# More low income babies in TX



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The state of Texasâ sustained campaign against Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics affiliated with abortion providers appears to have led to an increase in births among low-income women who lost access to affordable and effective birth control, a new study says.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...d-parenthood-texas-births-20160203-story.html


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

They could go to Planned Parenthood and get free birth control instead of having more babies.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> They could go to Planned Parenthood and get free birth control.


Did you read the article? TX cut funding to PP and other clinics (they actually set up their own system so they could refuse federal funding in order to do it) that offered abortion, so the low income women that wanted birth control had a harder time getting it. Now the taxpayers are paying for more babies...

ETA:* "Though only 23 of the 254 counties in Texas had a Planned Parenthood clinic before 2013, they served 60% of the state&#8217;s low-income women of childbearing age, according to the study."*


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

scooter said:


> They could go to Planned Parenthood and get free birth control instead of having more babies.


While I agree that contraceptives is an ideal option, they aren't foolproof either.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I thought you had denied that abortion was a form of birth control, and was only acceptable to preserve the health of those poor mothers.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you read the article? TX cut funding to PP and other clinics (they actually set up their own system so they could refuse federal funding in order to do it) that offered abortion, so the low income women that wanted birth control had a harder time getting it. Now the taxpayers are paying for more babies...
> 
> ETA: "Though only 23 of the 254 counties in Texas had a Planned Parenthood clinic before 2013, they served 60% of the stateâs low-income women of childbearing age, according to the study."


 Most of those babies being born are probably illegal immigrants babies as Texas has a big problem with illegals. Most of those people are Spanish descent and Catholic, they don't believe in birth control either.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

wr said:


> While I agree that contraceptives is an ideal option, they aren't foolproof either.


 Most of them don't know how to use them correctly. Birth control would absolutely cut down on the number of babies being born.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> Most of those babies being born are probably illegal immigrants babies as Texas has a big problem with illegals. Most of those people are Spanish descent and Catholic, they don't believe in birth control either.


Were illegal immigrants a problem in TX _prior_ to shutting down most/all of Planned Parenthood and other clinics? The link states there was a definitely increase in children being born to low income woman _after_ the clinics were shut down, and it further states it is a result of the women not being able to get birth control. 

To me, this a clear case of TX cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. If birth control isn't cheap and available, babies are going to happen. Birth control is much much cheaper than raising babies...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I thought you had denied that abortion was a form of birth control, and was only acceptable to preserve the health of those poor mothers.


Abortion is not birth control, it's a termination of a pregnancy. Please read my post again, you're confused about what I stated. Or being untruthful about what I said, who knows which?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure it is cheaper to kill off something you don't want never wanted or never PLANNED FOR. Just cast it aside like a peace of old day bread and throw away a human being into the daily garbage like any crazies would do with something unwanted, unloved, just dispose of it like trash.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Sure it is cheaper to kill off something you don't want never wanted or never PLANNED FOR. Just cast it aside like a peace of old day bread and throw away a human being into the daily garbage like any crazies would do with something unwanted, unloved, just dispose of it like trash.


You believe that birth control is killing something off? That's extreme. Hint: The thread isn't about abortion. There are a lot of people that don't read links.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you read the article? TX cut funding to PP and other clinics (they actually set up their own system so they could refuse federal funding in order to do it) that offered abortion, so the low income women that wanted birth control had a harder time getting it. Now the taxpayers are paying for more babies...
> 
> ETA: "Though only 23 of the 254 counties in Texas had a Planned Parenthood clinic before 2013, they served 60% of the state&#8217;s low-income women of childbearing age, according to the study."





HDRider said:


> I thought you had denied that abortion was a form of birth control, and was only acceptable to preserve the health of those poor mothers.


Looks like the parenthesis interrupted your reading. She said Texas cut funding to PP and other clinics that offered abortion. By cutting funding for PP they also destroyed access to contraception like the pill for women who are of lower income and could not afford it otherwise. 

And now their medicare births are up 27%. Congratulations, Texas. You missed the big picture. Again. 

Let me guess. Here comes the, "Well they shouldn't have sex then!" Yea. They shouldn't. Then again, back in the "good old days" when people were so much more moral, they just got married at 16.....before or after the girl got pregnant.....it was always a guessing game. People don't change. Sex is normal, even if your religion tells you it's a sin.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Looks like the parenthesis interrupted your reading. She said Texas cut funding to PP and other clinics that offered abortion. By cutting funding for PP they also destroyed access to contraception like the pill for women who are of lower income and could not afford it otherwise.
> 
> And now their medicare births are up 27%. Congratulations, Texas. You missed the big picture. Again.
> 
> Let me guess. Here comes the, "Well they shouldn't have sex then!" Yea. They shouldn't. Then again, back in the "good old days" when people were so much more moral, they just got married at 16.....before or after the girl got pregnant.....it was always a guessing game. People don't change. Sex is normal, even if your religion tells you it's a sin.


Thank you! You actually read the link rather than making crap up. Congratulations. :happy2:

I agree with the rest of your post too.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Were illegal immigrants a problem in TX _prior_ to shutting down most/all of Planned Parenthood and other clinics? The link states there was a definitely increase in children being born to low income woman _after_ the clinics were shut down, and it further states it is a result of the women not being able to get birth control.
> 
> To me, this a clear case of TX cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. If birth control isn't cheap and available, babies are going to happen. Birth control is much much cheaper than raising babies...


 If you haven't been paying attention to the illegal problem there has been a big surge of them coming in.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> If you haven't been paying attention to the illegal problem there has been a big surge of them coming in.


If it was just "illegals" wouldn't it have been the SAME prior to TX shutting down the clinics? After all, "illegals" have been a problem for awhile now, right? It's not a new thing since 2013, is it? The increase in low income women having more babies is since the clinics shut down. The obvious conclusion (and the one the study supports in case the link still hasn't been read) is that access to cheap and convenient birth control decreases low income women having babies.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Heads up folks: Low -income does not mean stupid. If people really wanted birth control, they'd find a way to get it. 

No, Pixie - There's been a large surge of illegals into the US. since 2013. Scooter is right.

Since I'm way past buying birth control, so I wondered how much it cost...Not that much, especially if you have insurance. And since one of the selling points of Obamacare was to insure the uninsured maybe we need to re-look at the methodology behind the OP's link.. 

http://health.costhelper.com/birth-control-pills.html


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Why are these low income mothers [L.I.M.] not enrolled in ObamaCare for their birth control medicine? They could get their prescriptions written anywhere that there is a Obamacare doctor and get them filled at their local Walmart or other pharmaceutical discount store...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Looks like the parenthesis interrupted your reading. She said Texas cut funding to PP and other clinics that offered abortion. By cutting funding for PP they also destroyed access to contraception like the pill for women who are of lower income and could not afford it otherwise.
> 
> And now their medicare births are up 27%. Congratulations, Texas. You missed the big picture. Again.
> 
> Let me guess. Here comes the, "Well they shouldn't have sex then!" Yea. They shouldn't. Then again, back in the "good old days" when people were so much more moral, they just got married at 16.....before or after the girl got pregnant.....it was always a guessing game. People don't change. Sex is normal, even if your religion tells you it's a sin.


From what I hear and read is having long term birth control is harder to get for the lower income women, PP was the easiest for them to use.

It was a stupid move to cut the funding.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> *Abortion is not birth control, it's a termination of a pregnancy.* Please read my post again, you're confused about what I stated. Or being untruthful about what I said, who knows which?


A distinction with NO difference..

That is the most untruthful, misleading statement I have heard uttered.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Why are these low income mothers [L.I.M.] not enrolled in ObamaCare for their birth control medicine? They could get their prescriptions written anywhere that there is a Obamacare doctor and get them filled at their local Walmart or other pharmaceutical discount store...


I'm not an expert on Obamacare, maybe Nevada knows, but I did find this:

"Planned Parenthood gives millions of low-income men and women in non-expansion states somewhere to turn for reproductive health services, education, and information. Even in states that expanded Medicaid, Planned Parenthood helps both those with and without insurance including those with Marketplace coverage. Free birth control, cancer screenings related to sexual health, STI screenings, and maternity care may be covered under ObamaCare, but even people with coverage still need a place to get those services."

From: http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/07/23/do-we-still-need-planned-parenthood/

From what I can find online TX is non expansion state. http://familiesusa.org/product/50-state-look-medicaid-expansion


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> A distinction with NO difference..
> 
> That is the most untruthful, misleading statement I have heard uttered.


What does it have to do with the link I posted and you didn't read? Stating lies about what I said is not nice. 

SlÃ inte. Have another.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Looks like the parenthesis interrupted your reading. She said Texas cut funding to PP and other clinics that offered abortion. By cutting funding for PP they also destroyed access to contraception like the pill for women who are of lower income and could not afford it otherwise.
> 
> And now their medicare births are up 27%. Congratulations, Texas. You missed the big picture. Again.
> 
> Let me guess. Here comes the, "Well they shouldn't have sex then!" Yea. They shouldn't. Then again, back in the "good old days" when people were so much more moral, they just got married at 16.....before or after the girl got pregnant.....it was always a guessing game. People don't change. Sex is normal, even if your religion tells you it's a sin.


So you contend, or propagate propaganda, that PP is the only place these poor mothers can get birth control?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

no really said:


> From what I hear and read is having long term birth control is harder to get for the lower income women, PP was the easiest for them to use.
> 
> It was a stupid move to cut the funding.


Agreed. It brings up a question for me. Where are we at on birth control? It seems to me that the majority of Christians, let alone the rest of Americans, actually agree with some kind of contraception. So if Texas wanted to look rational, even though they were assuming guilt in a case where evidence was completely nonexistent, maybe they should have done some math and just decreased funding based on the amount that appeared to be going to abortions. Because most normal every day people, who are not politicians and are not chained to their sofas watching the BS artists in the media, are aware that PP provides contraception. They even have condoms available for men.... At what point are we just going to stop letting the media circus jerk us around. It feels like the tail is really wagging the dog these days.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> So you contend, or propagate propaganda, that PP is the only place these poor mothers can get birth control?


Where did I say that? Can you point it out please?  The link states that TX cut funding to PP and other clinics where low income women went for birth control, you'd know that if you actually read it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not an expert on Obamacare, maybe Nevada knows, but I did find this:
> 
> "Planned Parenthood gives millions of low-income men and women in non-expansion states somewhere to turn for reproductive health services, education, and information. Even in states that expanded Medicaid, Planned Parenthood helps both those with and without insurance including those with Marketplace coverage. Free birth control, cancer screenings related to sexual health, STI screenings, and maternity care may be covered under ObamaCare, but even people with coverage still need a place to get those services."
> 
> ...


You left me with a ? mark. Are there no health care establishments in Texas? Or was PP doing all of the Woman's Health Care for low income women? Is that not what Obama intended to resolve with his health care plan?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

HDRider said:


> So you contend, or propagate propaganda, that PP is the only place these poor mothers can get birth control?


Have you actually read the article yet, or are you still just arguing for the sake of arguing? Your question is addressed IN the article.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> So you contend, or propagate propaganda, that PP is the only place these poor mothers can get birth control?


Well big guy. If you know where they can get free/affordable contraception, maybe you should tell them. Since they appear not to have known. Maybe these other places that all us "propaganda propagators" didn't know about, just don't have the same presence, accessibility, goods in-stock that PP does. Maybe you should run on down there and tell everybody all about this propaganda and the lies, and bring all your evidence. Maybe you should start right here. Make sure to include a map of all locations, and the quantity/availability of their goods and services. Do a demographic study. Find out how these other organizations dispersed information about themselves. I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of why young poor people appear to suddenly have no access to contraception.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Wolf mom said:


> Heads up folks: Low -income does not mean stupid. If people really wanted birth control, they'd find a way to get it.
> 
> No, Pixie - There's been a large surge of illegals into the US. since 2013. Scooter is right.
> 
> ...


Again, did you read the article?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> You left me with a ? mark. Are there no health care establishments in Texas? Or was PP doing all of the Woman's Health Care for low income women? Is that not what Obama intended to resolve with his health care plan?


I dunno. I'm not a low income woman in TX that needs birth control. The link stated: "Though only 23 of the 254 counties in Texas had a Planned Parenthood clinic before 2013, they served 60% of the stateâs low-income women of childbearing age, according to the study."

I already posted a link about Obamacare and non expansion states and that TX refused federal funding in order to shut down PP. I suggest you read them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> Again, did you read the article?


Nope. There are a lot of people that did not read the link...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Shine said:


> Why are these low income mothers [L.I.M.] not enrolled in ObamaCare for their birth control medicine? They could get their prescriptions written anywhere that there is a Obamacare doctor and get them filled at their local Walmart or other pharmaceutical discount store...


That's what I was wondering. Why didn't they sign up to get their subsidized Obamacare policy, or if really poor, they would be on Medicaid and it would pay. So if you were using PP for birth control, but the one that was in your area closed down, wouldn't that be an incentive to call the 800 number and see about getting Obamacare? 

I have thought this all along, that Obamacare would make PP obsolete for the most part. IF it actually worked like it was supposed to, that is, and all those millions of people supposedly desperately needing health care had actually signed up for some....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

All that Non expansive means is that thos in Texas would be shifted over to MEDICARE by using one of th exchanges they STILL HAVE-health coverage and they would STILL get free care for the LOW INCOME don;t try and pull the wool over posters eye balls with falsehood postings that just because Texas did not expand the healthcare it left people out in the cold with NO WHERE to go. That is just not the case.\ WI also to not expand through the obamacare carp but people are still getting treated as they are on MEDICARE THEY DID NOT LOSE THEIOR COVERAGE THEY JUST HAD TO SWITCH TO ANOTHER TYPE THAT IS ALL. And even at that Medicaid is still around in WI although some think it is gone it is NOT.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope. Not worth the time to explain.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MDKatie said:


> Again, did you read the article?


The LA Times is a good publication but *they don't have time to fact- check everything*. ....* It's a good to read if you agree with liberal bias.*

Ya how can you even think someone like that is going to give a story and give BOTH SIDES? NO they are a one sided piece of liberal trash.,


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> The LA Times is a good publication but *they don't have time to fact- check everything*. ....* It's a good to read if you agree with liberal bias.*
> 
> Ya how can you even think someone like that is going to give a story and give BOTH SIDES? NO they are a one sided piece of liberal trash.,


Calling me (or my link) a one sided piece of liberal trash isn't nice. Can someone verify if it's me or the link he's talking about? I can't tell...

But beside the (possible) personal insult, how can you argue with logic like that. :hysterical:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Looks like I should correct myself.

Federal law already prevented medicaid from being used for abortions....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Also... Not every young woman who ends up on medicaid after getting pregnant was on medicaid before getting pregnant. Some of them were just young, and didn't have high enough wages to give birth without medicaid. So... The data is being manipulated a bit by both sides. For example, the Houston Chronicle reports only the data of those who were using medicaid to pay for contraception services. But people who live in states that did not expand medicaid were exempt from the healthcare requirement at Planned Parenthood. But given Obamacare, illegal immigrant data should also be looked into, since taxpayers are technically required to have health insurance now, and insurance providers are required to cover birth control.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

*Immigrant Population Hits Record 42.1 Million in Second ...*

cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Recor... https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl# 

Cached


Center for Immigration Studies

Loading...



