Honestly, I think that 58% of abortions from "contraception failure" is probably misrepresented significantly. But I have no data to proove that. Just that if I were having an abortion and someone asked why, I wouldn;t say that I didn't use a contraceptive, I'd blame it on the contraceptive failing...if you catch my drift.
Depends on who's asking you. People tend to have pretty honest relationships with their doctors, especially when discussing the best method to keep from getting pregnant again. Even if they didn't, medical records indicate most forms of contraception used. It's not like it's the guys with the "baby-killer" signs who are doing the survey.
This actually makes sense, though, when you consider that studies of sexually active women (not just ones having abortions) indicate that 93% of the ones who don't want to get pregnant use birth control.
Anyhow, for the 1% from rape, etc...as a society we need to create an environment where woman feel comfortable and free to report all cases...and prosecute harshly any rapist...that should help reduce that number.
I agree that we need to create a social environment where women feel comfortable reporting rape. I think the attitude that women who are raped must be at least somewhat culpable and are subsequently tarnished has a lot to do with their reluctance to speak up. And I see a significant parallel between attitudes about women who are raped and attitudes about women who have abortions.
For the remaining 93%, we need a comprehensive sex education program. We need to let people know where affordable contraception is available. That shoudl drive those numbers down.
If you truly believe this, then please let your feelings be known at the polls. Because as it stands, we have less and less comprehensive sex ed and decreasing access to affordable contraception. And I think one thing that frustrates the hell out of many in the pro-choice movement is that it tends to be the pro-life movement (in general) that is driving the huge backlash against these things.
I wish everyone knew just how unrealistic affordable, accessible contraception is to so many women just in the U.S. Contrapection is expensive, and the funding that made some of it less expensive is being cut by the federal government. Prescription costs don't matter anyway though, if you don't have health insurance for the doctor's visit. And what about the whole political move to keep emergency contraception from being available without a prescription? That made it quite inaccessible for awhile, and still does to a certain extent. Or, want contraception and the pharmacist in town doesn't believe in it? You're outta luck! Want a doctor's appointment and can't get in for 3 months? You're pregnant by then! And why will some insurance companies pay for Viagra and not an IUD?
Here are just some of the many components required for access to reliable contraception:
1. A nearby doctor who has the (a) knowledge & (b) willingness to provide the birth control you need
2. Knowledge of (a) the doctor and (b) his/her services and (c) how to make an appointment
3. (a) A ride to the appointment & (b) gas or bus money to pay for it
4. (a) Time off work and (b) school and (c) a babysitter so you can go to the appointment
5. The ability to get in to be seen in a timely manner
6. Money or insurance to pay for the (a) appointment and (b) prescription
7. (a) Knowledge & (b) time to (1) navigate the insurance system or (2) get on Medicaid
8. The ability to understand your birth control choices
9. (a) The ability to access services with neither the (1) clinic nor (2) the insurance company breaking your confidentiality, and (b) the knowledge of that ability
10. A nearby pharmacist who has the willingness to dispense your birth control
11. A ride to the pharmacy & gas or bus money to pay for it.... etc.
Here are just some of the many components required for access to reliable contraception:
1. A nearby doctor who has the (a) knowledge & (b) willingness to provide the birth control you need
2. Knowledge of (a) the doctor and (b) his/her services and (c) how to make an appointment
3. (a) A ride to the appointment & (b) gas or bus money to pay for it
4. (a) Time off work and (b) school and (c) a babysitter so you can go to the appointment
5. The ability to get in to be seen in a timely manner
6. Money or insurance to pay for the (a) appointment and (b) prescription
7. (a) Knowledge & (b) time to (1) navigate the insurance system or (2) get on Medicaid
8. The ability to understand your birth control choices
9. (a) The ability to access services with neither the (1) clinic nor (2) the insurance company breaking your confidentiality, and (b) the knowledge of that ability
10. A nearby pharmacist who has the willingness to dispense your birth control
11. A ride to the pharmacy & gas or bus money to pay for it.... etc.
Let's not get crazy here, we're not about to start mass mailing condoms or birth control pills to people's apartments.
