Now you know I am a big advocate of making long acting reversible contraception free and readily available, since I see nobody winning when unwanted pregnancies occur. Not the Mother, the Father, the Child and certainly not us tax payers... So I found this Minnpost Community Voices piece interesting.
And yet a bunch of the Religious Right folks who are supposedly against abortion continue to fight making this proven prevention equally available for all American citizens no matter their income level. It is about as stupid as if they tried to stop the funding of guard rails along the road in high risk locations.
I mean could anyone imagine a group of whackos telling us drivers that guard rails are not needed because drivers should just be more responsible. Or telling us that drivers just need to not drive that road because it may be risky... And yet that is exactly what the Religious Right tells our youngest, poorest, stupidest, most irresponsible, horniest and/or impulsive citizens. (ie group 1)
I mean middle class, smart, responsible, mature, etc people can easily afford and know to get their birth control and stay on it. (ie group 2)
And who again do you think is going to to be the better Parent... Group 1 or Group 2?
And if you truly want to end abortions, the solution is pretty simple:
Or of course you can support the policies of the Bible Belt States where Teen pregnancy is much worse...
CNN Forget Abortion, This is What Women Want
Brookings: Note to GOP, Expand Family Planning
VOX Patients to Suffer under Trump Plan
NPR Abstinence Only Training is Ineffective (no duh)
And yet a bunch of the Religious Right folks who are supposedly against abortion continue to fight making this proven prevention equally available for all American citizens no matter their income level. It is about as stupid as if they tried to stop the funding of guard rails along the road in high risk locations.
I mean could anyone imagine a group of whackos telling us drivers that guard rails are not needed because drivers should just be more responsible. Or telling us that drivers just need to not drive that road because it may be risky... And yet that is exactly what the Religious Right tells our youngest, poorest, stupidest, most irresponsible, horniest and/or impulsive citizens. (ie group 1)
I mean middle class, smart, responsible, mature, etc people can easily afford and know to get their birth control and stay on it. (ie group 2)
And who again do you think is going to to be the better Parent... Group 1 or Group 2?
And if you truly want to end abortions, the solution is pretty simple:
- Make sure children get a complete and accurate sex education
- Make sure people post puberty have easy access to reliable low effort birth control
Or of course you can support the policies of the Bible Belt States where Teen pregnancy is much worse...
CNN Forget Abortion, This is What Women Want
Brookings: Note to GOP, Expand Family Planning
VOX Patients to Suffer under Trump Plan
NPR Abstinence Only Training is Ineffective (no duh)
23 comments:
It's a standard argument that safety measures encourage riskier behavior. I see it made in all sorts of different contexts. Hockey players used to argue that helmets encouraged more dangerous checks. In sexual matters, it was argued for a while at least, that giving teenagers vaccinations against the HPV virus would encourage them to have sex earlier. That's an argument I haven't heard lately but it was quite prominent for a while. When the AIDS epidemic was at it's height, people argued that making access easier to various prevention measures would make unsafe sex more likely. A form of this argument exists in sports where there is an idea that instant replay has an impact on the kind of decisions referees make.
I tend to see this as a fear of change, fear of the future kind of argument, that has an impact for a while, but is eventually rejected.
--Hiram
"I mean could anyone imagine a group of whackos telling us drivers that guard rails are not needed because drivers should just be more responsible. Or telling us that drivers just need to not drive that road because it may be risky..."
Wow. For someone who continually heaps scorn on irresponsible people, it is surprising how little regard is shown for those trying to tell them to be more responsible. what is wrong with promoting the only 100% effective method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies?
Because we all know that training young adults thoroughly and providing them with protective devices is how one prevents tragic accidents. That applies to sex and driving.
Unintended Pregnancy Data
If folks want to stop abortions and fatal car accidents, the best solution is the same. And if you want to help the poor escape poverty, this is a very effective inexpensive way to do it.
"•Unintended pregnancy rates are highest among poor and low-income women, women aged 18–24, cohabiting women and minority women.[8] Rates tend to be lowest among higher-income women, white women, college graduates and married women. For example, in 2011, the rate of unintended pregnancy among higher-income white women was less than half the national rate (18 vs. 45 unintended pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–44).
•The rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women (those with incomes below the federal poverty level) was 112 per 1,000 in 2011, more than five times the rate among women with incomes of at least 200% of the federal poverty level (20 per 1,000)
•At 79 per 1,000, the unintended pregnancy rate for black women in 2011 was more than double that of non-Hispanic white women (33 per 1,000).
•Women without a high school degree had the highest unintended pregnancy rate among all educational levels in 2011 (73 per 1,000), and rates were lower for women with more years of education.
•The proportion of pregnancies that are unintended generally decreases with age. The highest unintended pregnancy rate in 2011 was among women aged 20–24 (81 per 1,000 women).