The total Mexican immigrant population (legal and _*illegal*_) reached 12.1 ... single-year _*increases*_ from the same quarter of the prior year _*since*_ 2000. ... However, the difference has tended to _*increase*_, from 4 percent in 2010 to 6 percent in _*2013*_.


After growing little from 2007 to 2011, the nation's immigrant population has grown by 4.1 million from 2011 to 2015. This is roughly equal to the pace of growth from 2000 to 2007. The 1.7 million growth in the immigrant population (legal and illegal) from 2014 to 2015 is one of the largest single-year increases from the same quarter of the prior year since 2000. Both the growth from 2011 to 2015 and the increase in the last year are statistically significant.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> *Immigrant Population Hits Record 42.1 Million in Second ...*
> 
> cis.org/Immigrant-Population-Hits-Recor... https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#
> 
> ...


Argue with the New England Journal of Medicine. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1511902

"Texas is one of several states that have barred Planned Parenthood affiliates from providing health care services with the use of public funds. After the federal government refused to allow (and courts blocked) the exclusion of Planned Parenthood affiliates from the Texas Medicaid fee-for-service family-planning program, Texas excluded them from a state-funded replacement program, effective January 1, 2013. We assessed rates of contraceptive-method provision, method continuation through the program, and childbirth covered by Medicaid before and after the Planned Parenthood exclusion."


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

https://www.plannedparenthoodhealth...-citizen-can-i-get-new-health-insurance-plan/



> Whether or not you can get a new health insurance plan, you can still come to us for the care you need, when you need it.


Yup. Since taxpayers would be required to have insurance, and insurance providers are now required to cover birth control... Add that to the fact that Texas was really only able to block medicaid. I would honestly have to guess that the dramatic rise in births would be attributed to women who didn't know where to go after PP didn't have what they needed, women who went all over to the medicaid providers but were refused care due to availability issues, and illegal immigrants whose child births were covered by medicaid because the baby is an American citizen; when the immigrants may have otherwise paid cash at Planned Parenthood?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I spent all of my childhood and most of my 20's either below or near the poverty level. I never had a problem figuring out how not to get pregnant, and I've never been near a Planned Parenthood (that I know of).

Of course I've never owned a smart phone, have only had 2 new cars in my almost 30 years of driving (and I'm still driving the second, 15 years later), don't have a cable subscription or a credit card. Most of which the "low income" people I know have. A payment on any of those things could easily pay for a month of birth control pills or condoms.

I guess you're either suggesting these people are too stupid to figure that out for themselves, or just don't care enough to cancel the cable in order to pay for something that will affect the rest of their lives. Neither is a flattering statement.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> I spent all of my childhood and most of my 20's either below or near the poverty level. I never had a problem figuring out how not to get pregnant, and I've never been near a Planned Parenthood (that I know of).
> 
> Of course I've never owned a smart phone, have only had 2 new cars in my almost 30 years of driving (and I'm still driving the second, 15 years later), don't have a cable subscription or a credit card. Most of which the "low income" people I know have. A payment on any of those things could easily pay for a month of birth control pills or condoms.
> 
> I guess you're either suggesting these people are too stupid to figure that out for themselves, or just don't care enough to cancel the cable in order to pay for something that will affect the rest of their lives. Neither is a flattering statement.


Or maybe there just isn't anywhere that has cheap birth control in their area. Not everyone owns a car, and not everyone lives where there is easily accessible mass transit. 

The bottom line is that while PP was open there were less low income women that became pregnant. One of my links indicated, "Though only 23 of the 254 counties in Texas had a Planned Parenthood clinic before 2013, *they served 60% of the state&#8217;s low-income women of childbearing age*, according to the study."

Apparently the PP clinics were located where low income woman could conveniently get to them for birth control.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

And, if you people had even bothered to read the article, you would have read where they were mainly looking at LONG TERM birth control methods, like the IUD. When PP was no longer an option, women had to switch to LESS EFFECTIVE methods of birth control, like condoms or the pill. 

So, it is possible that these women were still using birth control methods, but methods that are known to be less reliable than long term methods. Birth control can fail, due to user error or manufacturer error. 

So yes, women still may have had access to *some* forms of birth control, but the long-term very effective birth control methods were no longer a viable option for them, due to several potential reasons.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> The LA Times is a good publication but *they don't have time to fact- check everything*. ....* It's a good to read if you agree with liberal bias.*
> 
> Ya how can you even think someone like that is going to give a story and give BOTH SIDES? NO they are a one sided piece of liberal trash.,


So you didn't read it then? I really don't know why you even bother to comment if you didn't read it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> You left me with a ? mark. Are there no health care establishments in Texas? Or was PP doing all of the Woman's Health Care for low income women? Is that not what Obama intended to resolve with his health care plan?



It's been years since I required birth control but I believe protocol is similar now. 

If you go to your doctor, they schedule tests and I an IUD is discussed and ordered, which isn't done all be done in one appointment.

When one goes to a women's health clinic, it's all done at one time.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or maybe there just isn't anywhere that has cheap birth control in their area. Not everyone owns a car, and not everyone lives where there is easily accessible mass transit.
> 
> The bottom line is that while PP was open there were less low income women that became pregnant. One of my links indicated, "Though only 23 of the 254 counties in Texas had a Planned Parenthood clinic before 2013, *they served 60% of the state&#8217;s low-income women of childbearing age*, according to the study."
> 
> *Apparently the PP clinics were located where low income woman could conveniently get to them for birth control.*


I'm glad it was convenient for them. And now that it's not convenient, I guess the next most convenient thing is to have a baby that's going to be dependent on you for at least the next 18 years, rather than asking an acquaintance for a ride to the nearest clinic or drug store and using the money you might have used on your cable bill or your smart phone to buy a box of condoms or get a month of birth control pills. Because raising children is so much cheaper and more convenient.

If your main consideration is whether birth control is convenient for you, you have way more serious issues than I even know what to do with.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

edit - delete please, sorry.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

MDKatie said:


> And, if you people had even bothered to read the article, you would have read where they were mainly looking at LONG TERM birth control methods, like the IUD. When PP was no longer an option, women had to switch to LESS EFFECTIVE methods of birth control, like condoms or the pill.
> 
> So, it is possible that these women were still using birth control methods, but methods that are known to be less reliable than long term methods. Birth control can fail, due to user error or manufacturer error.
> 
> So yes, women still may have had access to *some* forms of birth control, but the long-term very effective birth control methods were no longer a viable option for them, due to several potential reasons.


And some women also can't use the pill, actually. So that would limit them further. They can use emergency contraception, but Texas' "Family Planning Waiver," which was supposed to expand medicaid covered "family planning services" to families who are not covered under medicaid, does not cover emergency contraceptives....even those that are not abortive. Those women would have been covered at Planned Parenthood because PP exempts people from their healthcare requirements in states where medicaid was not fully expanded. So yea... I can definitely imagine that some of these births are a result of women not finding what they needed after PP was no longer able to supply.

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SMFPE.pdf
http://ec.princeton.edu/locator/EC-FP Waivers.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Why are these low income mothers [L.I.M.] not enrolled in ObamaCare for their birth control medicine? They could get their prescriptions written anywhere that there is a Obamacare doctor and get them filled at their local Walmart or other pharmaceutical discount store...


They still have to have *money*, and a means of getting to a Dr or clinic.
When clinics close there is nowhere for many of them to go.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Lots of shallow excuses being tossed about and just what is an "emergency contraceptive"???

Are the police or paramedics tasked to support these "emergent situations"?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Nevermind.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Shine said:


> Lots of shallow excuses being tossed about and just what is an "emergency contraceptive"???
> 
> Are the police or paramedics tasked to support these "emergent situations"?


Oooooo good one. They're contraceptives you take when your condom breaks, or when you get raped and weren't on the pill because you weren't planning on having sex. By the way, I didn't think poor people needed an excuse to have a baby. That sounds like eugenics to me. Maybe these are just reasons.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

wiscto said:


> Oooooo good one. They're contraceptives you take when your condom breaks, or when you get raped and weren't on the pill because you weren't planning on having sex. By the way, I didn't think poor people needed an excuse to have a baby. That sounds like eugenics to me. Maybe these are just reasons.


A little ironic maybe that the woman who helped found Planned Parenthood was actually quite interested in eugenics.

No, poor people don't need an excuse to have a baby. But if you are too poor to afford your own contraception, you are DEFINITELY too poor to afford your own baby.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> A little ironic maybe that the woman who helped found Planned Parenthood was actually quite interested in eugenics.
> 
> No, poor people don't need an excuse to have a baby. But if you are too poor to afford your own contraception, you are DEFINITELY too poor to afford your own baby.


Ding, ding, ding. That last sentence was spot on. That is why PP and any doctors office that goes out of their way to help prevent conception by facilitating low cost birth control should be supported.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> I'm glad it was convenient for them. And now that it's not convenient, I guess the next most convenient thing is to have a baby that's going to be dependent on you for at least the next 18 years, rather than asking an acquaintance for a ride to the nearest clinic or drug store and using the money you might have used on your cable bill or your smart phone to buy a box of condoms or get a month of birth control pills. Because raising children is so much cheaper and more convenient.
> 
> If your main consideration is whether birth control is convenient for you, you have way more serious issues than I even know what to do with.


I'm not going to argue with you, but please think about what has been posted and realize that people who live in the inner city have vastly different lives than you have (or had), with different challenges, and choices. That is just the way it is. 

And all because many Texans were too foolish to think ahead and even imagine something like this happening. Now they'll pay for that foolishness.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Ding, ding, ding. That last sentence was spot on. That is why PP and any doctors office that goes out of their way to help prevent conception by facilitating low cost birth control should be supported.


Agreed. But it seems like we can facilitate low income birth control without using tax payer money to support the things PP does that many tax payers have extreme moral issues with. Heck, if PP was so worried about women not having access to birth control, maybe they could sever the parts of their operations that give abortions completely from the parts that offer other women's healthcare. Apparently they don't care that much.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> Agreed. But it seems like we can facilitate low income birth control without using tax payer money to support the things PP does that many tax payers have extreme moral issues with. Heck, if PP was so worried about women not having access to birth control, maybe they could sever the parts of their operations that give abortions completely from the parts that offer other women's healthcare. Apparently they don't care that much.


Federal tax payer money does not support abortion. So you should be happy.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to argue with you, but please think about what has been posted and realize that people who live in the inner city have vastly different lives than you have (or had), with different challenges, and choices. That is just the way it is.
> 
> And all because many Texans were too foolish to think ahead and even imagine something like this happening. Now they'll pay for that foolishness.


I'm not sure how you know what my life is or has been like. I did not grow up in the inner city, but I can guarantee you that I grew up in an area that was at least as poor if not poorer than most inner cities, and without the access to public services they have. Since then I've lived in the D.C. area, Denver, ghetto Orange County, CA (and other places that fall in between, making anywhere from below poverty level to well above), so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about on both ends of the spectrum. I'm not sure what you're suggesting I realize that I don't already realize. Been there, done that. But I do appreciate the attempt on your part to enlighten me.

It's cute how your happiness about Texans paying for whatever it is they're paying for shows how much you really care about all those poor low income women, and that this isn't just a moral superiority issue for you.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Federal tax payer money does not support abortion. So you should be happy.


Federal taxpayer money goes to Planned Parenthood. Just because they don't put it on the spreadsheet next to "for abortions" doesn't mean the money doesn't help them do abortions.

If my mom gives me $50 and says, "Don't use this for cigarettes" and I go out and buy groceries with her $50 and cigarettes with my $50, technically her $50 didn't pay for my cigarettes. But in reality, it freed up my $50 to buy cigarettes instead of groceries.

Semantics.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Oooooo good one. They're contraceptives you take when your condom breaks, or when you get raped and weren't on the pill because you weren't planning on having sex. By the way, I didn't think poor people needed an excuse to have a baby. That sounds like eugenics to me. Maybe these are just reasons.


Good, learned something... now I can clear the images that were conjured up by the concept of "Emergency Contraceptives".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> Federal taxpayer money goes to Planned Parenthood. Just because they don't put it on the spreadsheet next to "for abortions" doesn't mean the money doesn't help them do abortions.
> 
> If my mom gives me $50 and says, "Don't use this for cigarettes" and I go out and buy groceries with her $50 and cigarettes with my $50, technically her $50 didn't pay for my cigarettes. But in reality, it freed up my $50 to buy cigarettes instead of groceries.
> 
> Semantics.


That is a tired old supposition that does not fly. It gets trotted out every time and is so boring that it is no longer worth anyone's time proving you wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> I'm not sure how you know what my life is or has been like. I did not grow up in the inner city, but I can guarantee you that I grew up in an area that was at least as poor if not poorer than most inner cities, and without the access to public services they have. Since then I've lived in the D.C. area, Denver, ghetto Orange County, CA (and other places that fall in between, making anywhere from below poverty level to well above), so I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about on both ends of the spectrum. I'm not sure what you're suggesting I realize that I don't already realize. Been there, done that. But I do appreciate the attempt on your part to enlighten me.
> 
> It's cute how your happiness about Texans paying for whatever it is they're paying for shows how much you really care about all those poor low income women, and that this isn't just a moral superiority issue for you.


Well, good for you, and you're welcome.  You realize that not everyone reacts, or has the experience you do, right? You ask how I can know your life? How can you know the life of a poor woman living in the inner city? 

I ask because I have empathy for people. Some people are so bitter by what they don't have in life that it colors everything around them. I feel real pity for those people. 

In my opinion Texas got what it deserved, I'm not above gloating about their self induced situation. Never said I was perfect.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

You can get bc at Walmart for 9 bucks. Skip that big mac a couple of times, get a cheaper phone plan, cut cable or internet. Get it through Obama care isn't that what it's for? Of course if you can't afford BC then you can't afford a baby so how about being an adult and skip the sex?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> You can get bc at Walmart for 9 bucks. Skip that big mac a couple of times, get a cheaper phone plan, cut cable or internet. Get it through Obama care isn't that what it's for? Of course if you can't afford BC then you can't afford a baby so how about being an adult and skip the sex?


Without a prescription from a Dr? How do you do that without a Dr. and a office visit? At PP it was taken care of in one visit, exam and birth control plus it was very cheap or free and was obviously located in an area where it was convenient to get to.



wiscto said:


> Let me guess. Here comes the, "Well they shouldn't have sex then!" Yea. They shouldn't. Then again, back in the "good old days" when people were so much more moral, they just got married at 16.....before or after the girl got pregnant.....it was always a guessing game. People don't change. Sex is normal, even if your religion tells you it's a sin.


It took 64 posts, wiscto. :facepalm:


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Without a prescription from a Dr? How do you do that without a Dr. and a office visit? At PP it was taken care of in one visit, exam and birth control plus it was very cheap or free and was obviously located in an area where it was convenient to get to.


