This aptly summarizes my attitude: I’m ok with the notion that life begins at conception, but I wish the people who beat that drum would acknowledge that conception does not occur at intercourse. There’s a time period between the act of sex and the joining of sperm to egg during which you can stop the pregnancy before it starts. For this reason, the morning after pill is an important asset in preventing abortions!
Right. But the distinction is between contraception that people think (rightly or wrongly) could cause an abortion and contraception they think does not. It’s hard to understand people being against all contraception (American Catholics notoriously ignore that ruling of the Church), and I think only a small minority are. People might object to contraceptives being given to minors even though they are OK with married couples using BC. My response was specifically aimed at the question in post #56, where that poster was lumping all types of BC together and wondering where all the pharmacists were who would not sell any kind of BC whatsoever.
It’s a private, non-profit organization, which provides a range of health services related to women’s reproductive health and female-specific health issues (the aforementioned breast cancer screening).
It looks like about 1/3 of their operating budget comes from federal and state governments, to provide public health care (though they are barred from using federal funds to provide abortions); the rest comes from revenue from their clinics (i.e., charging for services), donations, and other grants.
17% is the percentage who used the pill at one particular time, while “virtually universal” is the percentage of sexually active women who have used some form of birth control at some point.
So, if a woman has enough money to pay for her own birth control when she’s in her twenties, but due to financial setbacks, cannot afford her own birth control in her thirties, she’s still included in that stat about birth control being “virtually universal,” right?
Can you see the problem with using that stat to argue that there are no issues with women getting access to birth control?
It makes sense. If a woman needs Naproxen or Prozac, that’s not “women’s health care,” that’s just health care. Crotch and boobs are the only places women have medical needs men don’t.
Yes, I said the same thing in my OP.
I’m not quite understanding your line of reasoning. Law requires that all forms of birth control be covered by all health insurance plans without any copay; meanwhile, other medications including those that save lives are not required to be covered without copay. Most people still pay money for them. Why would it wrong for someone to pay for birth control, but quite alright for them to pay for live-saving medicine? The answer surely has nothing to do with the cost of the medication or its rarity; nothing in the rules mentions those things.
It should also be noted that are 13,540 federally funded and federally accredited community health care clinics around the United States that provide comprehensive health care for women compared to 665 PP clinics.
I’d be happy if government funding for Planned Parenthood were cut, but I’m not terribly gung-ho about the topic when there’s a lot more money to be saved by cutting other, larger programs. I’m puzzled/amused by the shrieking that goes on among pundits and Congresscritters whenever the idea is even suggested. As already mentioned by others, Planned Parenthood doesn’t get the majority of its money from the government, and if there were a shortfall, liberal zillionaires could keep the organization afloat for a fraction of the money that they give to other causes. Texas cut state funding for Planned Parenthood in 2012. Contrary to the sky-is-falling predictions from the left, this caused neither shortage of birth control nor increase in abortions.
I’m not seeing in your link where those 13,540 clinics are federally accredited. It does say that the list was gathered by a couple of “Pro-Life” groups, and that they were the ones that labeled them “comprehensive”.
Bzzzz. According to your article, there are 13,540 clinics that COULD theoretically receive federal funding, not that are currently receiving funding.
We have no idea the scope or capacity of these clinics. But resources are stretched pretty thin everywhere. The idea that these clinics are full of empty slots to absorb the millions of women who currently use Planned Parenthood is unlikely.
“Percentage of sexually active women who have used some form of birth control at some point” refers to women who have ever used (or had their partner use) birth control of any kind, at any time (even once) however efficacious (even withdrawal is mentioned- Snowboarder Bo’s post approx #48).
As I read this, this speaks more to a virtually universal desire for birth control, not virtually universal access.
Bzzz. There have been Congressional hearings on the matter. Do you doubt people testifying under Oath?
Although I see that several others have already refuted this thread on its logical merits, I would also like to link this study published in 2014. It showed significantly decreased rates of pregnancy and abortion in a cohort of St Louis teens provided with free contraception, relative to the rates for all teens and “sexually experienced” teens across the nation.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506#t=articleResults
From your link, with emphasis added:
So, even sven is right, and you are wrong.
Not sure what people being under oath has to do with anything, but yes, I quite often doubt people who are testifying under oath.
Do you agree that it’s fantastically misleading to suggest that Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with mammograms, when they provide referrals and help obtain funding for them?
Your argument is utter shit.
Federally Qualified Health Centers, many of which are federally funded, will serve 40 million people in 2015.
Planned Parenthood serves less that 3 million.
The “argument” that cutting off funding for PP is an attack on healthcare for women is silly.
You are having some trouble reasoning. Because the two elements you state, that there are abortions, and there is access to birth control do not come anywhere near to the conclusion you state is plainly obvious.
Seriously, this is asinine.
If such a woman existed, then yes. I’ve seen no evidence that such a woman exists. As I mentioned, the CDC also surveyed women on reasons for not using birth control. Inability to afford it did not even register.
If there really are a lot of woman who currently don’t have access to birth control, you’d rather think that those demanding increased access to birth control would be able to produce some evidence of the fact.
None of which, of course, changes the fact that you didn’t know what your own cite actually said. But let’s set that aside for right now, and chase after your new goalposts.
Firstly, you may not be aware of this, but a million is kind of a big number. Emphasizing that almost three million women rely on Planned Parenthood to get their health care isn’t really an argument in favor of defunding them. Kind of the opposite, really. Secondly, those other forty million clinics? They already have patients. If you shut down Planned Parenthood, it’s not a given that those other clinics will be able to absorb the increased patient load.