|
|
What will it take to make you people happy?!
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
I feel like I posted about this when it first happened, but if I did, it is lost to the MacNN sands of time.
Colorado GOP blocks successful birth-control program | MSNBC
Colorado launched a health initiative a few years ago with a specific target: reducing teen-birth rates. To that end, Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) implemented a program that provided tens of thousands of contraceptive devices at low or no cost.
The results were amazing: teen-birth rates dropped 40% in just five years. This week, the state even won an award from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, celebrating Colorado’s success story.
“Opponents of the bill worried that increasing access to birth control would not have a net public health gain because it would increase promiscuity.” One GOP lawmaker accused the policy of “subsidizing sex.” Another said of the program, “Does that allow a lot of young women to go out there and look for love in all the wrong places?”
In other words, Republican critics of the idea raised concerns that the policy might fail – which might be a credible point were it not for the fact that the policy has been in place for five years, offering real-world proof that those concerns are unfounded.
How Colorado’s teen birthrate dropped 40% in four years - The Washington Post
With fewer unplanned pregnancies, the teen abortion rate fell by 35 percent between 2009 and 2012 in those counties where the initiative is in place.
The state also spent less on food programs for low-income mothers and children; infant enrollment in WIC supplemental nutrition program declined 23 percent between 2008 and 2013.
The governor’s office said the state saved $42.5 million in health-care expenditures associated with teen births.
For every dollar spent on the contraceptives, the state saved $5.68 in Medicaid costs, according to the Denver Post.
Less teen pregnancies means less unwed mothers and single-parent children. If you're a pro-family conservative, you want this, right?
Less births means less medical costs to the state. Less unprepared women on low-income programs means less of the state's budget being spent on said programs. If you're a financial conservative this is what you want, right?
There were far less abortions. If you're pro-life this is ****ing super, right?
So why can't this program get enough support?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Perhaps conservatives care more about having an issue to rail against than actually solving it?
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Perhaps the "Solutions" served up by liberals causes more damage than they help. Since when does killing babies sound like a 'good' idea? I guess not shaming a tramp, or stud who is being irresponsible was the bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Perhaps the "Solutions" served up by liberals causes more damage than they help. Since when does killing babies sound like a 'good' idea? I guess not shaming a tramp, or stud who is being irresponsible was the bad idea.
Did you even bother to read the OP?
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Well, I completely read that in his voice and inflection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Since when does killing babies sound like a 'good' idea?
Who is killing babies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Perhaps the "Solutions" served up by liberals causes more damage than they help. Since when does killing babies sound like a 'good' idea? I guess not shaming a tramp, or stud who is being irresponsible was the bad idea.
Stud shaming needs to be a thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Who is killing babies?
I guess the prevention of a potential fetus is the same thing as abortion for some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Atheist
I guess the prevention of a potential fetus is the same thing as abortion for some.
That's actually true, but I'm not sure he's one of those people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
According to the handbook, state law requires more attention must be spent on abstinence than other behavior.
How's that working out for you?
It's a good post, OAW because that ties in to the OP in that we have decades of stats saying sex education is better than abstinence only education at preventing teen pregnancy and STDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Stud shaming needs to be a thing.
it really does.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Stud shaming needs to be a thing.
Shame on you!
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
it really does.
Shame on you too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
And here I was thinking of 2x4 studs. Did you know they aren't actually 2-inch by 4-inch? It should be shamed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
And here I was thinking of 2x4 studs. Did you know they aren't actually 2-inch by 4-inch? It should be shamed.
There are if they are "uncircumcised"
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|