And we're right back to Obamacare


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

scooter said:


> They could go to Planned Parenthood and get free birth control instead of having more babies.


YES THey should go and get free birth control (it;s still free) (its still free at the health department as well)to prevent an unwanted baby not go to abort one.

When the government starts paying for breast implants after breast cancer then maybe. If the government starts paying for dental then maybe. If the government starts allowing Vets to go get care any place they want then maybe.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Mish said:


> Federal taxpayer money goes to Planned Parenthood. Just because they don't put it on the spreadsheet next to "for abortions" doesn't mean the money doesn't help them do abortions.
> 
> If my mom gives me $50 and says, "Don't use this for cigarettes" and I go out and buy groceries with her $50 and cigarettes with my $50, technically her $50 didn't pay for my cigarettes. But in reality, it freed up my $50 to buy cigarettes instead of groceries.
> 
> Semantics.


And now there is a report stating they Planned Parenthood Attempted To Hide The Profits It Makes From Baby Partsâ¦ 
Inhuman monsters. Planned Parenthood should be closed.
Via Breitbart:
A new video released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) appears to show how Planned Parenthood uses accounting gimmicks to hide profits created through the sale of body parts of aborted babies.
A financial benefit âis what staff and management need to see,â says an executive at a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Looks like Texas Dept of Health has at least a hundred locations that offer family planning and much more services than PP...ah...but no abortion. Welcome to the new plan by Gov Abbott to eliminate abortion in Texas...he ran on his policies against a pro abortion woman opponent and was elected by the people of Texas. I agree..the state of Texas is getting what they want. He said it is barbaric and believes in protecting the unborn. He calls it the LIFE Initiative...I call it God blessed Texas.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> And we're right back to Obamacare


It's not that easy, apparently. If it was the birth rate wouldn't have jumped after removing PP and other clinics. Pretty simple.

I know nothing about Obamacare.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not that easy, apparently. If it was the birth rate wouldn't have jumped after removing PP and other clinics. Pretty simple.
> 
> I know nothing about Obamacare.


According to Obama it is that easy and affordable for everyone. There shouldn't even be a need for PP anymore or health clinics for that matter with all this great affordable healthcare we have now thanks to Obama.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Forcast said:


> YES THey should go and get free birth control (it;s still free) (its still free at the health department as well)to prevent an unwanted baby not go to abort one.
> 
> When the government starts paying for breast implants after breast cancer then maybe. If the government starts paying for dental then maybe. If the government starts allowing Vets to go get care any place they want then maybe.


Then maybe what?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> That is a tired old supposition that does not fly. It gets trotted out every time and is so boring that it is no longer worth anyone's time proving you wrong.


What's not true? That Planned Parenthood doesn't receive Federal money? 
That money really doesn't segregate itself when put into the same pool?

I'm not sure why you wasted time posting this when you could have been less bored and wasted less time not telling me that it's boring and time wasting to explain to me whatever it is you didn't explain. Unless it's to imply I'm stupid without having to back up your argument, then well done.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Mish said:


> What's not true? That Planned Parenthood doesn't receive Federal money?
> That money really doesn't segregate itself when put into the same pool?
> 
> I'm not sure why you wasted time posting this when you could have been less bored and wasted less time not telling me that it's boring and time wasting to explain to me whatever it is you didn't explain. Unless it's to imply I'm stupid without having to back up your argument, then well done.


I posted to tell you that you are wrong. I never even attempted to imply you are stupid. Nuff said. I won't discuss things with people that take it in a personal direction.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, good for you, and your welcome.  You realize that not everyone reacts, or has the experience you do, right? You ask how I can know your life? *How can you know the life of a poor woman living in the inner city?*


Because I've been one? I feel silly typing all that history out before, I thought it was fairly obvious.

The assumption game is fun. Let me make one. You actually have no idea what it's like to be a poor inner-city or rural woman, but you enjoy being morally outraged on their behalf, maybe because it makes you feel empathetic and gives you something to hold up in the air while you tell others they aren't because they don't agree with you.



> I ask because I have empathy for people. Some people are so bitter by what they don't have in life that it colors everything around them. I feel real pity for those people.
> 
> In my opinion Texas got what it deserved, I'm not above gloating about their self induced situation. Never said I was perfect.


I'm not bitter at all, I just think adults should be responsible for themselves unless they have a physical or mental handicap. I also think treating people as victims creates victims, and treating people as capable people creates capable people.

Bitter might be gloating over the very people you say are suffering, suffering because you enjoy the repercussions their supposed suffering is going to have for people you don't like. But what do I know.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> According to Obama it is that easy and affordable for everyone. There shouldn't even be a need for PP anymore or health clinics for that matter with all this great affordable healthcare we have now thanks to Obama.


I believe that the very poor aren't eligible for Obamacare and have to rely on medicaid. Since TX didn't opt into enhanced medicaid, instead becoming self insured in order to defund PP, it's responsible for the medical care (including birth control) of it's poorest women without federal funding. 

"&#936; Texas operates an entirely state-funded program that provides family planning services to women at least 18 years of age with incomes
up to 185% of the federal poverty line."

From: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SMFPE.pdf (which wistco has already provided and I just actually read and copied the link)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Lots of shallow excuses being tossed about and just *what is an "emergency contraceptive"*???
> 
> Are the police or paramedics tasked to support these "emergent situations"?


Does your computer not have GOOGLE?

You always have endless questions about things that are just a click away if you really want to know.

While you're Googling, look up:
"Dr's *not* accepting NEW Mecicaid patients"


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> I posted to tell you that you are wrong. I never even attempted to impy you e stupid. Nuff said. I won't discuss things with people that take it in a personal direction.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean that in any personal way toward you. I was just confused as to the point of the post...usually when people debate I don't just see someone say, "you're wrong and it's boring and a waste of time to say why." So I assumed there was an underlying reason you wanted to post that. I apologize.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> Because I've been one? I feel silly typing all that history out before, I thought it was fairly obvious.
> 
> The assumption game is fun. Let me make one. You actually have no idea what it's like to be a poor inner-city or rural woman, but you enjoy being morally outraged on their behalf, maybe because it makes you feel empathetic and gives you something to hold up in the air while you tell others they aren't because they don't agree with you.
> 
> ...


I see, you're saying that all "inner city" lives are just like the one you lived? Inner cities and people are all interchangable because they are the same everywhere? If you say so... 

I hope tax paying Texans pay out the, uh, nose for what they did. Bitter? No. Mean? Maybe. I'll admit it's petty and I'm OK with it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> Federal taxpayer money goes to Planned Parenthood. Just because they don't put it on the spreadsheet next to "for abortions" doesn't mean the money doesn't help them do abortions.
> 
> If my mom gives me $50 and says, "Don't use this for cigarettes" and I go out and buy groceries with her $50 and cigarettes with my $50, technically her $50 didn't pay for my cigarettes. But in reality, it freed up my $50 to buy cigarettes instead of groceries.
> 
> *Semantics*.


Not semantic, just honesty.

The funds PP gets from Medicaid is payment for services rendered.
It's not just money handed to them as discretionary funds
It doesn't "free up" any other money


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> And we're right back to *Obamacare*


Obamacare doesn't provide Dr's , clinics nor transportation.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not semantic, just honesty.
> 
> The funds PP gets from Medicaid is payment for services rendered.
> It's not just money handed to them as discretionary fund
> It doesn't "free up" any other money


So if the Federal Government didn't give them money for services rendered, they'd have plenty of money to keep operating in all capacities, including abortions?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> And *now there is a report* stating they Planned Parenthood Attempted To Hide The Profits It Makes From Baby Partsâ¦
> Inhuman monsters. Planned Parenthood should be closed.
> Via Breitbart:
> *A new video *released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) appears to show how Planned Parenthood uses accounting gimmicks to hide profits created through the sale of body parts of aborted babies.
> A financial benefit âis what staff and management need to see,â says an executive at a Planned Parenthood facility in Texas.


That's one of the same, lame videos released last August.
People need to learn how to read beyond the headlines for a change


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Shine said:


> Why are these low income mothers [L.I.M.] not enrolled in ObamaCare for their birth control medicine? They could get their prescriptions written anywhere that there is a Obamacare doctor and get them filled at their local Walmart or other pharmaceutical discount store...


That is my question as well. Now that all plans have to cover birth control, why is PP the only place people can get it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> That is my question as well. Now that all plans have to cover birth control, why is PP the only place people can get it?


Not everyone is eligible for Obamacare is the simplest answer.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> That is my question as well. Now that all plans have to cover birth control, why is PP the only place people can get it?


All plans do not have to cover birth control. Remember Hobby Lobby.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

painterswife said:


> All plans do not have to cover birth control. Remember Hobby Lobby.


If I remember correctly, Hobby Lobby provides some BC but not those they consider abortive. 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-lobby-ruling-cuts-into-contraceptive-mandate


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not everyone is eligible for Obamacare is the simplest answer.


The following is a question, not trying to be sarcastic ... under Obamacare, everyone is required to have health insurance. Last time I checked, it has to be reported on the tax return and a penalty is given to those who do not have insurance. So who are these people that do not have insurance?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> The following is a question, not trying to be sarcastic ... under Obamacare, everyone is required to have health insurance. Last time I checked, it has to be reported on the tax return and a penalty is given to those who do not have insurance. So who are these people that do not have insurance?


Those that qualify for medicare, medicaid, CHIP, and other government programs. Plus (I assume) those in the military.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> So if the Federal Government didn't give them money for services rendered, they'd have plenty of money to keep operating in all capacities, including abortions?


The federal funds they receive are mostly for birth control and cancer screenings for low income patients. It has nothing to do with their other operations, no matter how many times you imply they are connected.

The Govt doesn't "give" them anything.
They PAY them to provide services, and those services don't include abortions


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> If I remember correctly, Hobby Lobby provides some BC but not those they consider abortive.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...-lobby-ruling-cuts-into-contraceptive-mandate


If they can choose to only cover the types of birth control they deem acceptable then they are not covering forms of birth control that may be the only option for their employees. That means that those womem's health insurance does not cover their birth control.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Those that qualify for medicare, medicaid, CHIP, and other government programs. Plus (I assume) those in the military.


So none of these government programs cover BC?

Everywhere I googled said that Medicare covers BC. Maybe I am reading it wrong. Medicaid is for seniors - odds are they do not need BC. Doesn't the military provide health care for active duty members?

The only one I see where there could be a gap is in the CHIP program since it is for children. I have not found anywhere whether it covers BC for teens or not.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> So none of these government programs cover BC?
> 
> Everywhere I googled said that Medicare covers BC. Maybe I am reading it wrong. Medicaid is for seniors - odds are they do not need BC. Doesn't the military provide health care for active duty members?
> 
> The only one I see where there could be a gap is in the CHIP program since it is for children. I have not found anywhere whether it covers BC for teens or not.


I have no idea which ones cover birth control. I've never been on a government health plan. 

Nope, medicaid is low income and medicare is for the disabled and people over 65. 

You asked, "The following is a question, not trying to be sarcastic ... under Obamacare, everyone is required to have health insurance. Last time I checked, it has to be reported on the tax return and a penalty is given to those who do not have insurance. So who are these people that do not have insurance?" And I told you.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The federal funds they receive are mostly for birth control and cancer screenings for low income patients. It has nothing to do with their other operations, no matter how many times you imply they are connected.
> 
> The Govt doesn't "give" them anything.
> They PAY them to provide services, and those services don't include abortions


If the Feds didn't pay them for those services, they would have to fund them in another way, which means money would have to leave the abortion portion of the program and go into the birth control and cancer screenings program, or they'd have to raise more money from another source. Every piece of journalism I can find about the situation suggests that without Federal funding, Planned Parenthood would collapse. All of it, not just the abortion program or the health program. Which means that, however many times you imply that one does not impact the other, taxpayer money does go to enable programs which a large portion of the population has serious issues with because they are financially intertwined.

Sever them if I'm wrong. Let them continue to raise private money for abortions and take taxpayer money for the other stuff, but legally separate them so that they do not share a common financing pool. It would shut up the anti-abortionists and the pro-choice crowd keeps their low income services. It doesn't happen because it can't.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

All too often a safety net becomes a hammock. When we see people in need, our compassion moves us to offer whatever help we can. But then compassionate help becomes a privilege, a right and we become responsible for every segment of their lives.
In Prison (I use that example because I worked in several over nearly 3 decades) inmates have little control over their lives. While they may have been eating out of a dumpster before, they get three hot meals developed by a skilled dietitian and prepared to the minimum standards of a Supreme Court Judge. Instant health care, ample exercise opportunities, and on and on. Great lengths to insure their safety.

Recently, Flint, MI had run itself into insolvency. Murder Capitol of the nation, many years running. Cops retirement unfunded. Thousands of homes abandoned, stripped and returned to the city. Decades of mismanagement and fraud. So, the Gov. sent in an economics expert to stop the waste and renegotiate all contracts to get the city out of the red. But, while managing the finances, the City Council switched the water system and a few children tested above average for lead. At the same time, 80 people in the county around Flint, got Legionnaire's Disease. While most of the homes in Flint have lead paint and Legionnaire's Disease isn't from drinking water, because outside help was in place, outside help is responsible.

So, in Texas, people that believe that Planned Parenthood are abortion clinic and they believe abortion is a mortal sin, they do not want the money they earned with their work and then taxed away from them to go to an abortion clinic. Enough people believed that way to get their elected officials to cut funding of birth control drugs. The result, apparently, is that is the fault of those that formerly provided their own hard earned money to provide this service, because they had no right to stop their generosity?

US Citizenship is a greatly sought after status. People risk drowning. People pay huge sums of cash. People travel from distant lands just to get a chance at obtaining citizenship. The same hospital where JFK was taken after he was shot, currently has more babies born to illegal immigrants than US citizens. Of course, they cannot pay for a hospital stay and we turn no one away from a hospital.

The US has endured a huge influx of immigrants. A far greater number are brought here legally and millions arrive illegally. These needy people often lack the language and job skills that permit them to be self sufficient. 

Just as you cannot educate most inner city children because of a societal distain for education, you cannot expect to limit family size among a population that encourages large families. Add the gift of free hospitalization and automatic citizenship and it takes off like a tequila soaked rag and a match. 

But some want to blame those that worked hard, got educations, assimilated into society, took jobs, limited family size to a manageable level because they failed to fund birth control? Birth Control? A drug that wasn't available 60 years ago is now a human right? Should we fund Viagra to low income families so they'll stay home more instead of attending illegal and inhumane Cock fights?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no idea which ones cover birth control. I've never been on a government health plan.
> 
> Nope, medicaid is low income and medicare is for the disabled and people over 65.
> 
> You asked, "The following is a question, not trying to be sarcastic ... under Obamacare, everyone is required to have health insurance. Last time I checked, it has to be reported on the tax return and a penalty is given to those who do not have insurance. *So who are these people that do not have insurance?" And I told you*.


