pretty much all groups of women since the 1970s. But in the early 2000s, the National Center for Health Statistics found that while contraception use in American women had been climbing for decades, it stalled in the 1990s. Loss of access for poorer women seemed to be the sole reason for this troubling trend, which led to an explosion in unplanned pregnancy, and therefore abortion. While poor women have seen a spike, women in the middle class continued to see unplanned pregnancies decline.

 

The most recent data suggests that the disparity has only gotten larger. Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged.

In other words, there's a reason why Planned Parenthood is in this business in the first place, they're serving the community which otherwise doesn't have access to this type of health care due to costs.

[caulfield12]

Isn't the myth that most abortions are obtained by poor inner city women, when in fact the biggest chunk are middle class suburban women?

 

Statistically, that has to be true, but that's never the focus of the media.

 

As far as the middle class goes, there's not many left.

[cabiness42]

No. That was the case back in the 1970s, it no longer is based on the available statistics. Middle class suburban white women are able to obtain more regular birth control which has been denied to lower income women.

In other words, there's a reason why Planned Parenthood is in this business in the first place, they're serving the community which otherwise doesn't have access to this type of health care due to costs.

 

But PP has been in this business for years, so if these communities still don't have access, then they really suck at what they're doing.

[StrangeSox]

Morals? Principles? Slavery is pretty cost effective, but, you know, it's wrong.

But Alpha appeared to be saying that he only opposed it on the grounds of taxpayer funding (which, per the Hyde amendment, is not actually allowed with any federal funds).

[Jenksismyhero]

No. That was the case back in the 1970s, it no longer is based on the available statistics. Middle class suburban white women are able to obtain more regular birth control which has been denied to lower income women.

In other words, there's a reason why Planned Parenthood is in this business in the first place, they're serving the community which otherwise doesn't have access to this type of health care due to costs.

 

Of course the obvious solution is to not expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy if you don't want a child/can't have a child... but I know, personal responsibility and all.

[Balta1701]

But PP has been in this business for years, so if these communities still don't have access, then they really suck at what they're doing.

You're 100% right. They do stink at this. It would be far better if we had a health care system that actually was able to cover everyone in the country and give them genuine opportunities for regular care and family planning. We took a solid step forwards in 2010, unfortunately between states rejecting the Medicaid expansion and Medicaid not being all that strong anyway, there's still a good deal of ground to cover.

 

It also doesn't help when the women's health bits get specifically targeted for political gain, whether it be Jeb Bush yesterday, the Hobby Lobby case, or even in the PPACA in the first place (I can't be the only one who remembers people complaining about the PPACA saying you couldn't charge women more than men or there being a multi-day pause because they couldn't figure out the strongest way to get the Hyde amendment applied to its passage).

[Jenksismyhero]

You're 100% right. They do stink at this. It would be far better if we had a health care system that actually was able to cover everyone in the country and give them genuine opportunities for regular care and family planning. We took a solid step forwards in 2010, unfortunately between states rejecting the Medicaid expansion and Medicaid not being all that strong anyway, there's still a good deal of ground to cover.

 

It also doesn't help when the women's health bits get specifically targeted for political gain, whether it be Jeb Bush yesterday, the Hobby Lobby case, or even in the PPACA in the first place (I can't be the only one who remembers people complaining about the PPACA saying you couldn't charge women more than men).

 

When has PP funding for birth control and the like ever been a problem? Beginning in high school I knew girls/dated girls that routinely went to PP for birth control and it was insanely cheap. That was the last 90's, I really doubt things have changed since then.

[Balta1701]

When has PP funding for birth control and the like ever been a problem? Beginning in high school I knew girls/dated girls that routinely went to PP for birth control and it was insanely cheap. That was the last 90's, I really doubt things have changed since then.

I can't think of a single example in recent years of where paying for Birth Control has been remotely controversial or challenging and I'm 100% sure no one else can cite a single case as well.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can't think of a single example in recent years of where paying for Birth Control has been remotely controversial or challenging and I'm 100% sure no one else can cite a single case as well.

 

No, those are two different things. Someone going to PP to get birth control has never been an issue for 99% of people out there. It's a personal choice for you to walk down to the clinic and buy some. No one can stop you. Forcing a company to cover birth control for their employees has nothing to do with that.

[caulfield12]

When has PP funding for birth control and the like ever been a problem? Beginning in high school I knew girls/dated girls that routinely went to PP for birth control and it was insanely cheap. That was the last 90's, I really doubt things have changed since then.

 

We're talking about rural areas....let's say Boone County SD (Wounded Knee area) and Appalachia. Or the migrant farmworkers' regions, the remote border with Mexico, etc.

 

Urban/suburban areas have the charitable support to supplement government funding...but I would be shocked to find many PP's on Native American reservations, for example.

 

98% of them must be in cities of 100,000 or more.

Edited August 5, 2015 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

No, those are two different things. Someone going to PP to get birth control has never been an issue for 99% of people out there. It's a personal choice for you to walk down to the clinic and buy some. No one can stop you. Forcing a company to cover birth control for their employees has nothing to do with that.

Well at least now you're supporting strong funding for PP and touting the effectiveness of that funding, so I guess that is an improvement.

[caulfield12]

Well at least now you're supporting strong funding for PP and touting the effectiveness of that funding, so I guess that is an improvement.

 

Except for when the government forces private companies to provide coverage, lol.

 

He's probably against his freedom being taken away in the choice to wear or not wear a seat belt as well...

 

Not about policy or morals or right vs. wrong, it's all about philosophy of government intervention/intrusion.

 

 

Of course, most Republicans are 100% behind the Patriot Act, except Rand Paul.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well at least now you're supporting strong funding for PP and touting the effectiveness of that funding, so I guess that is an improvement.

 

Little leap of logic there.

[EvilMonkey]

Which is the point we liberals always make...are all those who are pro-life also willing to adopt all these unwanted kids (or they simply can't afford to provide them a good life) and assume responsibility for them through adulthood?

 

If not, the long-term governmental costs in terms of prison/incarcerations and social safety net programs are going to be at least 20x the cost of sex education and condom handout programs, not to mention health care costs for STD treatment.

 

If that doesn't work, there's always the overpopulation, global warming/diminishing natural resources argument.

But your point is based on a wrong premise. Why should it be MY responsibility to adopt YOUR 'mistake'? Why should that be the government's responsibility either. YOU f***ed up, literally, you fix it. And don't make me pay for it.

[EvilMonkey]

Except for when the government forces private companies to provide coverage, lol.

 

He's probably against his freedom being taken away in the choice to wear or not wear a seat belt as well...

 

Not about policy or morals or right vs. wrong, it's all about philosophy of government intervention/intrusion.

 

 

Of course, most Republicans are 100% behind the Patriot Act, except Rand Paul.

Yes, hate seatbelts being mandated even though I wear mine all the time and no, don't like the patriot act.

[Balta1701]

But your point is based on a wrong premise. Why should it be MY responsibility to adopt YOUR 'mistake'? Why should that be the government's responsibility either. YOU f***ed up, literally, you fix it. And don't make me pay for it.

Who pays for the kid?

[EvilMonkey]

Who pays for the kid?

The parent(s). And if they still want an abortion, go get one, and pay for it. Like someone said, cheaper than 18 years...