Makes sense because otherwise Republicans are wrong and we can not allow them to feel like a bunch of misguided souls.
There is a particular mindset that just makes no sense to me:
-Think abortion at any stage of pregnancy is "murdering babies", and should be banned . Do not care that women have always sought a way to way to end an unwanted pregnancy, and would continue to if unable to do so safely and legally. Don't think much about how unwanted actual born babies, often end up being neglected or discarded.
-Still call Sandra Fluke a slut and whore, because she spoke before congress about the importance of affordable birth control, and insurance companies not being able to deny coverage for prescriptions for it. Either do not know or care, that prescribed birth control CAN be quite expensive, is prescribed for various reasons, and that bringing up being able to buy a pack of "rubbers" just sounds really, really dumb.
-Complain about women having babies they can't afford. Resent having their "tax dollars" go towards programs for the poor, which of course includes feeding children .
The post made no sense whatsoever. Abortion rates going down somehow means it's got something to do with availability of birth control? I hate to break it to any fool who might try to make this political, but available birth control has been around all my life. If a person can't afford 50 cents for a condom, they are probably too stupid to know how to put it on anyway and shouldn't be breeding in the first place. Only a democrat would think we need to subsidize someone's sex life because they aren't intelligent enough to be responsible.
Why should I pay for a man's Viagra if they aren't going to pay for a woman's birth control?
You shouldn't pay for their viagra. I know a few guys who use viagra, and they pay for it out of their own pocket. (As they should)
As a prescription medication, most insurance policies cover the cost.
The guys I know all have great insurance but still have to pay for it. For the insurance companies that do pay for it, I see one big difference. What is viagra used for? It is used for a medically diagnosed dysfunctional condition. Being able to get pregnant is not a physically dysfunctional condition.
And birth control pills should be dispensed so those now randy codgers can't impregnate them. :)
I think most of the women who the randy old codgers on viagra are having sex with, are beyond the age of worrying about getting pregnant. Contrary to many young peoples belief, old people still do it. (That includes their parents and grandparents. <s>)
:) You do realize that birth control pills are also used for other conditions.
No I don't. What conditions are they? I've heard that some use them to regulate their period.
I did go ahead and look it up. If there is a medical condition that birth control pills can help, that isn't available over the counter, like acne medication, or other over the counter meds for treatable aliments, then it's a reasonable prescription.
It is used to regulate menstrual periods and it is also prescribed to treat polycystic ovaries.
In those cases, I support insurance paying for it 100%
Linn, I am in favor of insurance paying for medical needs, but there is a difference between needs and wants. I "want" a full head of hair again but I'd never expect my insurance to pay for it.
I understand. FYI - bald can be very sexy!
I always hear that from women walking around with a guy who has a full head of hair. LOL
Not me. :) Think Yul Brenner, The Rock, Telly Savalas (Kojak). :)
If I had 50 million in the bank, I'd instantly become attractive to many women.
Only the gold diggers. :)
Access to birth control lowers unintended pregnancies.
According to a 2012 report by the Brookings Institution, 90% of all abortions occur due to unintended pregnancies.
So yes, it appears that access to birth control lowers abortion rates.
Phil, I don't dispute that birth control lowers abortion rates. Birth control has also been around since you and I were kids, and even long before that.
EVERYONE has access to birth control. Walk into any convenience store and there on the shelf is birth control. Go to any Dr. and they will write you out a prescription.
Of course abortions are the result in unintended pregnancies.
Birth control is very inexpensive. If you can't afford a condom (which is cheaper than a soda) you shouldn't be having sex.
The kind of people who are having unprotected sex today will have unprotected sex tomorrow, even if you make birth control free.
Abortion is used by some women "as" their birth control, because many get it free. These are the same women who wouldn't use birth control, even if it were free. I see a lot of women on here demanding free birth control. How many women on here can't afford their own birth control? If women want the right to chose what they do with their body then they can take responsibility for those decisions.
Know how many abortions were in the US in 1960? 292. Know how any in 1988? 1,590,000
Jim, birth control pills are not very inexpensive - certainly not in New York City.
That's my point Linn. From what I've researched, it's about 50 - 75 cents a day. How many sexually active woman can't afford $15 -20 a month for birth control. That's about the cost of two meals at McDonald's.
For the taxpayers to pay for 75 million women, that's 18 billion a year.
How do you arrive at 75 million sexually active women? Curious - not looking to argue.
It was an estimate based on census reports of women between the age of 16 and 59. There were approx 85 million women in that age group. To be realistic, I took away 10 million since I figured there were probably a good sized number who were beyond child bearing years and some who did not have sex with fertile men. (It was just a "guess/estimate" given the facts I had available.)
Thanks for the reply. I don't disagree with you as much as I previously thought.
Those numbers are crazy! In the 10 years between 1968 and 1978 the number of abortions went from 6,026 to 1,409,600. How is that even possible?
Certain segments of society - teenagers, the poor - are not good at using birth control appropriately. They skip a pill, don't use a condom, etc.. These folks do much better with IUDs or implants. One visit to the Dr.'s office and they are set for years. These can cost over $1,000.
I'm good with helping to pay for women's birth control, and it's not because I'm altruistic. Besides reducing abortions, and we all want that, it just seems like a good investment. According to an Brookings Institution study, women have about the same amount of sex regardless of class, but poorer women are five times as likely to have unintended births than more affluent women.
I do think it's wise to spend our tax dollars on women's birth control, including IUDs and implants. I believe it makes sense economically and morally. Providing such birth control results in less unintended births, which leads to less abortions.
You bring up a valid point regarding sexually transmitted diseases. Let me ask you this. Assuming there is a correlation between providing free IUDs with increased cases of STDs (which I am not sure exists), do you think we should focus on preventing STDs over unwanted pregnancies?
I understand that certain birth control methods provide no protection from STDs. IUDs provide none. Condoms are particularly good at STD protection.
Do you think the government should provide any form of free birth control?
I don't know about elsewhere, but prior to the ACA, there were several facilities here that offered sliding-scale women's health care, including birth control, and some that provided it free to those who qualified. We also had a limited health care (doctors visits, including preventative care, and Rxs with $0-3 co-pays) for people who didn't qualify for Medicaid, but could not afford insurance. We voted to pay for that via a millage on our property taxes in a countywide proposal. // Now all of these places help people sign up for the ACA, but the healthcare formerly available at little to no cost for those who fell - //and often still fall through the cracks is no longer available, even that which we voted for.
Free condoms are still available to all at our county health department.
That's sad. Free condoms are okay, but proper use is always an issue.
Same for birth control pills.
Women less than 21 years of age who use the pill, patches, or rings have a significantly higher risk of "contraceptive failure" as compared to older women. In contrast, younger and older participants who used an IUD, implant, or DMPA had similarly low risks of pregnancy.
The county does treat underage girls without parental consent, what the cost is to teens I don't know, though they only specify condoms at no charge.
I compliment you are on your 'try' as well. What is also ironic are supposed "pro-lifers" supporting the death penalty and having their tax dollars paying for wars while claiming that all human life is sacred.
It's obviously not that simple.
I was thinking about a particular military "conflict" when I had written that but you're right... no one wants war.
This is off topic, but I'm curious. In many of your comments you seem have identified liberals/ progressives/democrats as the cause for many of our nation's ills (not that I need to ask, but please correct me if I'm wrong ). Have you considered what actions the country should take to make things better?
Me personally.. I think a civil war would be the worst possible course of action. As Dan Carlin asks (to people who seem to want a civil war), what happens to the vanquished?
It's more nuanced that than. The only reasons to believe life begins at conception are based on religion. Thus many people do not believe all abortions are murder.
To clarify, the only reason to believe a human life begins at conception are religious.
I do love science. I tend to trust knowledge gained through observations, hypotheses that make testable predictions, etc.. over knowledge gained otherwise, and I try to not let my worldviews influence that. We all have biases, and I am no different.
I'm not sure if there is indeed a scientific consensus, but I concede the point. From what I've read, a fertilized egg (zygote) contains all the genetic material of a unique human being. With the first mitosis division the genetic code is duplicated. To the best of my knowledge this constitutes a human life.