Military do have health insurance - it's either under Tricare or UnitedHealth depending on where you live. Works just like any other HMO unless you live near a military treatment facility, and then you get treated for free there if they have the services you need. If not, they refer you out and you pay co-pays just like everyone else. 

By definition, the low income and elderly/disabled entitlements are "insurance." You get services, they are covered by an entity. Some places even allow those using the entitlements to sign up for actual insurance through companies like Kaiser.

None of those you listed are "uninsured."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> Military do have health insurance - it's either under Tricare or UnitedHealth depending on where you live. Works just like any other HMO unless you live near a military treatment facility, and then you get treated for free there if they have the services you need. If not, they refer you out and you pay co-pays just like everyone else.
> 
> By definition, the low income and elderly/disabled entitlements are "insurance." You get services, they are covered by an entity. Some places even allow those using the entitlements to sign up for actual insurance through companies like Kaiser.
> 
> None of those you listed are "uninsured."


It was a list of those people that are exempt from Obamacare.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> It was a list of those people that are exempt from Obamacare.


It seemed to me she was asking who are these uninsured that you keep saying need Planned Parenthood for birth control because they're uninsured. And then you gave a list of people who actually have insurance, so would have little need for Planned Parenthood.

Also, they're only exempt from Obamacare because they're already covered. If they ceased to be covered, they wouldn't be exempt.

This is becoming a very circular argument.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

dixiegal62 said:


> Of course if you can't afford BC then you can't afford a baby so how about being an adult and skip the sex?


Okay. So that's what all the good Christians did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, right? When the baby boomer generation was born (polio and small pox free), 5-10 kids in a family, how were all those adults doing with the "no sex when you can't afford it" thing? Because my parents have some stories, man. Shared bathwater, that's when you know you're pinching every penny. But skip sex? Good lord why? They're married, aren't they? But now that the baby boomers have exercised their rights to marry young, come of age and raise only a couple kids during the biggest economic boom in the history mankind, tie their tubes and put the burden of abstinence on everyone else' shoulders, I guess it's easy for them to never walk a mile in someone else' shoes. 

And like someone else already said, some birth control is more reliable than others.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no idea which ones cover birth control. I've never been on a government health plan.
> 
> Nope, medicaid is low income and medicare is for the disabled and people over 65.
> 
> You asked, "The following is a question, not trying to be sarcastic ... under Obamacare, everyone is required to have health insurance. Last time I checked, it has to be reported on the tax return and a penalty is given to those who do not have insurance. So who are these people that do not have insurance?" And I told you.



Sorry, I confused the two. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> It seemed to me she was asking who are these uninsured that you keep saying need Planned Parenthood for birth control because they're uninsured. And then you gave a list of people who actually have insurance, so would have little need for Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Also, they're only exempt from Obamacare because they're already covered. If they ceased to be covered, they wouldn't be exempt.
> 
> This is becoming a very circular argument.


The OP seemed to understand my response to her question. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Mish said:


> *If the Feds didn't pay them for those services, they would have to fund them in another way*, which means money would have to leave the abortion portion of the program and go into the birth control and cancer screenings program, or they'd have to raise more money from another source. *Every piece of journalism I can find about the situation suggests that without Federal funding, Planned Parenthood would collapse. * All of it, not just the abortion program or the health program. Which means that, however many times you imply that one does not impact the other, taxpayer money does go to enable programs which a large portion of the population has serious issues with because they are financially intertwined.
> 
> Sever them if I'm wrong. Let them continue to raise private money for abortions and take taxpayer money for the other stuff, but legally separate them so that they do not share a common financing pool. *It would shut up the anti-abortionists and the pro-choice crowd* keeps their low income services. It doesn't happen because it can't.


I'm not sure what you mean by "They would have to fund them some other way". 

If a business doesn't get paid for the services they provide, they simply stop providing them altogether.

You just keep repeating the fallacy that the funds are connected to abortion services. 

Maybe you should find some less biased news services if they all parrot the same lines

No amount of logic and facts have "shut up" that crowd so far, and nothing PP could do will ever satisfy them


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Are we now supposed to fund Planned Parenthood services worldwide? Where is the line to be drawn for where our society's responsibility stops when it comes to providing for the low income children? The USA? North America? Western Hemisphere? Worldwide? Where? 

Once you decide where the line is drawn, why are the others also not deserving of your compassion if the answer is not worldwide?

If the answer is worldwide, do you support invasions of all countries that don't voluntarily provide to your satisfaction?

Seems to me if you don't include every single person in the world, then how can you criticize where someone else draws their line when you won't fight for every single solitary person on earth? We all draw the line somewhere, why are your values more important than others? What makes yours superior?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

wiscto said:


> Okay. So that's what all the good Christians did in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, right? When the baby boomer generation was born (polio and small pox free), 5-10 kids in a family, how were all those adults doing with the "no sex when you can't afford it" thing? Because my parents have some stories, man. Shared bathwater, that's when you know you're pinching every penny. But skip sex? Good lord why? They're married, aren't they? But now that the baby boomers have exercised their rights to marry young, come of age and raise only a couple kids during the biggest economic boom in the history mankind, tie their tubes and put the burden of abstinence on everyone else' shoulders, I guess it's easy for them to never walk a mile in someone else' shoes.
> 
> And like someone else already said, some birth control is more reliable than others.


Who said anything about Christians? Common sense would tell anyone that didn't want a baby but didn't have birth control not to have sex.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

elevenpoint said:


> Looks like Texas Dept of Health has at least a hundred locations that offer family planning and much more services than PP...ah...but no abortion. Welcome to the new plan by Gov Abbott to eliminate abortion in Texas...he ran on his policies against a pro abortion woman opponent and was elected by the people of Texas. I agree..the state of Texas is getting what they want. He said it is barbaric and believes in protecting the unborn. He calls it the LIFE Initiative...I call it God blessed Texas.


Wait, I am confused here about this one. Abbot was elected in 2014 but the PP was shut down before that by a few years? And for what its worth, I don't ever recall seeing this on any ballot here anyway.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Wasn't Abbot it was Perry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/rick-perry-abortion-bill_n_3613158.html


And it wasn't voted on by the general populace so we can quit wishing bad things to happen to us evil Texans.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Wasn't Abbot it was Perry
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/rick-perry-abortion-bill_n_3613158.html
> 
> ...


I don't think bad things were wished on Texans.

Someone voted in Perry, right? And he ran on an antiabortion platform, yes?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think bad things were wished on Texans.
> 
> Someone voted in Perry, right? And he ran on an antiabortion platform, yes?


Well it was you that said it even though by your words it sounded petty. Bad things would be getting what they deserve right? 

Yes Perry was pro life. But it wasn't something he ran on much. It was more economics. Obama was anti gay marriage at first too and didn't change untll after second election. So what is your point? If Obama was to hand everyone under the age of ten an AK 47 and ten banana clips would you be getting what you deserve because the majority voted for him? 

I have heard that "y'all elected him" argument for so long that it gets tiresome. Politicians tell whoever whatever they want to hear to get voted. What they really plan is no where near that. 

I never voted for Rick so lumping me into that group offends me. I got what someone else deserved.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> *Are we now supposed to fund Planned Parenthood services worldwide?* Where is the line to be drawn for where our society's responsibility stops when it comes to providing for the low income children? The USA? North America? Western Hemisphere? Worldwide? Where?
> 
> Once you decide where the line is drawn, why are the others also not deserving of your compassion if the answer is not worldwide?
> 
> ...


We aren't "funding" them
We pay them for services they provide for low income individuals in the US

This thread is about TX, not whirled peas


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

dixiegal62 said:


> Who said anything about Christians? Common sense would tell anyone that didn't want a baby but didn't have birth control not to have sex.


I guess what I'm saying is that this has never really been realistic. We're only human. It's easy to say "don't have sex" for people who don't want to, don't have to worry about it, or who have matured emotionally. For young couples just getting started, how easy can we all really say that is? How easy was it 100 years ago when shotgun weddings, parsonage weddings, and premature babies that didn't look all that premature (so they were conceived prior to marriage) were more common that people liked to admit? To me common sense tells us that young people will be the same love and hormone drunk fools they've always been, in a society where families don't care to help each other out as much as they used to. To me common sense also dictates that if we can help young people avoid mistakes almost any one of us could have made, we should. Common sense also tells us that if we don't treat young people with compassion, forgiveness, and patience.....they're more likely to grow up and act like capital As.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Well it was you that said it even though by your words it sounded petty. Bad things would be getting what they deserve right?
> 
> Yes Perry was pro life. But it wasn't something he ran on much. It was more economics. Obama was anti gay marriage at first too and didn't change untll after second election. So what is your point? If Obama was to hand everyone under the age of ten an AK 47 and ten banana clips would you be getting what you deserve because the majority voted for him?
> 
> ...


Your lawmakers did something extremely short sighted and stupid. In their eagerness to condemn PP they cut off their nose to spite their face. Now you're (TX taxpayers) going to pay for their ineptitude. I never said Texans were evil, I never wished "bad" things on them, but I am glad the taxpayers are going to pay for the fiasco. Perhaps it is an incentive to reverse the defunding of PP, it is a much needed medical facility, obviously. 

Rick Perry absolutely ran on an antiabortion platform, as I'm talking about Texas, and it's lawmakers as a whole, the fact that _you_ didn't vote for him is irrelevant.

Perry on abortion:

His stance is extreme.

Require hearing fetal heartbeat & one-day waiting period. (Jun 2015)
More restrictions on abortion clinics; 5-month limit. (Jul 2013)
Protect the unborn via sonogram requirement. (Feb 2011)
The right to privacy is fictitious. (Nov 2010)
Abortion only for rape, incest, or maternal health. (Jun 2002)
Supports prohibiting human embryonic stem cell research. (Aug 2010)
Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)
Supports the Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge. (Jan 2012)

From: http://www.ontheissues.org/Rick_Perry.htm


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> Well it was you that said it even though by your words it sounded petty. Bad things would be getting what they deserve right?
> 
> Yes Perry was pro life. But it wasn't something he ran on much. It was more economics. Obama was anti gay marriage at first too and didn't change untll after second election. So what is your point? If Obama was to hand everyone under the age of ten an AK 47 and ten banana clips would you be getting what you deserve because the majority voted for him?
> 
> ...


I am pro choice but it is not that high on my list when it comes to political platforms, I'm interested in the economics involved governance.

From what I can read the PP closures were all in metropolitan areas, heck I am not even sure they have any in rural parts of the state.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your lawmakers did something extremely short sighted and stupid. In their eagerness to condemn PP they cut off their nose to spite their face. Now you're (TX taxpayers) going to pay for their ineptitude. I never said Texans were evil, I never wished "bad" things on them, but I am glad the taxpayers are going to pay for the fiasco. Perhaps it is an incentive to reverse the defunding of PP, it is a much needed medical facility, obviously.
> 
> Rick Perry absolutely ran on an antiabortion platform, as I'm talking about Texas, and it's lawmakers as a whole, the fact that _you_ didn't vote for him is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


If you want to talk about Texas lawmakers being dumb, I reckon you need to look at yours. Your amazing government in New York passed a bill to ban all magazines over seven rounds and didn't wait for the 3 days like they were supposed to and failed to put a LEO exemption in with it! 

Also, I don't know what Texans your calling foolish, but maybe just maybe there is a state that still has some morals left in it!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

no really said:


> I am pro choice but it is not that high on my list when it comes to political platforms, I'm interested in the economics involved governance.
> 
> From what I can read the PP closures were all in metropolitan areas, heck I am not even sure they have any in rural parts of the state.





> *All five are located in major cities, including Dallas and Fort Worth. Seven more clinics provide abortion referrals, including clinics in Dallas and Plano.*



http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/09/what-is-left-of-planned-parenthood-in-texas.html/


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going to argue with you, but please think about what has been posted and realize that people who live in the inner city have vastly different lives than you have (or had), with different challenges, and choices. That is just the way it is.
> 
> And all because many Texans were too foolish to think ahead and even imagine something like this happening. Now they'll pay for that foolishness.


In case you forgot!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

wiscto said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that this has never really been realistic. We're only human. It's easy to say "don't have sex" for people who don't want to, don't have to worry about it, or who have matured emotionally. For young couples just getting started, how easy can we all really say that is? How easy was it 100 years ago when shotgun weddings, parsonage weddings, and premature babies that didn't look all that premature (so they were conceived prior to marriage) were more common that people liked to admit? To me common sense tells us that young people will be the same love and hormone drunk fools they've always been, in a society where families don't care to help each other out as much as they used to. To me common sense also dictates that if we can help young people avoid mistakes almost any one of us could have made, we should. Common sense also tells us that if we don't treat young people with compassion, forgiveness, and patience.....they're more likely to grow up and act like capital As.


So wouldn't helping them avoid mistakes include teaching them personal responsibility?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> So wouldn't helping them avoid mistakes include teaching them personal responsibility?


Using effective birth control is being personally responsible. Cutting off access to it seems irresponsible. I posted a link in another thread that showed the government of Texas studied this before cutting off funding and predicted this very outcome. It wasn't unexpected.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

But has been found out about is the ones that closed were in Large cities, and not in rural areas so there ARE plenty of care center close to where the ones that closed so the3se could still get care IF they had a mind to it and wanted to use the Phone Book and doing some searching on their own instead of just relying on the Government to get things forced out of their bodies.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

no really said:


> I am pro choice but it is not that high on my list when it comes to political platforms, I'm interested in the economics involved governance.
> 
> From what I can read the PP closures were all in metropolitan areas, heck I am not even sure they have any in rural parts of the state.


I am with you there. I don't think politics and peoples personal lives should have anything to do with the other. Also everyone I know that ever got an abortion had to drive to do so. Even they years ago when we had mostly democrats in office.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure they had to just like now but that article in the OP was a one sided view of things without doing a background checking and checking on the facts. To make it sound like this just happened well it didn't and these folks had to drive years ago even before a few closed in Large Cities. Now you can see first hand how a one sided article can skewed the entire outlook and view on things.
Also not a mention that many of these now have come from the illegal immigration problem but then mention THAT would not keep to the view point that closing pp in Large Cites only has caused low income families to have this babies to be born.
See how a one sided article is when not presenting the other side of the things to get to the truth and the route of the problem...?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> Sure they had to just like now but that article in the OP was a one sided view of things without doing a background checking and checking on the facts. To make it sound like this just happened well it didn't and these folks had to drive years ago even before a few closed in Large Cities. Now you can see first hand how a one sided article can skewed the entire outlook and view on things.
> Also not a mention that many of these now have come from the illegal immigration problem but then mention THAT would not keep to the view point that closing pp in Large Cites only has caused low income families to have this babies to be born.
> See how a one sided article is when not presenting the other side of the things to get to the truth and the route of the problem...?


