The liberal War on Women continues.
(2010)
What's the difference, kill before they be, or after.
I don’t believe that for one second - sounds like BS designed to make us “OK” with free contraception - spit
This is total nonsense. The legalization of contraceptives preceded the legalization of abortion by a few years, and the rate of abortion skyrocketed.
The availability of contraceptives was cancelled out, many times over, by the spread of stupid and immoral behavior and widespread lack of self control.
I’ll bet if they cut off the welfare and suggested adoption there would be fewer teen Births and shorter adoption waiting lists.
So is there something “special” in the free variety that makes it more effective than the you-have-to-buy-it variety? (/sarc off)
Without reading the study I assume their can be no direct cause and effect. Abortion rates have been going down for various reasons. Also, BC methods are not exactly costly. I recall in the 60 to 70’s girls and boys could get free bc from planned parent hood.
Here in Washington state, free birth control is already widely available.
Planned Parenthood administers the “Take Charge” program which gives free birth control to any woman earning less than $28,000 a year.
Medicaid, which deals directly with America’s poorest families and individuals, provides free birth control.
Washington state Social Services has at least one program that provides free birth control.
Time to accept reality on this issue...
A free abortion is the birth control of choice for a significant number of America’s poorest women.
How about free surgeries to tie their tubes off?
The liberal War on Women continues.
(2010)
Not having sex in the first place means “0” abortions.
Any stats majors out there?
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.
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...
Free to whom?? It isn’t FREE... the TAXPAYERS are paying for it!!!
Well gee, if that's your goal...just think how well an outright ban on abortions would work.
AND IT WOULDN'T COST ANYTHING!
It’s NOT free. We the Taxpayers would pay for it. Oh, so now we are single-handedly responsible for stopping abortions? Or we could be if we weren’t so penny-pinching. There’s sieve-logic for you.
And free cars leads to less car theft, but that doesn’t mean I should have to pay for Johnny Hijack’s free car.