• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawmakers Could Restore Family Planning Funds

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,870
Reaction score
8,353
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
sometimes things don't work the way the ideologues think they will


(Texas) Lawmakers Could Restore Family Planning Funds

When state lawmakers passed a two-year budget in 2011 that moved $73 million from family planning services to other programs, the goal was largely political: halt the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood clinics.Now they are facing the policy implications — and, in some cases, reconsidering.

The latest Health and Human Services Commission projections being circulated among Texas lawmakers indicate that during the 2014-15 biennium poor women will deliver an estimated 23,760 more babies than they would have as a result of their reduced access to state-subsidized birth control. The additional cost to taxpayers is expected to be as much as $273 million — $103 million to $108 million to the state’s general revenue budget alone — and the bulk of it is the cost of caring for those infants under Medicaid.
Click to expand...




the same story may be found at the NYTImes site: Likely Increase in Births Has Some Lawmakers Revisiting Cuts but since I've already been warned once for something that was an error and not an intentional misuse of the forums, I thought putting this into the "Non-MSM" category would be safer.
 
People making dumb decisions and then blaming others because they did not give them an easy solution is what is wrong with today's society. If your poor and cannot afford a child and cannot afford your own birth control then perhaps you should not have sex, or would that make to much sense?
 
Baralis said:
People making dumb decisions and then blaming others because they did not give them an easy solution is what is wrong with today's society. If your poor and cannot afford a child and cannot afford your own birth control then perhaps you should not have sex, or would that make to much sense?
Click to expand...


Yeah yeah - in your ideal world, the poor would be sterilised or maybe just forced to wear chastity belts, but in the real world - what solution do you offer?
 
Somerville said:
Yeah yeah - in your ideal world, the poor would be sterilised or maybe just forced to wear chastity belts, but in the real world - what solution do you offer?
Click to expand...

Yes I realize expecting all people to actually act responsibly is a pipe dream. Im not asking anyone to do something I myself am not willing to do. I have practiced celibacy for many years, it is not difficult it just takes a little will power.

Smart people sometimes make bad decisions but learn from their mistakes. Dumb people make the same bad decisions over and over. I feel we should help those in need but on a voluntary basis and not forcefully. Why should I as a responsible person constantly have to pay (with my tax dollars) for others who make mistake after mistake. Call me selfish if you wish but yes I would almost rather have persons who show poor judgement time and again by having multiple children they cannot support to be sterilized before receiving tax funded aid.
 
Baralis said:
Yes I realize expecting all people to actually act responsibly is a pipe dream. Im not asking anyone to do something I myself am not willing to do. I have practiced celibacy for many years, it is not difficult it just takes a little will power.

Smart people sometimes make bad decisions but learn from their mistakes. Dumb people make the same bad decisions over and over. I feel we should help those in need but on a voluntary basis and not forcefully. Why should I as a responsible person constantly have to pay (with my tax dollars) for others who make mistake after mistake. Call me selfish if you wish but yes I would almost rather have persons who show poor judgement time and again by having multiple children they cannot support to be sterilized before receiving tax funded aid.
Click to expand...

at least you're honest about your wishes
 
Somerville said:
Yeah yeah - in your ideal world, the poor would be sterilised or maybe just forced to wear chastity belts, but in the real world - what solution do you offer?
Click to expand...

Wasn't it argued by "ideologues" that sex education in schools would solve this problem?

Now it seems that the government wants to reenter the abortion biz, a euphemism for "Family Planning", in order to get rid of children unfortunate not to be born into well off families.

What's the euphemism for that these days?
 
Grant said:
Wasn't it argued by "ideologues" that sex education in schools would solve this problem?

Now it seems that the government wants to reenter the abortion biz, a euphemism for "Family Planning", in order to get rid of children unfortunate not to be born into well off families.

What's the euphemism for that these days?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't try and use that "sex-education excuse' when talking about Texas - schools in Texas offer either abstinence-only classes or nothing at all - because so many 'religious' parents object to schools telling the kids anything about sex.