If that's the case, then you have a whole bunch more anchor babies.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I went back and re-read the article in the OP. I did not see anywhere that they actually interviewed the mothers to determine why they got pregnant. They just speculate that "Many of these births were probably unplanned, since the increase was only seen in counties where women faced new hurdles in access to contraception, the study authors wrote." What if the women simply wanted a baby?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

wiscto said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that this has never really been realistic. We're only human. It's easy to say "don't have sex" for people who don't want to, don't have to worry about it, or who have matured emotionally. For young couples just getting started, how easy can we all really say that is? How easy was it 100 years ago when shotgun weddings, parsonage weddings, and premature babies that didn't look all that premature (so they were conceived prior to marriage) were more common that people liked to admit? To me common sense tells us that young people will be the same love and hormone drunk fools they've always been, in a society where families don't care to help each other out as much as they used to. To me common sense also dictates that if we can help young people avoid mistakes almost any one of us could have made, we should. Common sense also tells us that if we don't treat young people with compassion, forgiveness, and patience.....they're more likely to grow up and act like capital As.


Yeah, your right, we should coddle the youth more than we already do! At the end of the day a responsible adult that DOES NOT want children will more than likely avoid sex or find a way to get their birth control. Babies depending how you view them are a consequence or result of sex, much like driving drunk can result in death to others and a DWI. You know the risks of your actions and you chose to make the decision, it is now your responsibility to raise said child! The real issue is that no one wants to be responsible for their actions anymore, it's always someone else's fault. So once again coddling the youth more will only creat more issues, they need to be dealt with accordingly.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Maybe they are low income because their boyfriends or husbands used to work oil field and are now unemployed and home more! Maybe it's the daughters of the illegals having children. Doesn't say who other than low income women. Here's another one for you, maybe they are playing the system, no that can't be it, people don't do that!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmerKat said:


> I went back and re-read the article in the OP. I did not see anywhere that they actually interviewed the mothers to determine why they got pregnant. They just speculate that "Many of these births were probably unplanned, since *the increase was only seen in counties where women faced new hurdles in access to contraception*, the study authors wrote." What if the women simply wanted a baby?


Yeah, they all suddenly "wanted" babies after the clinics closed, and people in the other counties didn't


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, they all suddenly "wanted" babies after the clinics closed, and people in the other counties didn't


I know, right?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, they all suddenly "wanted" babies after the clinics closed, and people in the other counties didn't


They say that most of the PP clinics were in urban areas and served 60% of the low income population. But how has the demographic of the same areas changed in the same time? How much has the population grown? They are just assuming that the only thing that has changed is the absence of PP clinics. Has there been an increase in immigrant population? Where are they from? Are they from areas where families have more children? 

I think anyone can use any statistics to prove anything they want to prove. 

Is being poor and having a child always a bad thing? This study assumes that these children are just an unwanted burden and the world would be better without them. But would it?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, they all suddenly "wanted" babies after the clinics closed, and people in the other counties didn't





Irish Pixie said:


> I know, right?


Sure...lets abort all kids in Texas...shame on those women carrying that child to term because it's the right thing to do...you would think they committed a crime.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> Sure...*lets abort all kids in Texas*...shame on those women carrying that child to term because it's the right thing to do...you would think they committed a crime.


Irrational comments just make people tend to ignore all you say


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmerKat said:


> They say that most of the PP clinics were in urban areas and served 60% of the low income population. But how has the demographic of the same areas changed in the same time? How much has the population grown? They are just assuming that the only thing that has changed is the absence of PP clinics. Has there been an increase in immigrant population? Where are they from? Are they from areas where families have more children?
> 
> I think anyone can use any statistics to prove anything they want to prove.
> 
> Is being poor and having a child always a bad thing? This study assumes that these children are just an unwanted burden and the world would be better without them. But would it?


It's a pretty safe assumption that the closing of clinics and the increase in births are related since demographic changes should be spread across counties. Failure rates on birth control can be as high as 50%.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a pretty safe *assumption* that the closing of clinics and the increase in births are related since demographic changes should be spread across counties. Failure rates on birth control can be as high as 50%.


Still an assumption.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

FarmerKat said:


> They say that most of the PP clinics were in urban areas and served 60% of the low income population. But how has the demographic of the same areas changed in the same time? How much has the population grown? They are just assuming that the only thing that has changed is the absence of PP clinics. Has there been an increase in immigrant population? Where are they from? Are they from areas where families have more children?
> 
> I think anyone can use any statistics to prove anything they want to prove.
> 
> Is being poor and having a child always a bad thing? This study assumes that these children are just an unwanted burden and the world would be better without them. But would it?


Of course not...my parents were not about having money..we had little...and raised seven kids...just real parents that did not believe in abortion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmerKat said:


> Still an assumption.


Based on data, not more assumptions


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Irrational comments just make people tend to ignore all you say


If you have a problem with a woman carrying a child to term...just say so.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Seems Texas isn't the only place where they are closing.


The only women who have abortions at the Philadelphia Womenâs Center are those with the stamina for an obstacle course.

The state bans Medicaid and insurance from the Affordable Care Act markets from covering abortions. So patients who are too poor to pay out-of-pocket have to scrounge together the money from friends or family.



Twenty-four hours before their appointment, Pennsylvania requires women to listen to information aimed at changing their minds. And every week, the Womenâs Center turns away patients who didnât get the information in time.

All this takes place a fleet 20-minute drive from the Cherry Hill Womenâs Center, another abortion clinic owned by the same network. Cherry Hill is in New Jersey, yet it feels as though itâs another country. There is no waiting period here, and nothing stops women from paying with their insurance or with Medicaid. Itâs what reproductive rights advocates envision when they talk about stripping abortion of its stigma and restrictions.

But beneath the surface, Cherry Hill exemplifies another, quieter upheaval in US abortion access: clinics in many blue states are struggling to keep their doors open just as much as in red states.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/12/abortion-clinics-rapidly-closing-liberal-states


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Seems Texas isn't the only place where they are closing.
> 
> 
> The only women who have abortions at the Philadelphia Womenâs Center are those with the stamina for an obstacle course.
> ...


From your link:

"The reasons for each closure are disparate. *But five years of knock-down, drag-out fights over abortion rights in conservative areas of the country are largely to blame. Each new bout in a place such as Texas diminishes the ability of advocates to focus on subtler challenges in liberal states.
*
âThe south is where we have to put most of our energy,â said Amanda Kifferly, the head of patient advocacy for the Womenâs Center. âAny time thereâs a crisis, thatâs where itâs coming from, and it goes right to the top of our to-do list.â

The closures are also a broad consequence of 40 years of anti-abortion policies that have stigmatized the procedure and isolated it from the rest of medicine. Because it is so controversial, abortion is the rare procedure that takes place almost exclusively in dedicated facilities. But a confluence of factors make it difficult, financially, to sustain standalone clinics that only perform abortions."


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> From your link:
> 
> "The reasons for each closure are disparate. *But five years of knock-down, drag-out fights over abortion rights in conservative areas of the country are largely to blame. Each new bout in a place such as Texas diminishes the ability of advocates to focus on subtler challenges in liberal states.
> *
> ...


Medicine? Oh boy.....No.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> If you have a problem with a woman carrying a child to term...just say so.


See my previous post to you


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

elevenpoint said:


> Of course not...my parents were not about having money..we had little...and raised seven kids...just real parents that did not believe in abortion.


...and just real parents that did not believe in shirking their responsibilities.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> ...and just real parents that did not believe in shirking their responsibilities.


Or all the kids were born before abortions were legal


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or all the kids were born before abortions were legal


Imagine that, abortions illegal. I believe that one day soon they will be again for "whim" abortions...


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Shine said:


> Imagine that, abortions illegal. I believe that one day soon they will be again for "whim" abortions...


First of all, getting an abortion is not something that is done on a whim. You seriously have no clue about real life if you actually believe that statement rather than using it as hyperbole. No rational human being actually believes that women go around saying, "Gee, I couldn't get in to get a manicure. I think I'll get myself an abortion". You demean women, their intellect and reason when you make such ridiculous statements. 

Second, women are not going to stand idly by while misguided people, driven by their desire to push their religious/moral beliefs down others' throats, attempt to drive reproductive rights back to the 1950s. That's what the anti-choice movement boils down to -- the belief that women are incapable of making their own decisions and the wrongheaded belief that they (the anti-choice folks) are somehow morally superior.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Shine said:


> Imagine that, abortions illegal. I believe that one day soon they will be again for "whim" abortions...


Now they can treat them like trash and discard the beings like week old baloney and that what this is pure baloney~! There will come a day when it will once again become illegal~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Imagine that, abortions illegal. I believe that one day soon they will be again for *"whim"* abortions...





> arabian knight:
> Now they can treat them like trash and discard the beings like week old baloney and that what this is pure baloney~! There will come a day when it will once again become illegal~!


No, you won't see that again in the US.

Also, you really shouldn't pretend you know why women make the choice to abort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> First of all, getting an abortion is not something that is done on a whim. You seriously have no clue about real life if you actually believe that statement rather than using it as hyperbole. No rational human being actually believes that women go around saying, "Gee, I couldn't get in to get a manicure. I think I'll get myself an abortion". You demean women, their intellect and reason when you make such ridiculous statements.
> 
> Second, women are not going to stand idly by while misguided people, driven by their desire to push their religious/moral beliefs down others' throats, attempt to drive reproductive rights back to the 1950s. That's what the anti-choice movement boils down to -- the belief that women are incapable of making their own decisions and the wrongheaded belief that they (the anti-choice folks) are somehow morally superior.


I started to tell him something very similar, but realized I couldn't have worded it as well or as politely as you.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or all the kids were born before abortions were legal


They happened if they were legal in clinics, homes and by way of herbal treatments, which some women still use.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> If that's the case, then you have a whole bunch more anchor babies.


Yes, that is part of the problem I am sure.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

no really said:


> Seems Texas isn't the only place where they are closing.
> 
> 
> The only women who have abortions at the Philadelphia Womenâs Center are those with the stamina for an obstacle course.
> ...


Well, I guess they are all about the brotherly love their but sisterly love is needs help in those their parts of the world. Maybe they should just use _Steve Austin's stone cold challenge _ instead and then maybe some women could get an abortion there. 

But seriously, my point was this earlier. (and you understood) that elected officials will say whatever they need to get elected or re-elected but they will do what they want or need to get elected again.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or all the kids were born before abortions were legal



I was anyway. But by the same token, because of that I am able to harass all of you guys. 

Not that most of you care lmao.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> They happened if they were legal in clinics, homes and by way of herbal treatments, which some women still use.


Yes. many still had abortions, but I think there were also lots of women who would have gotten them had they been legal, but were afraid of getting caught or just didn't have the "connections"


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> From your link:
> 
> "The reasons for each closure are disparate. *But five years of knock-down, drag-out fights over abortion rights in conservative areas of the country are largely to blame. Each new bout in a place such as Texas diminishes the ability of advocates to focus on subtler challenges in liberal states.
> *
> ...


Not saying that is wrong but it is only one persons opinion. :umno:

Who is this upstart Amanda girl??????? She isn't kin to you is she IP?:nanner:

Just kidding of course but consider this. If ONE person says something, then another posts it and then another, does it make it true? 

_No Really_ posted about Pa. and their views about PP. Are they north or south of the Mason Dixon line? I forget in my old age after all.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> First of all, getting an abortion is not something that is done on a whim. You seriously have no clue about real life if you actually believe that statement rather than using it as hyperbole. No rational human being actually believes that women go around saying, "Gee, I couldn't get in to get a manicure. I think I'll get myself an abortion". You demean women, their intellect and reason when you make such ridiculous statements.
> 
> Second, women are not going to stand idly by while misguided people, driven by their desire to push their religious/moral beliefs down others' throats, attempt to drive reproductive rights back to the 1950s. That's what the anti-choice movement boils down to -- the belief that women are incapable of making their own decisions and the wrongheaded belief that they (the anti-choice folks) are somehow morally superior.


All joking aside, I know a few women that have had abortions and you are dead on. Yes, there is peer pressure from family, friends and maybe even spouse. But it is a long thought out decision and not taken lightly by anyone I have ever known. Not to say it hasn't happened but it isn't the norm for sure by a LONG SHOT.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Not saying that is wrong but it is only one persons opinion. :umno:
> 
> Who is this upstart Amanda girl??????? She isn't kin to you is she IP?:nanner:
> 
> ...


Why so upset? I gave my opinion on the control that TX is putting on women over abortion. You said you were offended and I even toned down my response to you, and yet you still can't seem to get over it. Just say something cutting about NY and get it out of your system. K? 

My post is a direct quote from the link that "no really" put up about abortion clinics in blue states. It details that the problem originates in the south, in Texas in particular. NY and NJ have no restrictions, I believe both are above the Mason Dixon line and are blue states. And it is one woman's opinion, one woman that is involved with women's health and abortion every day. I'll bet she knows what she's talking about.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

For those of you who only want to concentrate on Planned Parenthood and abortions here's a little story of what the Texas cuts did to other providers in rural areas. http://www.texasobserver.org/family-planning-clinics-disappear-from-rural-texas/

When you live 2,3 or 4 hours from the urban area and the funding is cut off to your local clinic because politicians want to punish and control one group it will affect you. There will be consequences. 

Whenever discussions of how evil and wrong it is for government to pay for any "charitable" service those complaining will tell the rest of us how friends, family and private charity will fill the gap. Well, the gap seems to be widening, not narrowing for access to effective, affordable birth control. Maybe it's time to prove the rest of us wrong and for all you good charitable folks who will solve the problem to step up to the plate and start putting your money where your mouths have been.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I still think that abortion and gun restriction should be the same in each state. If Texas and MO want to impose ridiculous restriction on abortion, the exact same waiting period, required meetings for information, etc. should be enacted for purchasing a gun. 

I've posted this before, but this lawmaker is taking a stand on the issue:

"Taking a cue from Missouriâs strict abortion laws, a state lawmaker filed a bill that would make obtaining a gun as difficult as obtaining an abortion, including a 72-hour waiting period, a visit to a physician, and seminars on âfatal firearm injuries.â

https://www.rt.com/usa/324809-missouri-lawmaker-gun-bill-abortion/


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

I thought this was a discussion about PP and contraception and health care for poor women in Texas but of course it has become another argument about abortion. So, as a Texan in the poorest part of Texas let me share just a little bit of what I see here.

We live on the border with Mexico in a place called the valley. There are two main roads out of here that travel north through ranch country. That means you either drive one of these two roads out of here or you walk out across a hundred miles of desert like brush country (every year lots of bodies are found there and many more are never recovered). About an hour north of here is a check point on each road where they look to stop illegals. That means anything south of the check point is a safe haven for illegals. Many of them cross the river, live here their entire lives and have lots of American born babies. They shop here, they drive here without license or insurance, they live mostly in trailer parks or what's known as colonias (clusters of poorly built housing, some without electricity or plumbing). 

I happen to know one such family. Both mom and dad are illegal and have 7 US born children. Dad has to work at odd jobs for cash since he has no visa etc. Mom stays home and has babies. Dad recently got picked up for the 3rd time drinking and driving so he is in jail and there is no money coming in to the home except what the government provides. The kids have Medicaid but of course the parents do not because they are not citizens. 