Of course not. (Wait... well, actually... you may be on to something there! )
But I think it's important to identify the realistic barriers to women trying to get birth control. One of them is that insurance companies won't let you pick up more than one pack of birth control pills at once, so you have to go back to the pharmacy every month, within a relatively narrow window of time. Add this to the fact that in poor, rural states like mine, many people must travel significant distances to the nearest pharmacy but don't have running cars or gas money. I've known more than one person who was on the pill but missed a few days (or more) before she could get back to the pharmacy and ended up getting pregnant.
For the record, transportation issues are a significant barrier to accessing healthcare in general, not just for women with unintended pregnancies. As another example, the primary hospital for our state frequently has trouble with not having enough beds for women who come in to have babies, despite the fact that we just built a whole new wing. They did a throughput study to figure out why and found that the primary reason women aren't discharged when they should be after having a baby is because they don't have reliable transportation home. Who would have thought that it's a lack of rides that's clogging up our healthcare system? Certainly not the many of us who take transportation to and from healthcare facilities for granted.
If you truly believe this, then please let your feelings be known at the polls. Because as it stands, we have less and less comprehensive sex ed and decreasing access to affordable contraception. And I think one thing that frustrates the hell out of many in the pro-choice movement is that it tends to be the pro-life movement (in general) that is driving the huge backlash against these things.
I wish everyone know just how unrealistic affordable, accessible contraception is to so many women just in the U.S. Contrapection is expensive, and the funding that made some of it less expensive is being cut by the federal government. Prescription costs don't matter anyway though, if you don't have health insurance for the doctor's visit. And what about the whole political move to keep emergency contraception from being available without a prescription? That made it quite inaccessible for awhile, and still does to a certain extent. Or, want contraception and the pharmacist in town doesn't believe in it? You're outta luck! Want a doctor's appointment and can't get in for 3 months? You're pregnant by then! And why will some insurance companies pay for Viagra and not an IUD?
Here are just some of the many components required for access to reliable contraception:
1. A nearby doctor who has the (a) knowledge & (b) willingness to provide the birth control you need
2. Knowledge of (a) the doctor and (b) his/her services and (c) how to make an appointment
3. (a) A ride to the appointment & (b) gas or bus money to pay for it
4. (a) Time off work and (b) school and (c) a babysitter so you can go to the appointment
5. The ability to get in to be seen in a timely manner
6. Money or insurance to pay for the (a) appointment and (b) prescription
7. (a) Knowledge & (b) time to (1) navigate the insurance system or (2) get on Medicaid
8. The ability to understand your birth control choices
9. (a) The ability to access services with neither the (1) clinic nor (2) the insurance company breaking your confidentiality, and (b) the knowledge of that ability
10. A nearby pharmacist who has the willingness to dispense your birth control
11. A ride to the pharmacy & gas or bus money to pay for it.... etc.
where have you been all these years? you could have been my partner in fighting anti-reproductive health care crime this whole time.
Recently an hhs bill was introduced that would make it okay for any health care provider to refuse treatment on moral grounds. This means it would be legally okay for any health care provider to refuse doing their job---like giving out/prescribing birth control.
Another fun fact: Using state-matching and federal funds, Congress spent about 1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs from 1996 to 2006. Furthermore, in FY 2007 Congress allocated 176 million for abstinence-only programs. Most of the funding for abstinence-only education goes through the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), Title V---Welfare Reform Act, and Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) programs. However, more funding for abstinence-only programs can be found in various earmarkings, such as Senator Arlen Specter’s 3 million in earmarks for Pennsylvania in 2004-2005.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
How do they get this information? I'm guessing an interview/paperwork filled out by the individual getting the abortion.
in my experience it gets reported to the dept. of public health by the health care provider based on information from the patient. and this is exactly why women in this position should be able to go to a safe, trusted, and nonjudgmental place so she can be honest (i'm thinking planned parenthood over your local catholic hospital for example). i don't think you'd see many women lying about their medical history and reasons for abortion when they're about to undergo surgery and resolve a major life decision. also, i'm willing to bet the majority are concerned for the future of their health.