Nice diversion by the way - the question remains: What would you have done in this specific instance? The Republican legislators tried to kill Planned Parenthood AND did so by claiming they would be saving taxpayer dollars - instead they are spending perhaps three times as much - so what's a rightie gonna do?


it does seem to be a pattern of behaviour for Republicans - pass a bill with loud proclamations about how many dollars they are saving taxpayers and almost invariably the result costs the taxpayers more than the liberal ideas.
 
Somerville said:
Shouldn't try and use that "sex-education excuse' when talking about Texas - schools in Texas offer either abstinence-only classes or nothing at all - because so many 'religious' parents object to schools telling the kids anything about sex.
Click to expand...

In fact I never mentioned Texas but I've been told abstinence actually works.
Nice diversion by the way - the question remains: What would you have done in this specific instance? The Republican legislators tried to kill Planned Parenthood AND did so by claiming they would be saving taxpayer dollars - instead they are spending perhaps three times as much - so what's a rightie gonna do?
Click to expand...

What diversion? There was no diversion.

A righty would suggest responsibility and abstinence while a lefty would encourage abortion mills, specially on the poor. Would you agree?


it does seem to be a pattern of behaviour for Republicans - pass a bill with loud proclamations about how many dollars they are saving taxpayers and almost invariably the result costs the taxpayers more than the liberal ideas.
Click to expand...

It only costs the government money if the government insists on paying for [programs that would otherwise assume personal responsibility.
 
Somerville said:
Shouldn't try and use that "sex-education excuse' when talking about Texas - schools in Texas offer either abstinence-only classes or nothing at all - because so many 'religious' parents object to schools telling the kids anything about sex.


Nice diversion by the way - the question remains: What would you have done in this specific instance? The Republican legislators tried to kill Planned Parenthood AND did so by claiming they would be saving taxpayer dollars - instead they are spending perhaps three times as much - so what's a rightie gonna do?


it does seem to be a pattern of behaviour for Republicans - pass a bill with loud proclamations about how many dollars they are saving taxpayers and almost invariably the result costs the taxpayers more than the liberal ideas.
Click to expand...

This is true in most southern states. Where I live the sex education classes are a joke
 
Do what we do, you can't get out of sex ed. it's a requirement for graduation.
 
Sex education needs to cover all the bases not just the politcally correct ones. They should show films of the effect of STD in classes to give the kids a real idea of what the problem is like they did in driving classes.
 
wolfman24 said:
Sex education needs to cover all the bases not just the politcally correct ones. They should show films of the effect of STD in classes to give the kids a real idea of what the problem is like they did in driving classes.
Click to expand...

That's what they do here, abstinence is hardly even mentioned.
 
Baralis said:
Yes I realize expecting all people to actually act responsibly is a pipe dream.
Click to expand...

No one acts responsibly all the time. Absolutely no one.
 
Grant said:
In fact I never mentioned Texas but I've been told abstinence actually works.
Click to expand...

Well of course it does. Right up until the moment you are not abstinent anymore.

"Alright, everyone stop having sex" and expecting it to work... that doesn't work.
 
poweRob said:
Well of course it does. Right up until the moment you are not abstinent anymore.

"Alright, everyone stop having sex" and expecting it to work... that doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Who are you quoting here?

The fact is that abstinence does work and it should be encouraged for young people. Why not? There are more unwed mothers than ever, more irresponsible fathers and yet, paradoxically it seems, more sex education than ever. All this sex ed. and we still need "Planned Parenthood" with the government providing abortions!

Where did we go wrong? Too many conservatives?
 
Grant said:
Who are you quoting here?

The fact is that abstinence does work and it should be encouraged for young people. Why not? There are more unwed mothers than ever, more irresponsible fathers and yet, paradoxically it seems, more sex education than ever. All this sex ed. and we still need "Planned Parenthood" with the government providing abortions!

Where did we go wrong? Too many conservatives?
Click to expand...

Nice unfounded and unrelated instances you laced together there. More unwed mothers, more irresponsible fathers and more sex ed than ever. Therefore more sex ed caused the formers and there is absolutely no other influences in our society. Logic doesn't work that way.