Mom's last child was a difficult birth and the doctors told her not to get pregnant again or she would die. She did not have the money to get her tubes tied and dad didn't or wouldn't get fixed. I don't know if they can't afford contraception or don't believe in it but she got pregnant again and thankfully miscarried and lived. 

First, let me say I totally disagree with this lifestyle, I'm just reporting what I see. These women don't even have 20 dollars in their pocket and if they did, they have much more pressing needs in their mind than birth control. They have a simple view that they will have as many babies and "Jesus" wants them to and he will take care of them. I see very little incentive to take responsibility for their situation. It is as if they don't even think about it. 

Thankfully their kids are growing up much different. We got involved with the kids through a charity and have been very impressed with them. Most of them are in the top of their class and are determined to do well so they can escape poverty. I often feel the kids are more mature than the parents. I do have hope for these kids that they will break the cycle and be very productive members of society. I didn't intend to but I have fallen in love with these little ones and have high hopes for them. 

Knowing how the poor live down here, if PP is not there to provide health screenings, contraception, and most importantly education, these women will continue to have babies for us to raise. Just my two cents anyway!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> For those of you who only want to concentrate on Planned Parenthood and abortions here's a little story of what the Texas cuts did to other providers in rural areas. http://www.texasobserver.org/family-planning-clinics-disappear-from-rural-texas/
> 
> When you live 2,3 or 4 hours from the urban area and the funding is cut off to your local clinic because politicians want to punish and control one group it will affect you. There will be consequences.
> 
> Whenever discussions of how evil and wrong it is for government to pay for any "charitable" service those complaining will tell the rest of us how friends, family and private charity will fill the gap. Well, the gap seems to be widening, not narrowing for access to effective, affordable birth control. Maybe it's time to prove the rest of us wrong and for all you good charitable folks who will solve the problem to step up to the plate and start putting your money where your mouths have been.


That's disgusting. It makes me think that TX is working on a eugenics type program to rid themselves of poor women. The small clinics (most of which didn't even provide abortion) did provide cancer and STD screenings, birth control, and other heath care treatment for low income women. Without them more women will die and there will be even more unwanted pregnancies. 

What difference does it make if poor women die of treatable diseases? We made it so abortion is difficult to get! YeeHaw! :flame:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Miss Kay said:


> I thought this was a discussion about PP and contraception and health care for poor women in Texas but of course it has become another argument about abortion. So, as a Texan in the poorest part of Texas let me share just a little bit of what I see here.
> 
> We live on the border with Mexico in a place called the valley. There are two main roads out of here that travel north through ranch country. That means you either drive one of these two roads out of here or you walk out across a hundred miles of desert like brush country (every year lots of bodies are found there and many more are never recovered). About an hour north of here is a check point on each road where they look to stop illegals. That means anything south of the check point is a safe haven for illegals. Many of them cross the river, live here their entire lives and have lots of American born babies. They shop here, they drive here without license or insurance, they live mostly in trailer parks or what's known as colonias (clusters of poorly built housing, some without electricity or plumbing).
> 
> ...


Thanks for personally doing what you can for these kids and others. If more would follow your example rather than trying to control through other means we might just come up with real world solutions to real world problems.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Here's a thought, if you don't like how we live here in Texas, stay out and bring all the poor women to you cess pools up in New England! People in the south still have morals and values and have faith, keep your Yankee values up there m, stop spreading the trash!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Yet another multi page pro abortion thread.
Someone is obsessed.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet another multi page pro abortion thread.
> Someone is obsessed.


Ain't it the truth!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

This thread was about birth control but those obsessed with pro life made it about abortion, as usual. They can't help themselves.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet another multi page pro abortion thread.
> Someone is obsessed.


And, again, here you are to mischaracterize the position of others.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> This thread was about birth control but those obsessed with pro life made it about abortion, as usual. They can't help themselves.


Of course, and since we aren't allowed to argue with you, you win again
Good for you:goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> And, again, here you are to mischaracterize the position of others.


Just an observation,l no need to get over sensitive


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Of course, and since we aren't allowed to argue with you, you win again
> Good for you:goodjob:


Follow the rules and your posts won't get deleted. Playing the victim while breaking the rules and then whining about it seems to be more fun for you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> Just an observation,l no need to get over sensitive


Not overly sensitive at all. In fact, not really sensitive to anything you have to say. I save my feelings for those I deem worthy. Just observing that you, among others, often show up to these threads and misstate the opinions of others while offering little of substance to the conversation. And you call others obsessed?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet another multi page pro abortion thread.
> Someone is obsessed.


The subject presented related to birth control.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

I love it. Another Planned Parenthood thread. We must be approaching a record. But I'll bite.

Great study. Sure seems cut and dried eh? I mean, it was *The New England Journal of Medicine* for heaven's sake! No one would question that right?! :bow: Once again....let's follow the money.

So said author of the study is Joseph Potter. 

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/txpep/bios/jepotter.php#Joseph 

In his disclosure statement for the publishing of this paper with the NEJMSA he indicated a conflict of interest as he has received direct funding from two institutions that have definite intent and perspective in this area, The Susan T Buffet Foundation and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development. 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMsa1511902/suppl_file/nejmsa1511902_disclosures.pdf

If you look up, as an example, The Susan T Buffet Foundation, you can see their perspective on this.

"For a long time, the foundation gave away lots of money, but not compared to Buffett's fortune. Susan was the foundation's president, and Warren tended to stay out of things. The foundation focused mainly on the couple's shared concerns about reproductive rights and population control. Big gifts were made annually to a relatively small number of groups, including Planned Parenthood and International Projects Assistance Services."

http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...retive-susan-thompson-buffett-foundation.html

So, in summary...foundation gives money to Planned Parenthood. Same foundation gives money to PhD. PhD studies indicate...wait for it...that blocking the funding to Planned Parenthood in Texas had disastrous repercussions. Who would have seen that coming?!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why so upset? I gave my opinion on the control that TX is putting on women over abortion. You said you were offended and I even toned down my response to you, and yet you still can't seem to get over it. Just say something cutting about NY and get it out of your system. K?
> 
> My post is a direct quote from the link that "no really" put up about abortion clinics in blue states. It details that the problem originates in the south, in Texas in particular. NY and NJ have no restrictions, I believe both are above the Mason Dixon line and are blue states. And it is one woman's opinion, one woman that is involved with women's health and abortion every day. I'll bet she knows what she's talking about.


Not upset at all. In fact was trying to make light of it as I knew you could take it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet another multi page pro abortion thread.
> Someone is obsessed.


*Posting* on those threads is what makes them "multi-page"

If you do so, don't complain about the end result :shrug:

No one forced anyone to read nor post and the complaints are like a mosquito that whines in your ear as you're trying to fall asleep


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Follow the rules and your posts won't get deleted. Playing the victim while breaking the rules and then whining about it seems to be more fun for you.


Some have made that an art form, but oddly think no one can see it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Knight9 said:


> I love it. Another Planned Parenthood thread. We must be approaching a record. But I'll bite.
> 
> Great study. Sure seems cut and dried eh? I mean, it was *The New England Journal of Medicine* for heaven's sake! No one would question that right?! :bow: Once again....let's follow the money.
> 
> ...


Maybe you can find the nefarious connection between the state employees who predicted almost this exact outcome back in 2012 and Planned Parenthood. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/0...07/1302691/texas-republicans-reconsider-cuts/

As I've said before- the results of cutting funding like this aren't surprising or unpredictable.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you can find the nefarious connection between the state employees who predicted almost this exact outcome back in 2012 and Planned Parenthood. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/0...07/1302691/texas-republicans-reconsider-cuts/
> 
> As I've said before- the results of cutting funding like this aren't surprising or unpredictable.


Yup, that's pretty much the response I expected from several folks on here. Ignore the actual facts listed. If it was a study saying something else that was funded by some right group with a right bias, the dogpile would be well underway. I tend to believe studies that are not funded by bias foundations with very well known perspectives on the study topic. If that study had found something else or could be interpreted some other way, do you actually think it would have been published?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Knight9 said:


> Yup, that's pretty much the response I expected from several folks on here. Ignore the actual facts listed. If it was a study saying something else that was funded by some right group with a right bias, the dogpile would be well underway. I tend to believe studies that are not funded by bias foundations with very well known perspectives on the study topic. If that study had found something else or could be interpreted some other way, do you actually think it would have been published?


Find the study that disproves it. It simply confirms the predicted outcome of the study done by the state of Texas. In fact, if you read it closely, youll find the author takes pains to say he can't draw a direct line from funding being cut to increased pregnancies. But the evidence does seem compelling and confirmative of the predicted outcome. If you have other studies or evidence that show different predicted outcomes or results I'd be interested in seeing them. Do you think if there were such evidence it wouldn't have been found and published by those with their own agenda?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> Yup, that's pretty much the response I expected from several folks on here. Ignore the actual facts listed. If it was a study saying something else that was funded by some right group with a right bias, the dogpile would be well underway. I tend to believe studies that are not funded by bias foundations with very well known perspectives on the study topic. If that study had found something else or could be interpreted some other way, do you actually think it would have been published?


I suggest you contact the New England Journal of Medicine immediately and tell them you feel the study is flawed. Please let us know what they tell you.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest you contact the New England Journal of Medicine immediately and tell them you feel the study is flawed. Please let us know what they tell you.


LOL! You guys are so funny. Just can't admit that the guy who wrote the article is on the dole. That was my point. I made no comment about the "facts" in the article or his numbers or anything. I simply pointed out that he admits to getting money from foundations that support, fund, and espouse pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood positions. Look at the list of articles coming from his study program! 

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/txpep/fact-sheets.php

See a trend? 

Oh, and Pixie, did you write to the Govt of Texas to tell them you thought their legislation was flawed? I'll wait for that response first. But I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I love it. Another Planned Parenthood thread. We must be approaching a record. But I'll bite.


It's not even close to a "record"

Check back to last August when the videos were coming out every few days, and there were 6 or more going at the same time on the front page.

Again, if you don't like the topic you aren't *forced* to participate



> If it was a study saying something else that was funded by some right group with a right bias, *the dogpile* would be well underway.


Says another "dog" in a different "pile" :shrug:

Woof!!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Knight9 said:


> LOL! You guys are so funny. Just can't admit that the guy who wrote the article is on the dole. That was my point. I made no comment about the "facts" in the article or his numbers or anything. I simply pointed out that he admits to getting money from foundations that support, fund, and espouse pro-abortion, pro-Planned Parenthood positions. Look at the list of articles coming from his study program!
> 
> http://www.utexas.edu/cola/txpep/fact-sheets.php
> 
> ...


And maybe you can show what facts he got wrong in this study? Or what facts the state of Texas got wrong when they made their fairly accurate predictions about what would happen when funding was cut. If you can't disprove the message attack the messenger. It's an old, and pretty transparent, tactic mostly used by those who don't have fact on their side. Funding dropped. Pregnancies increased. Correlation isn't causation but its a darned good place to start. Especially when the outcome was predicted by others with no provable connection or bias.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Interesting that this is being brought forth by a four year member with under 80 posts. Anyone else think they might be getting bored on the alternate forum? Hi guys.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not even close to a "record"
> 
> Check back to last August when the videos were coming out every few days, and there were 6 or more going at the same time on the front page.
> 
> ...


Yah! You made it! I was waiting for you! LOL!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I didn't know we were playing red rover, red rover. Cool!


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And maybe you can show what facts he got wrong in this study? Or what facts the state of Texas got wrong when they made their fairly accurate predictions about what would happen when funding was cut. If you can't disprove the message attack the messenger. It's an old, and pretty transparent, tactic mostly used by those who don't have fact on their side. Funding dropped. Pregnancies increased. Correlation isn't causation but its a darned good place to start. Especially when the outcome was predicted by others with no provable connection or bias.


OK. So...let me help you here. It's a little thing called "Funding Bias".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Interesting that this is being brought forth by a four year member with under 80 posts. Anyone else think they might be getting bored on the alternate forum? Hi guys.


I have no idea what the "alternate forum" is, but it is nice to see that you clearly believe your opinion is of higher value than mine since I'm newer to the forum and don't post as much. Great attitude.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Knight9 said:


> OK. So...let me help you here. It's a little thing called "Funding Bias". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias


I understand funding bias. There might even be confirmation bias at work. But those are suppositions. The numbers are facts. And the facts are that the numbers predicted in 2012 by the great state of Texas were confirmed by a later study looking at actual numbers. If I were designing an experiment I'd call that proof. I'd give those researchers from the great state of Texas an "A" for coming up with an accurate hypothesis.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Knight9 said:


> I have no idea what the "alternate forum" is, but it is nice to see that you clearly believe your opinion is of higher value than mine since I'm newer to the forum and don't post as much. Great attitude.


Your join date is listed as Dec. 2012. Define "newer". 

I've based my opinion on looking at the predicted numbers and the actual numbers which align pretty closely. You base yours on a percieved bias. I know which method of study I give more credence to.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Your join date is listed as Dec. 2012. Define "newer".
> 
> I've based my opinion on looking at the predicted numbers and the actual numbers which align pretty closely. You base yours on a percieved bias. I know which method of study I give more credence to.


My bad. I assumed your reference to "a four year member" was a comment on not being around long. Then I see you've only been here since 10/09/12 too. So apparently your comment was more about the only 80 posts so I will defer to the wisdom of your 6350 posts. LOL!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> Yah! You made it! *I was waiting for you*! LOL!


So you're just trolling?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Knight9 said:


> My bad. I assumed your reference to "a four year member" was a comment on not being around long. Then I see you've only been here since 10/09/12 too. So apparently your comment was more about the only 80 posts so I will defer to the wisdom of your 6350 posts. LOL!!


Number of posts are no sure sign of wisdom. There are some here with far more posts than I who show their lack of wisdom almost every time they post. Wisdom is judged by the content of those posts. I judge it by how well one uses facts and logic to support their opinion. Some here are far wiser than me when judged by that standard. I'll withhold judgement on your wisdom for now.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're just trolling?


Not at all. It's just that a few of you are very predictable. Anyone who says anything that differs from you is very likely to get several of you replying (as you did in this thread) or at a minimum the "Likes" piling up by the same folks (as Pixie just did to your trolling comment).

I'm entitled to my opinion, and if I point out that the same folks have to make it clear that they don't share that opinion, that hardly constitutes trolling. Obviously.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Number of posts are no sure sign of wisdom. There are some here with far more posts than I who show their lack of wisdom almost every time they post. Wisdom is judged by the content of those posts. I judge it by how well one uses facts and logic to support their opinion. Some here are far wiser than me when judged by that standard. I'll withhold judgement on your wisdom for now.


I agree 100% and do appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind on my wisdom for now 

Have a good day.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Knight9 said:


> I agree 100% and do appreciate your willingness to keep an open mind on my wisdom for now
> 
> Have a good day.