Recently an hhs bill was introduced that would make it okay for any health care provider to refuse treatment on moral grounds. This means it would be legally okay for any health care provider to refuse doing their job---like giving out/prescribing birth control.
I heard about this. And I can even see where it might sound like a good idea at first, but I also know the devastating effects this could have on people's access to health care, so I've thought a lot about it. I mean, I'm sure I wouldn't want to be made by my employer to do anything to which I had a moral objection.
I was reminded of when I was in high school and college and I worked in movie theaters. I have a moral objection to movies that glorify violence, so I didn't support the fact that we showed so many of them. But what if I, as the projectionist or manager, had refused to start those movies? I would have been fired, right? Of course! I was hired to make sure all the movies were started - not just the ones I approved of. I think a similar perspective may be taken for pharmacists, etc. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, maybe you should have signed up for a different job, ya know?
Also, my understanding is that this bill, if it became a law, would allow people who aren't even involved in direct service to play the moral objection card, and that it would extend beyond reproductive health care. So you could refuse to, say, file the paperwork of a person who has AIDS. I can't believe we live in a society where this kind of legislation is now acceptable. But people are so busy focusing their efforts on condemning others that they don't even stop to notice that these things might one day affect them too. :(
Another fun fact: Using state-matching and federal funds, Congress spent about 1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs from 1996 to 2006. Furthermore, in FY 2007 Congress allocated 176 million for abstinence-only programs. Most of the funding for abstinence-only education goes through the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), Title V---Welfare Reform Act, and Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) programs. However, more funding for abstinence-only programs can be found in various earmarkings, such as Senator Arlen Specter’s 3 million in earmarks for Pennsylvania in 2004-2005.
I heard about this. And I can even see where it might sound like a good idea at first, but I also know the devastating effects this could have on people's access to health care, so I've thought a lot about it. I mean, I'm sure I wouldn't want to be made by my employer to do anything to which I had a moral objection.
I was reminded of when I was in high school and college and I worked in movie theaters. I have a moral objection to movies that glorify violence, so I didn't support the fact that we showed so many of them. But what if I, as the projectionist or manager, had refused to start those movies? I would have been fired, right? Of course! I was hired to make sure all the movies were started - not just the ones I approved of. I think a similar perspective may be taken for pharmacists, etc. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, maybe you should have signed up for a different job, ya know?
Also, my understanding is that this bill, if it became a law, would allow people who aren't even involved in direct service to play the moral objection card, and that it would extend beyond reproductive health care. So you could refuse to, say, file the paperwork of a person who has AIDS. I can't believe we live in a society where this kind of legislation is now acceptable. But people are so busy focusing their efforts on condemning others that they don't even stop to notice that these things might one day affect them too. :(
i feel the same way---if you don't want to do the job you signed up for, maybe you should get another job, especially in regards to something as important as health care. this situation is complicated by all the barriers to access that come before this point even, as you mentioned above.
and you're right about the bill. i was just using the birth control for topic, but it extends way beyond that. and if the trend would turn out to be anything like how insurance companies operate, we'll be seeing way more refusals for birth control access and refusals to help those with AIDS than say, refusals to administer the assorted erectile dysfunction meds.
and the thing that kills me about abstinence-only is that FINALLY a federal study(!) was released (2007) that stated that overall those programs are NOT effective in preventing unintended preg and STIs. there were other studies previously (and check out rep. waxman's commissioned study of the programs in 2004 i believe) that concluded the same thing and more. so why are we still funding this crap when every other developed nation (that coincidentally does not use abstinence-only) has lower rates of unintended pregnancy and STIs? well i think you know the answer. gotta run
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Of course not. (Wait... well, actually... you may be on to something there! )
But I think it's important to identify the realistic barriers to women trying to get birth control. One of them is that insurance companies won't let you pick up more than one pack of birth control pills at once, so you have to go back to the pharmacy every month, within a relatively narrow window of time. Add this to the fact that in poor, rural states like mine, many people must travel significant distances to the nearest pharmacy but don't have running cars or gas money. I've known more than one person who was on the pill but missed a few days (or more) before she could get back to the pharmacy and ended up getting pregnant.