Abstinence works until you chose to have sex. And almost everyone chooses to have sex. Therefore just telling people not to have sex doesn't work because they will agree, then go out and have sex. Abstinence only doesn't deal with facts. It deals with a fairyland notion.
 
poweRob said:
Nice unfounded and unrelated instances you laced together there. More unwed mothers, more irresponsible fathers and more sex ed than ever. Therefore more sex ed caused the formers and there is absolutely no other influences in our society. Logic doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

The paradox is clearly there because the supporters of sex education once said that young people would be better educated and as a reult there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions. That was their main argument and yet we see the reverse occurring. Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Abstinence works until you chose to have sex.
Click to expand...

Correct, and then you have safe sex,. or sex which is as safe as knowledge can make it.

And almost everyone chooses to have sex. Therefore just telling people not to have sex doesn't work
Click to expand...

That's completely incorrect because at one time most people did not choose to have sex, knowing what the consequences might be.
because they will agree, then go out and have sex. Abstinence only doesn't deal with facts. It deals with a fairyland notion.
Click to expand...

Then you are completely unaware of the sexual history of Europe and North America, which should raise raise a question mark regarding your own sex education courses.
 
Grant said:
There are more unwed mothers than ever, more irresponsible fathers and yet
Click to expand...

But teen pregnancy rates have actually fallen rapidly over the last 20 years...

better%20charty.jpg
 
Baralis said:
People making dumb decisions and then blaming others because they did not give them an easy solution is what is wrong with today's society. If your poor and cannot afford a child and cannot afford your own birth control then perhaps you should not have sex, or would that make to much sense?
Click to expand...

Know what else makes sense? 1: You cannot shut off millions of years of evolutionary responses. 2: Birth control does not always work.
 
Grant said:
I don't know where you got your stats but here is the real deal over a longer time period.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf
Click to expand...

Your link while more complete does nothing to equate birth rate with sex education. Not to mention it also supports Jet's graph in that it does show that teen pregnancy is on the decline..lower now than it was in 1980. Along with a decline of non marital births from 50% in 1970 down to 23% in 2007. It also shows nothing about whether those births were with women that were well off and could support thier child without help vs children whose mother couldn't afford them without help.
 
Grant said:
In fact I never mentioned Texas but I've been told abstinence actually works.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently not abstinence-only education. States with abstinence-only sex ed have significantly higher teen pregnancy and abortion rates then states who teach comprehensive sex ed.

Figures though, bad information leads to bad outcomes.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Your link while more complete does nothing to equate birth rate with sex education. Not to mention it also supports Jet's graph in that it does show that teen pregnancy is on the decline..lower now than it was in 1980. Along with a decline of non marital births from 50% in 1970 down to 23% in 2007.
Click to expand...

The first graph with stats from the 1940's shows that non marital births have been clearly on the rise.

Here is the summary..

Key findingsData from the Natality Data Sets, National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)
• Childbearing by unmarried women has resumed a steep climb since 2002.• Births to unmarried women totaled 1,714,643 in 2007, 26% more than in 2002. Nearly 4 in 10 U.S. births were to unmarried women in 2007.• Birth rates have risen considerably for unmarried women in their twenties and over, while declining or changing little for unmarried teenagers.• Nonmarital birth rates are highest for Hispanic women followed by black women. Rates for non-Hispanic white and Asian or Pacific Islander women are much lower.• Most births to teenagers (86% in 2007) are nonmarital, but 60% of births to women 20–24 and nearly one-third of births to women 25–29 were nonmarital in 2007.• Teenagers accounted for just 23% of nonmarital births in 2007, down steeply from 50% in 1970.

That last stat is important because it demonstrates that, since the advent of the pill, women are having more control over their reproductive system. But it still begs the question of why non-marital births are still on the rise. It seems that this not a problem regarding sexual education, these women must know what causes pregnancy, but that there are other factors involved. Looking at those factors is when emotions start running high and the real debate begins.

It also shows nothing about whether those births were with women that were well off and could support thier child without help vs children whose mother couldn't afford them without help.
Click to expand...

There are many agencies who will help low income women who don't want their child, born or unborn, and these should receive more publicity. It seems that 'abortion rights' gets a lot more press than those people who would actually save children's lives and raise them in loving families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom