(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use and education which has been proven to greatly lower both teen pregnancy and abortion rates?

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use and education which has been proven to greatly lower both teen pregnancy and abortion rates?

That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

(08-27-2015 07:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 10:05 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Really? We allow these sort of boldfaced lies as titles to exist?

Another who refuses to watch the videos too?

Why don't you link the video (with the actual time noted) of where the proof of this is shown and I'll gladly watch. Okay?

Again, I did watch the latest one. It proves nothing except that the video was just a piece of propaganda designed to rile its intended targets.

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use and education which has been proven to greatly lower both teen pregnancy and abortion rates?

That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

But then why are those policies being shut down and defunded?

(08-27-2015 09:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use and education which has been proven to greatly lower both teen pregnancy and abortion rates?

That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

But then why are those policies being shut down and defunded?

Careful...you're toying with the space-time continuum.

(08-27-2015 09:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use and education which has been proven to greatly lower both teen pregnancy and abortion rates?

That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

But then why are those policies being shut down and defunded?

Source?

(08-27-2015 09:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use and education which has been proven to greatly lower both teen pregnancy and abortion rates?

That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

But then why are those policies being shut down and defunded?

Source?

This Colorado program was shut down by the Republican held House despite lowering teen birth rates by 40% and abortion rates by 42% in only a 4 year period. The state health department also estimated that each dollar spent on this program resulted in a $5.85 savings in Medicare, and it also resulted in a 23% drop in WIC usage during that period, leading to even more savings.

A similar program that ran in St. Louis was also shut down after showing great success.

I know I've provided these sources before in any number of abortion threads.

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use

Again. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to obtain. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to use.

How is this not "supported?" Anyone who wants to be on contraception, can be on contraception. EASILY and at low or no cost.

(08-27-2015 11:46 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use

Again. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to obtain. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to use.

How is this not "supported?" Anyone who wants to be on contraception, can be on contraception. EASILY and at low or no cost.

Look at the post right above yours. There are proven programs that have been discontinued. These programs lower overall government costs and lower abortion rates. Why are they not supported?

(08-27-2015 11:51 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:46 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use

Again. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to obtain. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to use.

How is this not "supported?" Anyone who wants to be on contraception, can be on contraception. EASILY and at low or no cost.

Look at the post right above yours. There are proven programs that have been discontinued. These programs lower overall government costs and lower abortion rates. Why are they not supported?

It appears both of these programs were privately funded by an organization with ties to contraception manufacturing corporations.....I suggest they find more private funds.

I also like how the articles try to claim that without these programs, teenagers would have to pay out the ass for contraception. That's a load of bull****. You know that and I know that. It's available, and it's either free or at low-cost.

(08-27-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  What about supporting effective contraceptive use and education which has been proven to greatly lower both teen pregnancy and abortion rates?

That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

But then why are those policies being shut down and defunded?

Source?

This Colorado program was shut down by the Republican held House despite lowering teen birth rates by 40% and abortion rates by 42% in only a 4 year period. The state health department also estimated that each dollar spent on this program resulted in a $5.85 savings in Medicare, and it also resulted in a 23% drop in WIC usage during that period, leading to even more savings.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where Republicans shut this down. They didn't cut the program or eliminate the funding. It was funded by a private grant from a Warren Buffet foundation which is running out. It's truly a sad thing to see it end since it does appear it was working well. I can't find specific information on the program,so it's hard to gauge exactly what it did, and how it differs from the options the ACA is supposed to cover which is mentioned in the story.

(08-27-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  A similar program that ran in St. Louis was also shut down after showing great success.

I know I've provided these sources before in any number of abortion threads.

Appears to be the same story in St. Louis. Funded by the same foundation, funding running out.

(08-27-2015 11:58 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:51 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:46 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:14 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Supporting politicians that hold a pro-life stance and giving to organizations that promote alternatives to abortion.

What about supporting effective contraceptive use

Again. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to obtain. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to use.

How is this not "supported?" Anyone who wants to be on contraception, can be on contraception. EASILY and at low or no cost.

