Posted on 10/06/2012 12:22:16 PM PDT by EveningStar
Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concludes. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
If everyone was a homosexual, birth control wouldn’t even be an issue. Think of the money ‘we’ could save.
Tubes tied, then they won’t have dependencies.
Democrats NEED an underclass who are kept “helpless”.
Baraq even acknowledged this in a speech that was recently leaked on tape.
Welfare isn’t being implemented as a “safety net”. Democrats want to keep generations of a family “in need” and grateful to Big Brother for their weekly/biweekly/monthly hand out.
Get them back on their feet and productive and they may not vote Democrat or even vote.
OK, it has been said by a great mind that “abortion is a fruit of birth control”.
Part of the reasoning there is that when treated like a human instead of the divine invention that it is, marital relation takes on a recreational purpose, with benefits and much detriment leading to well . . .
Not having sex in the first place means “0” abortions.
but when the Nanny state leads you around by the nose to effect a change...
they make sure they get the results they were aiming for. I wonder how many dropped out and weren’t followed or counted?
CDC, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc. oppose abstinence (they all push the sex positive agenda which seeks to see everyone sexually active at every age).
There are plenty of ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and unwanted disease.
They oppose morals and seek to end ALL moral judgments over ALL sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
Homosexual men claim not enough is being done to push AIDS awareness. Homosexuals continue to see STD rates rise. Random hookups with a perverted class will do that.
OOH! You chastity radical!
Any stats majors out there?
Actually, studies show that passing out condoms INCREASES the number of abortions and illegitimate births. And studies in Africa shows that those countries where the schools and churches persuade people to discipline themselves and limit their sex to marriage have far lower incidences of AIDS than those countries where Planned Condomhood passes out condoms to all and sundry, courtesy of our taxpayers.
There’s the moral argument—keep your fly zipped until you get married and have a family. But there’s also the factual, statistical argument.
There’s no question that sex ed as sponsored in our schools by Planned Parenthood increases the spread of abortions and STDs. In fact, that’s why they do it—although they claim the opposite—because that’s how they make their money.
Abstinence results in no births at all, without the expense of birth control.
Aside of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue ... There’s no such thing as “free.” Somebody’s paying for this.
What is “free birth control”?
Did the pharmaceutical companies come up with a give away program, or are Boston Globe readers just this foolish? (are they allowed to vote?) Ugh!
But does PP offer the IUD or implants for free? Those are far more effective than the pill, no user error.
This is not what I want for my daughters - this is not a good situation for any young woman.
I don’t know the population this study was performed on, race, social-economic status. But if you have young women who are already sexually active, likely to be promiscuous, likely to go on welfare if they have children, likely to have abortions, then even though I am a Christian, even though I oppose abortifacient contraception as well as abortion, even though I oppose sex outside of marriage...this program is tempting to implement.
Are the embryo-failure-to-implant rates higher on the IUD and implant than they are on the pill alone? I’m not sure that anyone knows, that there are any good studies. Causing an embryo not to implant is wrong, but it does not harden the heart the way aborting a recognized pregnancy does.
Free? Meaning that no money changes hands (or just that the government makes private individuals pay directly for this "benefit" for other people instead of through taxes), that the sexually irresponsible women and their partners don't pay, that the employers don't pay the insurance companies, that the insurance companies don't pay the pharmacies, that the pharmacies don't pay the drug companies, that the drug companies don't pay their manufacturers/suppliers/workers? Or are they saying "free" in the sense that Obama orders other people to pay for his version of playing Santa Clause?
I imagine the employers who are ordered to pay for abortion and birth control, against their will, don't consider it free. Those who think they are being compelled to commit a grave mortal sin, to pay fines that will lead to bankruptcy, or to shut down their business do not see any of Obama's options as "free".
I'm slowly changed my position over time as our once basically moral and decent country has been transformed into a cesspool of secularism and immorality...
Since a moral solution to abortion as in abstinence is no longer a realistic goal...Honestly, can anyone say it is?
I really have no problem with giving women on welfare the pill or some other pre-conception drug or device to prevent them getting pregnant and the abortion that follows...
Make it a condition of receiving tax payer money...
I'd rather spend the money than see an innocent human being murdered because their egg donor slut of a mother can't keep her legs closed...
Thanks for posting this. Because of their physiology, women are much more vulnerable to STDs. Many men are carriers but are also asymptomatic, so they aren’t aware of the health problems they’re giving their female partners.
If being on Welfare means no accountability, then why not take them off Welfare? When they must take care of their own, thereby choosing proper husbands, many problems solved.
You knoe, the way things were before the 20th Century.
My liberal relatives used to have this weird idea that others were not as smart as they were and needed to be taken care of by other people’s money.
I know that is where this conversation is headed.
“. . . they aren’t aware of the health problems they’re giving their female partners. . . “
Really?
WHEN people come out of this technological stupor, and get back to marital relations being within marriage as it had been for the millenia prior to 1967, (the exception being abberant, socially deviant and obviously destructive) the dopey men and boys of this recreational partner BS will come out a lot worse in the annals of history than even the offspring- killing women taken advantage of by these hiding-behind-ignorance overgrown adolescent males.
I have no problem doing that...it's a tough lesson to learn...
When they must take care of their own,
Well, that's the rub....they won't...Abject poverty, I mean real poverty not the liberal poverty of a cell phone, big screen and $300.00 sneakers is coming to America...
At some point in the not too distance future that will happen...
This generation of children are going to pay a terrible price for our failure to reign in the welfare state...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.