That's ridiculous! It's a lot easier to overcome those barriers to contraception listed (gas money or ride to the pharmacy??!!) then it would be to get an abortion.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's ridiculous! It's a lot easier to overcome those barriers to contraception listed (gas money or ride to the pharmacy??!!) then it would be to get an abortion.
What's this? You're saying abortion is not convenient as a form of birth control? Good point! That's why the choice for women is not between contraception and abortion, and therefore they don't choose abortion over contraception.
The question in a women's mind is not, "Should I find a ride to the clinic or just wait and have an abortion?" It's, "Can I find a ride to the clinic or can't I?" Sometimes they just can't. Period. End of story. Just because it's harder to get an abortion doesn't make it easier to get to the clinic.
How do you think you can even begin to sit there and judge how easy it is for Freida Windsong to make it with her 4 kids, with no car, from her hogan with no phone, where there is no bus route, to the nearest clinic 70 miles away at any given time the doctor has an appointment?! And then make it to the pharmacy 20 more miles away? And that was only after waiting 6 weeks for her Medicaid to kick in after having to make it 100 miles to the nearest Medicaid office only to wait all day and be told she has to come back again with more paperwork.
In the U.S., 53% of abortions are by women <25 & 76% of abortions are by women <30.
thanks so much for the facts; I thought a little more of a curve toward the younger women, but that is a bit more 53%. I guess I just wanted to stress that the women who are more settled in their lives, perhaps older, are less likely to get themselves into these bad situations.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
What's this? You're saying abortion is not convenient as a form of birth control? Good point! That's why the choice for women is not between contraception and abortion, and therefore they don't choose abortion over contraception.
The question in a women's mind is not, "Should I find a ride to the clinic or just wait and have an abortion?" It's, "Can I find a ride to the clinic or can't I?" Sometimes they just can't. Period. End of story. Just because it's harder to get an abortion doesn't make it easier to get to the clinic.
How do you think you can even begin to sit there and judge how easy it is for Freida Windsong to make it with her 4 kids, with no car, from her hogan with no phone, where there is no bus route, to the nearest clinic 70 miles away at any given time the doctor has an appointment?! And then make it to the pharmacy 20 more miles away? And that was only after waiting 6 weeks for her Medicaid to kick in after having to make it 100 miles to the nearest Medicaid office only to wait all day and be told she has to come back again with more paperwork.
I guess ignorance really is bliss. :rolleyes:
Your circular logic is what usually keeps me out of these debates.
No - I'm saying that one of your arguments in favor of abortion is that it's too darn difficult to get contraception!!?? That's absolutely ridiculous and I'm surprised you could even keep a straight face listing the reasons you mention to back that up.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Your circular logic is what usually keeps me out of these debates.
No - I'm saying that one of your arguments in favor of abortion is that it's too darn difficult to get contraception!!?? That's absolutely ridiculous and I'm surprised you could even keep a straight face listing the reasons you mention to back that up.
Well I guess you misunderstand me then. I'm not arguing in favor of women having abortions. My argument is for you to leave them the fuck alone and stop judging people whose situations you can't possibily begin to understand. I am simply arguing against your (or whoever's) assertion that women who have abortions are just too irresponsible and lazy to use conctracption. I'm tyring to shed some light on the real world for you. And you can sit up in your comfortable ivory tower and judge others all you want, but clearly you don't understand the real-life barriers that prevent many people from getting healthcare. It doesn't matter whether you say from afar that women should be able to overcome these barriers. Oftentimes they can't. If you don't like those facts, maybe you should try to do something to help instead of just casting stones from afar.
well maybe then we can just start with the schools and go from there.
I am all for better education...and available, affordable contraception...I'm unsure about giving it out at school, it just doesn't feel right to me...I don't think it's a school place to do that...but you might be able to convince me, depending on the specific of such a plan.