Look at the post right above yours. There are proven programs that have been discontinued. These programs lower overall government costs and lower abortion rates. Why are they not supported?

It appears both of these programs were privately funded by an organization with ties to contraception manufacturing corporations.....I suggest they find more private funds.

I also like how the articles try to claim that without these programs, teenagers would have to pay out the ass for contraception. That's a load of bull****. You know that and I know that. It's available, and it's either free or at low-cost.

They were privately funded but showed a massive net positive in government funds. When they were brought up to the House, the Republican led House did not renew that funding despite it saving exponentially more money to do so. How is that defensible? It saves money and greatly reduces abortions.

As for your second statement, you're assuming an awful lot about the actual availability for at-risk teens, specifically their ability to access those available resources as often as needed.

(08-27-2015 12:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That should go without saying for most people with any amount of common sense. If you listened to pro-life candidates and individuals you would realize that they do present alternatives to abortion which include in almost every instance contraceptive use, abstinence, and education despite the MSM telling you they just want to tell a woman what to do with her body and treat her unfairly.

But then why are those policies being shut down and defunded?

Source?

This Colorado program was shut down by the Republican held House despite lowering teen birth rates by 40% and abortion rates by 42% in only a 4 year period. The state health department also estimated that each dollar spent on this program resulted in a $5.85 savings in Medicare, and it also resulted in a 23% drop in WIC usage during that period, leading to even more savings.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where Republicans shut this down. They didn't cut the program or eliminate the funding. It was funded by a private grant from a Warren Buffet foundation which is running out. It's truly a sad thing to see it end since it does appear it was working well. I can't find specific information on the program,so it's hard to gauge exactly what it did, and how it differs from the options the ACA is supposed to cover which is mentioned in the story.

(08-27-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  A similar program that ran in St. Louis was also shut down after showing great success.

I know I've provided these sources before in any number of abortion threads.

Appears to be the same story in St. Louis. Funded by the same foundation, funding running out.

It was cash positive and greatly lowered abortion rates, and your response is 'Well, their funding ended'? Each dollar spent returned $5.85 on medicaid alone, why was this funding stopped? Why aren't you emailing your representatives about similar programs for your state? Why don't you see pro-life advocates pushing for programs like these?

(08-25-2015 01:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question. Other than debating me and others on this site, what are you all doing to minimize abortions?

I have never had one, and do not intend to ever have one.

(08-27-2015 12:13 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:58 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:51 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:46 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 07:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  What about supporting effective contraceptive use

Again. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to obtain. Remarkably easy for almost anyone to use.

How is this not "supported?" Anyone who wants to be on contraception, can be on contraception. EASILY and at low or no cost.

Look at the post right above yours. There are proven programs that have been discontinued. These programs lower overall government costs and lower abortion rates. Why are they not supported?

It appears both of these programs were privately funded by an organization with ties to contraception manufacturing corporations.....I suggest they find more private funds.

I also like how the articles try to claim that without these programs, teenagers would have to pay out the ass for contraception. That's a load of bull****. You know that and I know that. It's available, and it's either free or at low-cost.

They were privately funded but showed a massive net positive in government funds. When they were brought up to the House, the Republican led House did not renew that funding despite it saving exponentially more money to do so. How is that defensible? It saves money and greatly reduces abortions.

As for your second statement, you're assuming an awful lot about the actual availability for at-risk teens, specifically their ability to access those available resources as often as needed.

The funding wasn't renewable as it came from a private source. That shouldn't be hard for you to understand. Also, why find funding for the programs when the ACA is supposed to provide comparable benefit coverage?

(08-27-2015 12:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:28 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  But then why are those policies being shut down and defunded?

Source?

This Colorado program was shut down by the Republican held House despite lowering teen birth rates by 40% and abortion rates by 42% in only a 4 year period. The state health department also estimated that each dollar spent on this program resulted in a $5.85 savings in Medicare, and it also resulted in a 23% drop in WIC usage during that period, leading to even more savings.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where Republicans shut this down. They didn't cut the program or eliminate the funding. It was funded by a private grant from a Warren Buffet foundation which is running out. It's truly a sad thing to see it end since it does appear it was working well. I can't find specific information on the program,so it's hard to gauge exactly what it did, and how it differs from the options the ACA is supposed to cover which is mentioned in the story.