You could start by providing evidence of the bias you say exists. Like numbers of pregnancies that conflict with the predictions made by the great state of Texas back when you first joined this forum.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Knight9 said:


> Not at all. It's just that a few of you are very predictable. Anyone who says anything that differs from you is very likely to get several of you replying (as you did in this thread) or at a minimum the "Likes" piling up by the same folks (as Pixie just did to your trolling comment).
> 
> I'm entitled to my opinion, and if I point out that the same folks have to make it clear that they don't share that opinion, that hardly constitutes trolling. Obviously.


If you're entitled to your opinion aren't I entitled to like what I think is a good post? BFF was spot on, and I had nothing to add, so I liked the post. Isn't that the reason for the like button? 

If you know that some posters are as you say "predictable" _and_ you post specifically to get them to reply, what is that called? I think it begins with a T... :hysterical:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> Not at all. It's just that *a few of you are very predictable*.
> 
> Anyone who says anything that differs from you is very likely to get several of you replying (as you did in this thread) or at a minimum the "Likes" piling up by the same folks (as Pixie just did to your trolling comment).
> 
> I'm entitled to my opinion, and if I point out that* the same folks have to make it clear that they don't share that opinion*, that hardly constitutes trolling. Obviously.


You are no less predictable, as I pointed out.
You just like to pretend you're somehow different, when you exhibit identical behavior

It's a recurring pattern for you to comment on these particular thread topics with the same basic replies. 

It's not even original since there are a few others who tend to offer the same remarks


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you're entitled to your opinion aren't I entitled to like what I think is a good post? BFF was spot on, and I had nothing to add, so I liked the post. Isn't that the reason for the like button?
> 
> If you know that some posters are as you say "predictable" _and_ you post specifically to get them to reply, what is that called? I think it begins with a T... :hysterical:


LOL! You are very amusing. I did not post to "specifically *get* them to reply". Again...obviously! I said I knew you would. Big difference. You reply everytime someone says something you don't like. That doesn't mean everyone has to shut up or be considered a troll. Get real.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You are no less predictable, as I pointed out.
> 
> You just like to pretend you're somehow different, when you exhibit identical behavior
> 
> ...



Please go back and read my first post in this thread. It was original and unlike any others. But nice try.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Knight9 said:


> Please go back and read my first post in this thread. It was original and unlike any others. But nice try.


I wasn't referring to your first post, as I'm sure you know.
It's not worth getting the thread locked to play silly word games though.
That would be too deja vu to be of any real interest


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Miss Kay said:


> I thought this was a discussion about PP and contraception and health care for poor women in Texas but of course it has become another argument about abortion. So, as a Texan in the poorest part of Texas let me share just a little bit of what I see here.
> 
> We live on the border with Mexico in a place called the valley. There are two main roads out of here that travel north through ranch country. That means you either drive one of these two roads out of here or you walk out across a hundred miles of desert like brush country (every year lots of bodies are found there and many more are never recovered). About an hour north of here is a check point on each road where they look to stop illegals. That means anything south of the check point is a safe haven for illegals. Many of them cross the river, live here their entire lives and have lots of American born babies. They shop here, they drive here without license or insurance, they live mostly in trailer parks or what's known as colonias (clusters of poorly built housing, some without electricity or plumbing).
> 
> ...


I too live along the border. I don't know of but 2 cities near the border that have PP, El Paso and I believe Brownsville or McAllen. Next closest to this area are San Antonio or Austin. We just don't have those services in the border area, which we need badly. 

We in the Hispanic community work to educate as many as possible, one of the first things we stress is learning the language. There is much to be done though.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Not overly sensitive at all. In fact, not really sensitive to anything you have to say. I save my feelings for those I deem worthy. Just observing that you, among others, often show up to these threads and misstate the opinions of others while offering little of substance to the conversation. And you call others obsessed?


A difference of opinion is a misstatement?
Hmmm


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Knight9 said:


> Not at all. It's just that a few of you are very predictable. Anyone who says anything that differs from you is very likely to get several of you replying (as you did in this thread) or at a minimum the "Likes" piling up by the same folks (as Pixie just did to your trolling comment).
> 
> I'm entitled to my opinion, and if I point out that the same folks have to make it clear that they don't share that opinion, that hardly constitutes trolling. Obviously.


There is the predictability...then the piling up....better know as the train crash. You don't want to look but you are never disappointed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Now there are 200 posts, due in part to people who say these threads are "too long"
Truth is stranger than fiction


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> A difference of opinion is a misstatement?
> Hmmm


No, characterizing a thread dealing with the effects of cutting budgets and access of birth control as "pro abortion" is a misstatement. It a a deliberate misstatement designed, in my opinion, to derail and steer another thread into what you'd like to discuss. Its a misstatement that does nothing to further the discourse. It's a deliberate misstatement unsupported by facts. Please show me the "pro abortion" posts that drew you to this misguided conclusion. I've seen a lot of compassion for women and a desire to find ways to help them avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions. So, if anything, it's probably another anti abortion thread.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Miss Kay said:


> I thought this was a discussion about PP and contraception and health care for poor women in Texas but of course it has become another argument about abortion. So, as a Texan in the poorest part of Texas let me share just a little bit of what I see here.
> 
> We live on the border with Mexico in a place called the valley. There are two main roads out of here that travel north through ranch country. That means you either drive one of these two roads out of here or you walk out across a hundred miles of desert like brush country (every year lots of bodies are found there and many more are never recovered). About an hour north of here is a check point on each road where they look to stop illegals. That means anything south of the check point is a safe haven for illegals. Many of them cross the river, live here their entire lives and have lots of American born babies. They shop here, they drive here without license or insurance, they live mostly in trailer parks or what's known as colonias (clusters of poorly built housing, some without electricity or plumbing).
> 
> ...


This family made a choice to live in the US. If they lived in their native country, dad would be able to get regular employment because he would not be illegal. He may not make as much as working odd jobs in the US but cost of living is much lower in some countries.

But since they chose to live in the US, that means our government is responsible for providing them with birth control. I see ... (There are ways to prevent pregnancy without drugs. Or, maybe, if the father skipped a drink every now and then, they could afford some BC.)

And looking at it from another side ... you said that the children are rather amazing ... so is it a bad thing for them to live? Sounds like they will make the world a better place. 

We all make choices in our lives and we need to live with the consequences of those choices not wait for someone else to take care of us.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Ya really how is any sane person going to interpret such a thread when they all go in that direction? This is and always has for those that want PP alive and well. But not the children that should be carried to term and be able to Live a normal life instead of taken out in the trash bin or sold to the highest bidder for parts.


I won't comment on the sanity of those who want to take these threads down the same rabbit holes repeating the same disinformation. Others have defined the result of repeating such actions much more succinctly than I.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

It wasn't a personal attack it was the truth! Being pro life has nothing to do with controlling a woman, that's where that logic is severely flawed, yeah yeah it's her body, but she should also be responsible for her decision to have sex and do the RESPONSIBLE thing and raise the child or allow someone to adopt it. If you really think it is about controlling a woman you really have no comprehension to what life means. I don't think a man should have to pay child support if there is shared custody, men are controlled everyday in that aspect because judges feel women cannot do it by themselves and that men are too incompetent to raise a kid on their own. Why are there so few cases of women paying child support and when they don't m, nothing really happens? Makes sense doesn't it. I guess it's ok to control men but then again the yankee liberals are all about double standards. It isn't about controlling anyone, that's how y'all sick Yankee influenced minds interprets it. It's about allowing a child to live!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It wasn't a personal attack it was the truth! Being pro life has nothing to do with controlling a woman, that's where that logic is severely flawed, yeah yeah it's her body, but she should also be responsible for her decision to have sex and do the RESPONSIBLE thing and raise the child or allow someone to adopt it. If you really think it is about controlling a woman you really have no comprehension to what life means. I don't think a man should have to pay child support if there is shared custody, men are controlled everyday in that aspect because judges feel women cannot do it by themselves and that men are too incompetent to raise a kid on their own. Why are there so few cases of women paying child support and when they don't m, nothing really happens? Makes sense doesn't it. I guess it's ok to control men but then again the yankee liberals are all about double standards. It isn't about controlling anyone, that's how y'all sick Yankee influenced minds interprets it. It's about allowing a child to live!


Bingo. They flip truth on its head to rationalize their views. Everyone knows these poor women who can't afford birth control are somehow able to afford tattoos and IPhones. As you said, it is completely a matter of responsibility. How difficult is it to remember to keep your knees together when you're on a date? Anyone unable to master that feat will always be a loser in life. Likewise with young men who can't resist fathering children at every opportunity. Losers for life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Bingo. They flip truth on its head to rationalize their views. Everyone knows these poor women who can't afford birth control are somehow able to afford tattoos and IPhones. As you said, it is completely a matter of responsibility. How difficult is it to remember to keep your knees together when you're on a date? Anyone unable to master that feat will always be a loser in life. Likewise with young men who can't resist fathering children at every opportunity. Losers for life.


Single mothers are losers because they get pregnant. 

Well that broad brush is making your opinion look quite foolish. I have know many single moms that do amazing things in their lives and for their children.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Is to get jobs for these Low Income babies. Good living wage jobs so they could pay for their own Obama care, and live a happy life. Just put them to work.:bouncy:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

edcopp said:


> Is to get jobs for these Low Income babies. Good living wage jobs so they could pay for their own Obama care, and live a happy life. Just put them to work.:bouncy:


 Ya really and now in WI. those that can work but are NOT working and still receive food stamps HAVE to look for, and get employed, or LOSE those freebies from the nanny government. Which is one step in the correct direction getting those that can work off their butts, and from in front of the cable TV. LOL


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It wasn't a personal attack it was the truth! Being pro life has nothing to do with controlling a woman, that's where that logic is severely flawed, yeah yeah it's her body, but she should also be responsible for her decision to have sex and do the RESPONSIBLE thing and raise the child or allow someone to adopt it. If you really think it is about controlling a woman you really have no comprehension to what life means. I don't think a man should have to pay child support if there is shared custody, men are controlled everyday in that aspect because judges feel women cannot do it by themselves and that men are too incompetent to raise a kid on their own. Why are there so few cases of women paying child support and when they don't m, nothing really happens? Makes sense doesn't it. I guess it's ok to control men but then again the yankee liberals are all about double standards. It isn't about controlling anyone, that's how y'all sick Yankee influenced minds interprets it. It's about allowing a child to live!





poppy said:


> Bingo. They flip truth on its head to rationalize their views. Everyone knows these poor women who can't afford birth control are somehow able to afford tattoos and IPhones. As you said, it is completely a matter of responsibility. How difficult is it to remember to keep your knees together when you're on a date? Anyone unable to master that feat will always be a loser in life. Likewise with young men who can't resist fathering children at every opportunity. Losers for life.


Both of you are so off base, it's almost laughable. First of all, just as many southern folks believe in choice as northern folks so your attempt to characterize this as a North-South thing is just silly. Second, your belief that it is only single women who have unexpected pregnancies is completely wrong. Married women have abortions too. Even in Texas.

Pro-life has everything to do with controlling women. It's all about telling women that they are somehow incapable of looking at the circumstances of their lives and making a decision to continue a pregnancy or not. It's all about telling a woman that before the pregnancy test they are intelligent people capable of making their decisions and that after the pregnancy test that they are somehow too stupid to do so. It's all about telling a woman that her morals and beliefs about something that will affect her life is secondary to some stranger's. It's all about telling women that their plans, goals and lives are secondary to their uteruses. Your stance that the only responsible thing to do is to continue a pregnancy that will completely derail a woman's opportunity to improve her life is just plain wrong.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Single mothers are losers because they get pregnant.
> 
> Well that broad brush is making your opinion look quite foolish. I have know many single moms that do amazing things in their lives and for their children.


You sure twisted that statement quite nicely. 

I understood it to read as: Any woman that does not wish to have a child only has to abstain or be absolutely certain to protect one's self, possibly with back up protection that does not include the killing of that unwanted child. You know... responsibility?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> Both of you are so off base, it's almost laughable. First of all, just as many southern folks believe in choice as northern folks so your attempt to characterize this as a North-South thing is just silly. Second, your belief that it is only single women who have unexpected pregnancies is completely wrong. Married women have abortions too. Even in Texas.
> 
> Pro-life has everything to do with controlling women. It's all about telling women that they are somehow incapable of looking at the circumstances of their lives and making a decision to continue a pregnancy or not. It's all about telling a woman that before the pregnancy test they are intelligent people capable of making their decisions and that after the pregnancy test that they are somehow too stupid to do so. It's all about telling a woman that her morals and beliefs about something that will affect her life is secondary to some stranger's. It's all about telling women that their plans, goals and lives are secondary to their uteruses. Your stance that the only responsible thing to do is to continue a pregnancy that will completely derail a woman's opportunity to improve her life is just plain wrong.


If having a child was to derail her opportunity, then she should consider the consequences of having sex. Protecting an unborn child is not controlling a woman, it's preserving life, a right you are entitled to as well. How has that unborn child hurt anyone? So here's a question for you to answer. What if the father wants the mother to abort but she doesn't want to, he shouldn't have to pay child support because that would also derail his opportunity to make more money in life. Your reasoning is ignorance at its finest to be polite. Abortion should not be about what's convenient for you, it is ending a life! I mean if that's the case why not make murders legal? Same concept, why not euthanize the mentally challenged when we find out, why not euthanize those that use and abuse the system? Your reasoning is flawed. It has nothing to do with controlling a woman. If it does it also is controlling a man! If a woman has an abortion against a mans wishes why can he not get child support for a child he wanted but the mother killed? A man will always have to pay child support no matter what that is controlling men! Loose you double standards and use your brain for something better! 

Read the title, it is north and south!


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

So much for having a conversation about health care for poor women including contraception, cancer screening, and other testing. PP does more than abortions but I guess that doesn't matter to many folks.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Single mothers are losers because they get pregnant.
> 
> Well that broad brush is making your opinion look quite foolish. I have know many single moms that do amazing things in their lives and for their children.


Good grief. Look at the stats. Being born to an unwed mother puts the odds of a child being raised in poverty through the roof. No one is claiming it applies to every single mother but for the vast majority of children it poverty, IT DOES no matter how you try to spin it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Good grief. Look at the stats. Being born to an unwed mother puts the odds of a child being raised in poverty through the roof. No one is claiming it applies to every single mother but for the vast majority of children it poverty, IT DOES no matter how you try to spin it.


It would seem that's the perfect argument to increase funding for safe, effective, and easily accessible contraception rather than cutting funding to the very organizations which are first line resources for many poor women.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

As a woman I know for a fact there is nothing we set out to do we can't accomplish. I find it very hard to believe a woman would just give up instead of getting what she wants or needs. This article makes it sound like women are helpless little flowers who need others to the care of thier basic need and I'm not buying it.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

My parents did not get married until I was 6. Mom worked her back side off to make sure I had what I needed. She was making around 2.15 an hour at one job and 3.50 at another. So yes my mother was a broke single mom and is now a very respectable principal at a catholic school. Having me at the age of 17 never derailed her career ambitions! Please find more new logical excuses to kill an unborn child.