•Traditional estimates understate the risk of teen pregnancy among adolescents because they typically include all women, whether or not they are sexually active. When rates are recalculated including only those sexually active, women aged 15–19 have the highest unintended pregnancy rate of any age-group.
•There are also disparities in the outcomes of unintended pregnancies across subgroups. In 2011, poor women had an unplanned birth rate nearly seven times that of higher-income women (those at or above 200% of the federal poverty level)."
you know what all of your wonderful statistics prove? They prove that those who have more sex, protected or unprotected, have more unwanted pregnancies than those who don't.
now if you want to say that planned pregnancies Are highest among women who do not finish high school, as apparently they are,because these women did not stick around long enough to learn how to put a condom on a banana, you can make that assertion. I happen to believe something else is at work and that maybe cause and effect are reversed in this case, that the unplanned pregnancy caused the failure to finish high school.
"...what is wrong with promoting the only 100% effective method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies?"
Because that strategy has proven ineffective.
Next?
Moose
"They prove that those who have more sex, protected or unprotected, have more unwanted pregnancies than those who don't."
Where do you see that in the data? You're making things up again.
Moose
Moose,
Apparently those girls in the Bible Belt are fornicating machines given how high their unintended pregnancy rates are. Well you know what they say about Preacher's kids...
...and if it IS true, one should be asking the question why the young and poor and blacks are having more sex than the rest of the population.
Moose
OK, let's take your slant. Those girls in the Bible Belt are having more sex than those elsewhere, and having more unplanned pregnancies as a result. Isn't that what I just said?
And this "abstinence is not effective" is pure bunkum. It is 100% effective when used and you simply cannot say that about other methods of contraception or about sex ed, whether abstinence only, abstinence plus, or condoms only. This "they're going to do it anyway" is a pretty lame excuse for poor parenting and lack of moral (and practical) teaching.
"And this "abstinence is not effective" is pure bunkum."
That's not what I said.
Moose
Jerry,
I know...
You are against ensuring children are thoroughly trained and provided with easy access to guard rails...
Which is equivalent to giving a 15 year old a Corvette to drive with your only words of wisdom to them being leave it in the garage and you will not have an accident.
And then you stand there with your mouth open wondering why so many kids are having accidents... :-o
"Now, Son, you should never drive recklessly, but if you do, use a seatbelt."
And yet there will still be people that drive recklessly. You would have it that they don't even know how to use their seatbelt.
Moose
Moose, prove that last statement.
And your first sentence reads like "because some people will drive recklessly, we should never advise anybody against it."
You have LITERALLY said that abstinence is the only way. That means....no contraceptives.
So...we tell kids not to drive recklessly, never teaching them how to use the protection of a seatbelt, and when someone gets hurt because they drove recklessly without wearing the seatbelt, we tell them how bad and stupid they are and how it's their own fault.
Abstinence-only is a proven failure.
Moose
Moose,
Maybe you should change that to.
"The Abstinence-only educational philosophy is a proven failure."
Jerry,
They already are driving down the busy road with that super high horse power corvette.
I mean Armstrong High School alone has ~2,200 young healthy hormonal post-pubescent invincible pre-adults in close proximity... Then throw in the partiers, drug users, etc and it's like driving in a crash up derby.
And unfortunately many of them have less responsible mamas and papas than my Mrs. And a lot more free time where they are not supervised than my kids did...
Thank Heavens for a Great Sex Education Program...
"The Abstinence-only educational philosophy is a proven failure."
Yes. That is what I mean.
Moose
And as an educational philosophy you are probably right, but IN PRACTICE abstinence is 100% effective and we shouldn't deny our kids the benefit of that very sound advice, whether you want to put a moral spin on it or not, your choice.
Schools that teach the mechanics of sex, even "safe sex," but never about the practical and moral consequences of teen sex are like schools teaching drivers ed and how to use a seatbelt, without explaining the moral and legal consequences of reckless driving.
Kids will try smoking and drinking, too. Do we want to teach them to "smoke safe," or do we try to dissuade them with practical and/or moral arguments?
Oh good Lord Jerry...
There are no Teachers out there saying "pre-Marital sex is something you should go try"... Well except the few Teachers who are having sex with their students. Where do you get this stuff?
Actually the schools go into a lot of detail regarding the mechanics of drinking, smoking, drugs, distracted driving and why it is bad to start. I remember all the drinking lectures I got while they were in health class.
I know you want to keep the kids stupid, but hopefully the "knowledge is power" group wins out.
My son got a girlfriend junior year in high school. After awhile we asked if they were using contraception. He said yes. They spent quite a bit of time in his room through the rest of high school. So I think some parents indicate that premarital sex is okay.
I believe schools accept the reality that many students will be sexually active and give them the needed information. According to a recent article in the Atlantic - The average American loses his or her virginity at age 17.
So bring on comprehensive sex ed in high school and even middle school.
Facts and Data
This seems appropriate here. Fed Judge Blocks Trump
Post a Comment