(08-27-2015 11:37 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  A similar program that ran in St. Louis was also shut down after showing great success.

I know I've provided these sources before in any number of abortion threads.

Appears to be the same story in St. Louis. Funded by the same foundation, funding running out.

It was cash positive and greatly lowered abortion rates, and your response is 'Well, their funding ended'? Each dollar spent returned $5.85 on medicaid alone, why was this funding stopped? Why aren't you emailing your representatives about similar programs for your state? Why don't you see pro-life advocates pushing for programs like these?

If I had billions and could donate millions of dollars like Warren Buffets foundations, I would. Since I can't, you asking me that question is stupid. THE FUNDING WASN'T STOPPED BY REPUBLICANS. They were not the source of the funding, nor was it a taxpayer funded budget item to renew. How do you know they didn't seek other funding? The story definitely didn't say that they didn't look for other options to fund the program.

Pro life advocates push for alternatives to abortion all the time, you simply ignore them because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I chose my words wrong, they chose not to fund the program despite being cash positive. Why?

(08-27-2015 12:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I chose my words wrong, they chose not to fund the program despite being cash positive. Why?

I don't live in colorado, but a quick search showed an increase in public school funding, higher education, and transportation. I'm sure they had a lot on their plate and did the best they could with what they had.

I do find it a little difficult to believe you chose your words wrong. You most likely wanted us to think that the Republicans chose not to fund the program because they are meanies and don't want to help prevent abortions.

(08-27-2015 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I chose my words wrong, they chose not to fund the program despite being cash positive. Why?

I don't live in colorado, but a quick search showed an increase in public school funding, higher education, and transportation. I'm sure they had a lot on their plate and did the best they could with what they had.

I do find it a little difficult to believe you chose your words wrong. You most likely wanted us to think that the Republicans chose not to fund the program because they are meanies and don't want to help prevent abortions.

I stated I chose my words wrong because they were the incorrect words to choose as that wasn't an accurate way of stating what happened, as you pointed out. The more accurate statement would be that the Republican led house chose not to fund this cash positive program that limited abortions. I don't need to project the Republicans as meanies who don't want to help prevent abortions, their own policies do that for them honestly. Not that any group that large doesn't include people who don't agree with those policies, like this Republican State Representative from Colorado for instance, but the Republican national party platform isn't exactly conducive to promoting contraceptive usage, and states it supports Abstinence only education and "oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception."

As for your concerns about the ACA picking up this slack, these programs went beyond what you'd find in the ACA with actively looking for at-risk groups and informing them of these IUD's, things which go directly against the GOP's stated stances.

(08-27-2015 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:43 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I chose my words wrong, they chose not to fund the program despite being cash positive. Why?

I don't live in colorado, but a quick search showed an increase in public school funding, higher education, and transportation. I'm sure they had a lot on their plate and did the best they could with what they had.

I do find it a little difficult to believe you chose your words wrong. You most likely wanted us to think that the Republicans chose not to fund the program because they are meanies and don't want to help prevent abortions.

I stated I chose my words wrong because they were the incorrect words to choose as that wasn't an accurate way of stating what happened, as you pointed out. The more accurate statement would be that the Republican led house chose not to fund this cash positive program that limited abortions. I don't need to project the Republicans as meanies who don't want to help prevent abortions, their own policies do that for them honestly. Not that any group that large doesn't include people who don't agree with those policies, like this Republican State Representative from Colorado for instance, but the Republican national party platform isn't exactly conducive to promoting contraceptive usage, and states it supports Abstinence only education and "oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception."

As for your concerns about the ACA picking up this slack, these programs went beyond what you'd find in the ACA with actively looking for at-risk groups and informing them of these IUD's, things which go directly against the GOP's stated stances.

States have limited money and do the best they can. As for the GOP as a whole, its a broad policy they have that obviously assumes a level of personal responsibility that many don't exhibit.