That's ridiculous! It's a lot easier to overcome those barriers to contraception listed (gas money or ride to the pharmacy??!!) then it would be to get an abortion.
True.
But the flip side...an abortion is 1 round-trip.
You have to continually go back for more contraception. Just trying to see the view from the otherside.
thanks so much for the facts; I thought a little more of a curve toward the younger women, but that is a bit more 53%. I guess I just wanted to stress that the women who are more settled in their lives, perhaps older, are less likely to get themselves into these bad situations.
So, as responsibilty rises, abortions decrease.
Therefore, we must find a way to raise the responsibility level of younger women and men.
Therefore, we must find a way to raise the responsibility level of younger women and men.
I would say something more along the lines of: as empowerment & knowledge increase, abortion decreases.
Also, maybe it's not that older women have less unintended pregnancy per se, but just that since they are more likely to have higher-paying jobs and stable relationships/husbands they are better able to deal with a child they didn't plan for.
Well I guess you misunderstand me then. I'm not arguing in favor of women having abortions. My argument is for you to leave them the fuck alone and stop judging people whose situations you can't possibily begin to understand. I am simply arguing against your (or whoever's) assertion that women who have abortions are just too irresponsible and lazy to use conctracption. I'm tyring to shed some light on the real world for you. And you can sit up in your comfortable ivory tower and judge others all you want, but clearly you don't understand the real-life barriers that prevent many people from getting healthcare. It doesn't matter whether you say from afar that women should be able to overcome these barriers. Oftentimes they can't. If you don't like those facts, maybe you should try to do something to help instead of just casting stones from afar.
You're right, it's a bad thing to be so judgemental, huh? I think it's pretty evident that I don't have the monopoly on casting stones.
Contraception is not as difficult to obtain as you're trying to justify. In addition, men and women don't even have to have sex if they're unprepared. All of those excuses are just a way to justify being pro-abortion.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Contraception is not as difficult to obtain as you're trying to justify. In addition, men and women don't even have to have sex if they're unprepared. All of those excuses are just a way to justify being pro-abortion.
How do you think you can know how difficult it is for another person in a completely different circumstance to obtain contraception? You just keep saying things are easy (and applying that judgement to everyone) but haven't been able to back up that claim. You can't.
Have you ever lived in a hogan with no phone, electricity, running water, or vehicle, in a location with no doctor, pharmacy, or jobs, and had 4 kids, 2 grandmas, and a niece to care for? Have you had a pair of ovaries which you had to keep from ovulating?
How do you think you can know how difficult it is for another person in a completely different circumstance to obtain contraception? You just keep saying things are easy (and applying that judgement to everyone) but haven't been able to back up that claim. You can't.
Have you ever lived in a hogan with no phone, electricity, running water, or vehicle, in a location with no doctor, pharmacy, or jobs, and had 4 kids, 2 grandmas, and a niece to care for? Have you had a pair of ovaries which you had to keep from ovulating?
It is pretty easy when you drill down to the core: Don't have sex if you can't get contraception. Not too difficult - I've done it.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It is pretty easy when you drill down to the core: Don't have sex if you can't get contraception. Not too difficult - I've done it.
Once again with the judgements about what's difficult and what's not for other people. Nobody cares what you've done or haven't done because that's not relevant. Stop trying to judge other people's lives through the lense of your own life. It doesn't work that way. You should at least try to see their lives through their eyes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to have any interest in doing that.
But let's just say, purely for the sake of argument, that your solution is realistic. That just brings us back to the failure rate of contraception, about which you (or someone else) will say, "They knew contraception could fail, so they shouldn't have sex unless they wanted a kid." Of course, having sex only if you want to procreate is not realistic either. I'd love see all the wives out there refuse to have sex with their husbands unless they wanted to have a child. As soon as the men stopped getting any, the attitudes & laws in this country would change real fast!
The bottom line is this: It's a complex decision based on complex, personal circumstances. So no one should purport to know or judge anyone else's situation or what they should do.