Give up the fancy phones and cars and you too can afford birth control and maybe even your own place and pay for your own food. It's not about affordable stuff anymore, it's about handouts! If these people would actually try they would have some pride in themselves and maybe care about where they live and use so common sense about when to have a child! The ones needing PP are the ones that can probably get a free education anyway! More opportunity handed to them.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> It would seem that's the perfect argument to increase funding for safe, effective, and easily accessible contraception rather than cutting funding to the very organizations which are first line resources for many poor women.


Another good grief. Contraception is cheap and available to anyone. The cost of contraception is no problem for anyone. Are you saying a simple condom is out of anyone's price range? That's ridiculous. The first line resources are machines on the wall of most men's rest rooms in most service stations and certainly in any drug store. They can pick up a couple when they buy nail polish or shampoo to get ready for the big night. Is that REALLY too much to expect?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

poppy said:


> Another good grief. Contraception is cheap and available to anyone. The cost of contraception is no problem for anyone. Are you saying a simple condom is out of anyone's price range? That's ridiculous.


Some forms of birth control work better than others. Some forms of birth control fail at least part of the time. Not all birth control types can be used by every individual.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Some forms of birth control work better than others. Some forms of birth control fail at least part of the time. Not all birth control types can be used by every individual.


This was in the original article, apparently there aren't many that read it. The more reliable, long term birth control that was provided by PP and other clinics just isn't available now.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> Another good grief. Contraception is cheap and available to anyone. The cost of contraception is no problem for anyone. Are you saying a simple condom is out of anyone's price range? That's ridiculous. The first line resources are machines on the wall of most men's rest rooms in most service stations and certainly in any drug store. They can pick up a couple when they buy nail polish or shampoo to get ready for the big night. Is that REALLY too much to expect?


If I was feling uncharitable I'd think your post shows you're less interested in coming up with real solutions and more about judging those whose decisions you don't like. But I know it's all about helping the young women and decreasing the number of children living in poverty not their immoral behavior. You can pay to prevent a problem or you can pay to fix it later. Prevention's often cheaper.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> As a woman I know for a fact there is nothing we set out to do we can't accomplish. I find it very hard to believe a woman would just give up instead of getting what she wants or needs. This article makes it sound like women are helpless little flowers who need others to the care of thier basic need and I'm not buying it.


Not everyone is the same. Not everyone has the same background, education, and experience. It's simply not true that everyone can accomplish what they set out to do. 

The bottom line is the will to do it, and support of friends and/or family.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not everyone is the same. Not everyone has the same background, education, and experience. It's simply not true that everyone can accomplish what they set out to do.
> 
> The bottom line is the will to do it, and support of friends and/or family.


We're talking bc here. If a woman doesn't even have enough ambition to take care of that she's got more problems that getting a ride to pp.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> We're talking bc here. If a woman doesn't even have enough ambition to take care of that she's got more problems that getting a ride to pp.


I have been in a position where I was living hand to mouth. It is not always about ambition and often about circumstances beyond your control. Having an organization that can provide subsidized medical care and the appropriate birth control would have been a welcome help.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I have been in a position where I was living hand to mouth. It is not always about ambition and often about circumstances beyond your control. Having an organization that can provide subsidized medical care and the appropriate birth control would have been a welcome help.


Sex is not a circumstance beyond our control unless it's rape otherwise it's a choice.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Sex is not a circumstance beyond our control unless it's rape otherwise it's a choice.


Did I say it was? Or did that just fit with your put down of women with financial problems.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> We're talking bc here. If a woman doesn't even have enough ambition to take care of that she's got more problems that getting a ride to pp.


That isn't what you said, but that's fine. 

There is no PP in many urban areas of TX now, that's the entire point. Low income women are either forced to use less effective birth control or to travel to get effective and long lasting contraceptives. Low income, remember? Urban area, nothing is free, and even mass transit doesn't cover everything.

Or they could just not have sex, right. :facepalm:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

When you have financial troubles sex is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. You should try it some time.  It relives a lot of stress.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> When you have financial troubles sex is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment. You should try it some time.  It relives a lot of stress.


Yup. To quote George Micheal, "Sex is natural, sex is fun" _and cheap_.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Did I say it was? Or did that just fit with your put down of women with financial problems.


Yes as a matter of fact you did say just that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes as a matter of fact you did say just that.


I guess we will just have to disagree about that.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> That isn't what you said, but that's fine.
> 
> There is no PP in many urban areas of TX now, that's the entire point. Low income women are either forced to use less effective birth control or to travel to get effective and long lasting contraceptives. Low income, remember? Urban area, nothing is free, and even mass transit doesn't cover everything.
> 
> Or they could just not have sex, right. :facepalm:


Was there a pp on every block before or did they have ever a travel a bit?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

All this back and forth about what women should or shouldn't do or be able to do regarding sex and birth control seems rather pointless to me.

Isn't it straightforward? With reduced access to birth control unwanted pregnancies are going up, which will lead to more abortion. Isn't less abortion what everyone wants?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> All this back and forth about what women should or shouldn't do or be able to do regarding sex and birth control seems rather pointless to me.
> 
> Isn't it straightforward? With reduced access to birth control unwanted pregnancies are going up, which will lead to more abortion. Isn't less abortion what everyone wants?


You'd think most people would understand that, right? I'd say what many want is *no* abortion, but they also don't want to support women with children. So what did TX do? Make more effective birth control harder to get. On what planet does that make sense?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> Was there a pp on every block before or did they have ever a travel a bit?


I don't know, but what I *do* know is that they were more of them prior to TX defunding them. Do you agree?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

The planet that is the great state of Texas.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> The planet that is the great state of Texas.


Sad, but true.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dixiegal62 said:


> Was there a pp on every block before or did they have ever a travel a bit?


Texas is a big state with a lot of miles between many urban areas. I've heard anecdotal evidence of clinic closings making a one hour drive into a four or five hour drive. For someone with limited resources it can be an obstacle.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Here is a listing of closures and a map. It gives you an idea of the area.

http://fundtexaschoice.org/resources/texas-abortion-clinic-map/


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Tiempo said:


> All this back and forth about what women should or shouldn't do or be able to do regarding sex and birth control seems rather pointless to me.
> 
> Isn't it straightforward? With reduced access to birth control unwanted pregnancies are going up, which will lead to more abortion. Isn't less abortion what everyone wants?


How so? They couldn't afford to go to pp and get bc but they can afford to go to pp and get an abortion? Doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> Sex is not a circumstance beyond our control unless it's rape otherwise it's a choice.


That's nice empty rhetoric.

How is it changing the *reality* that there are hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies each year?

How does it change the *reality* that closing clinics that provide low cost BC doesn't help at all?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's nice empty rhetoric.
> 
> How is it changing the *reality* that there are hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies each year?
> 
> How does it change the *reality* that closing clinics that provide low cost BC doesn't help at all?


If there's already hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies a year with PP what's a few more? Obviously it wasn't being utilized to its full potential of that's the case! Here's the next question, who says the low income mothers did not want the baby?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's nice empty rhetoric.
> 
> How is it changing the *reality* that there are hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies each year?
> 
> How does it change the *reality* that closing clinics that provide low cost BC doesn't help at all?


I never said pregnancy was in our control. I said choosing to have sex was.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> In other words, if you don't agree with some people, stop posting.


Exactly! But let's start a new thread tomorrow with PP being under funded in Georgia, because there are a ton more of those low income mothers there! Let the Yankees go on with their hogwash!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> If there's already hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies a year with PP *what's a few more*? Obviously it wasn't being utilized to its full potential of that's the case! Here's the next question, *who says the low income mothers did not want the baby*?


It's not likely they suddenly started wanting those babies *only in the counties where services were cut.*

That was asked and answered already

But using your "logic", *what's a few more* clinics if there aren't enough to meet current realistic needs?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> *I never said pregnancy* was in our control. I said choosing to have sex was.


I know both what you said and what it implied *in this context*, so trying to say it wasn't about controlling pregnancies won't fly.

This is what you said just before the comment I quoted:



> Originally Posted by dixiegal62 View Post
> *We're talking bc here*. If a woman doesn't even have enough ambition to take care of that she's got more problems that getting a ride to pp.


Word games won't change what we all know you meant


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

dixiegal62 said:


> I never said pregnancy was in our control. I said choosing to have sex was.


With highly effective birth control pregnancy _is_ within our control. Implants will have less than 1 pregnancy per 100 woman, and shots around 6 per 100. It drops off sharply after that with condoms around 18 per 100.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> With highly effective birth control pregnancy _is_ within our control. Implants will have less than 1 pregnancy per 100 woman, and shots around 6 per 100. It drops off sharply after that with condoms around 18 per 100.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf


More effective when the pants are not dropped during those 5 to 7 fertile days per month. Then the rest of time no worry. Don't need PP for that. But can't fix stupid.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> More effective when the pants are not dropped during those 5 to 7 fertile days per month. Then the rest of time no worry. Don't need PP for that. But can't fix stupid.


The chart that I *linked* (by the CDC based on studies) indicates that fertility date calendar type birth control will have 24 pregnancies per 100 woman. 

No, you can't fix stupid.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> I wasn't talking to you, I was clarifying a comment.
> Is that allowed?
> Get back to me on that will you?


Sure. Just like my commenting on your statements is allowed. It would be a pleasant change if you actually commented on any of the topics being discussed rather than complaining about the thread itself. I could then discuss with you something of import.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know both what you said and what it implied *in this context*, so trying to say it wasn't about controlling pregnancies won't fly.
> 
> This is what you said just before the comment I quoted:
> 
> ...


I don't play the games you do, sorry
I meant exactly what I said. No back peddling needed. Don't like my opinion you're free to skip over it. That's what I do.. I put on my big girl panties and move on. I have no desire to censor others views like you or tell them I know what they mean better than they do. It's a childish game.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> The chart that I *linked* (by the CDC based on studies) indicates that fertility date calendar type birth control will have 24 pregnancies per 100 woman.
> 
> No, you can't fix stupid.


See...24% are stupid.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Two hundred and seventy two posts now.

It's growing faster than before


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> It would be a pleasant change if you guys could comment without insulting those of us who don't agree with you.
> I guess I'll just have to agree or work my way towards banishment.


It's difficult to tell what you agree or disagree with since you haven't really commented on the topic of the thread. I asked earlier for any proof this was the "pro abortion" thread you claimed. As usual, no such evidence or posts have been brought forth. If it's insulting to ask you to prove your contentions I'm equally insulted when you don't.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Birth rates spike in Super Bowl winners town 9 months after game!!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> It's difficult to tell what you agree or disagree with since you haven't really commented on the topic of the thread. I asked earlier for any proof this was the "pro abortion" thread you claimed. As usual, no such evidence or posts have been brought forth. If it's insulting to ask you to prove your contentions I'm equally insulted when you don't.


You know as well a I do that any and all references to PP made by the OP is related to abortion.
She was crowing that because PP lost a few offices, there are all these unwanted pregnancies, therefore proving her point that abortion is a good thing.
She just won't admit it.
Now that you got that out of me, I guess we'll work to get this post deleted or more attacks telling me I'm wrong and am not worthy to post in the ruling class threads.:goodjob:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> You know as well a I do that any and all references to PP made by the OP is related to abortion.
> She was crowing that because PP lost a few offices, there are all these unwanted pregnancies, therefore proving her point that abortion is a good thing.
> She just won't admit it.
> Now that you got that out of me, I guess we'll work to get this post deleted or more attacks telling me I'm wrong and am not worthy to post in the ruling class threads.:goodjob:


An opinion of others thoughts isn't proof of what you said but it's something. Am I allowed to disagree or will you consider that another personal affront?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> If I was feling uncharitable I'd think your post shows you're less interested in coming up with real solutions and more about judging those whose decisions you don't like. But I know it's all about helping the young women and decreasing the number of children living in poverty not their immoral behavior. You can pay to prevent a problem or you can pay to fix it later. Prevention's often cheaper.


But prevention doesn't work with irresponsible or stupid people. We have lowered our expectations of people for decades and look where it's got us. Someone once said if you don't expect much from people you won't be disappointed. Society needs to set norms for behavior and more people will seek to meet those norms. This anything goes and it ain't your fault crap is destroying our society.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

poppy said:


> But prevention doesn't work with irresponsible or stupid people. We have lowered our expectations of people for decades and look where it's got us. Someone once said if you don't expect much from people you won't be disappointed. Society needs to set norms for behavior and more people will seek to meet those norms. This anything goes and it ain't your fault crap is destroying our society.


Nothing man is involved in works perfectly. But prevention was working better before funding was cut. Texas predicted the outcome of cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and other providers. Those predictions came true. Texas will have far greater costs going forward than they would have had they continued the funding or out in place something to replace it. You reap what you sow. 

I have no problem if you want to advocate for what you consider moral. But that advocacy has never worked perfectly either. Fifty years ago a lot of kids were adopted through a lot of religous charities. Those babies came from somewhere. Probably young girls who relied on morality.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> An opinion of others thoughts isn't proof of what you said but it's something. Am I allowed to disagree or will you consider that another personal affront?


I don't care, say what you want.
I'm too old to play these stupid games.
Have a great evening :goodjob:


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Please keep comments civil and directed at discussion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

The visible evidence contradicts the statement, but the benefit is it's shown post counts DO go backwards, answering a question I asked long ago


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Message was deleted by mr. Reason: just didn't want to be left out.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> Message was deleted by mr. Reason: just didn't want to be left out.


Does this mean I have to delete my because it 'quotes deleted comment'? :rotfl:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Message was deleted by mr. Reason: just didn't want to be left out.



ooo - me next!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> Does this mean I have to delete my because it 'quotes deleted comment'? :rotfl:


And this one too lol. 

Seriously, I don't envy the job you have trying keep all of us corralled. Everyone gets passionate about certain things and it can get out of hand.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Off topic, (or, perhaps not) but, how many babies are not "low income"? My baby has no income.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Off topic, (or, perhaps not) but, how many babies are not "low income"? My baby has no income.


My father gave each one of my kids 10 cows when they were born so mine were actually fairly high income babies.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> My father gave each one of my kids 10 cows when they were born so mine were actually fairly high income babies.


Knew a man that have his grandchild a cow for his birthday instead of a down payment on a truck. He bred that cow and had called until he turned eighteen then sold one and had his own down payment. That boy is now 26 and still makes money off that one cow or at least her calf.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> Knew a man that have his grandchild a cow for his birthday instead of a down payment on a truck. He bred that cow and had called until he turned eighteen then sold one and had his own down payment. That boy is now 26 and still makes money off that one cow or at least her calf.


At the time, I was a bit grumpy about the whole thing because I had manage to scrape together enough for my own 10 cows and I was feeding and calving 40 head. I'm not sure what the other two have done with their money but I do know that my youngest has enough for a down payment on a house.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wr said:


> My father gave each one of my kids 10 cows when they were born so mine were actually fairly high income babies.


Your babies are definitely in the top one percent!!


----------