Once again with the judgements about what's difficult and what's not for other people. Nobody cares what you've done or haven't done because that's not relevant. Stop trying to judge other people's lives through the lense of your own life. It doesn't work that way. You should at least try to see their lives through their eyes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to have any interest in doing that.
But let's just say, purely for the sake of argument, that your solution is realistic. That just brings us back to the failure rate of contraception, about which you (or someone else) will say, "They knew contraception could fail, so they shouldn't have sex unless they wanted a kid." Of course, having sex only if you want to procreate is not realistic either. I'd love see all the wives out there refuse to have sex with their husbands unless they wanted to have a child. As soon as the men stopped getting any, the attitudes & laws in this country would change real fast!
The bottom line is this: It's a complex decision based on complex, personal circumstances. So no one should purport to know or judge anyone else's situation or what they should do.
First you tell me that I can't understand anyone's situation and then when I make a correlation, you say that nobody cares about what I've done since it's not relevant. Pick a tactic and stick with it, OK?
Really though. I didn't start out judging anyone's life. When you introduced ridiculous examples of why it's apparently nearly impossible not to get pregnant, I refuted them and then suddenly became a judge...of a hypothetical person!
How about we debate this: What percentage of people having abortions would you say are women living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere with 4 kids, no car, no money, etc. etc. etc. who cannot possibly stop having sex and have no earthly way to get contraception?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Any human should be pro for all life. However, in the case of pregnancy and a woman. As long as she has all her marbles, it's her call...always....ALWAYS
>>>>
>
...a lover and a fighter.
"I'm at least half a bum" Rocky Balboa
Therefore, we must find a way to raise the responsibility level of younger women and men.
yeah, that is for sure. I have teenagers (as most people here who know me, know......17,16,14 and (not a teen YET 11), but as much as I do not want to think about any of them; boys or my daughter having sex, and as much as I will first try to tell them there is no hurry certainly, the reality is that they will desire to try and their hormones may win over me, so the truth is they need to be responsible. That is pregnancy and aids, vd, etc.
And although at first we covered the post that stated that abortion is not traumatic on your body, I will step up and say it is. No more info; none needed I am sure........it is. We also need to be teaching that our bodies; male or female are precious and need to be treated as such.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Comments
I'll have to dig up my studies and re-read the methodology sections. Might take me a while, but I'll let you know.
Depends on who's asking you. People tend to have pretty honest relationships with their doctors, especially when discussing the best method to keep from getting pregnant again. Even if they didn't, medical records indicate most forms of contraception used. It's not like it's the guys with the "baby-killer" signs who are doing the survey.
This actually makes sense, though, when you consider that studies of sexually active women (not just ones having abortions) indicate that 93% of the ones who don't want to get pregnant use birth control.
I agree that we need to create a social environment where women feel comfortable reporting rape. I think the attitude that women who are raped must be at least somewhat culpable and are subsequently tarnished has a lot to do with their reluctance to speak up. And I see a significant parallel between attitudes about women who are raped and attitudes about women who have abortions.
If you truly believe this, then please let your feelings be known at the polls. Because as it stands, we have less and less comprehensive sex ed and decreasing access to affordable contraception. And I think one thing that frustrates the hell out of many in the pro-choice movement is that it tends to be the pro-life movement (in general) that is driving the huge backlash against these things.
I wish everyone knew just how unrealistic affordable, accessible contraception is to so many women just in the U.S. Contrapection is expensive, and the funding that made some of it less expensive is being cut by the federal government. Prescription costs don't matter anyway though, if you don't have health insurance for the doctor's visit. And what about the whole political move to keep emergency contraception from being available without a prescription? That made it quite inaccessible for awhile, and still does to a certain extent. Or, want contraception and the pharmacist in town doesn't believe in it? You're outta luck! Want a doctor's appointment and can't get in for 3 months? You're pregnant by then! And why will some insurance companies pay for Viagra and not an IUD?
Here are just some of the many components required for access to reliable contraception:
1. A nearby doctor who has the (a) knowledge & (b) willingness to provide the birth control you need
2. Knowledge of (a) the doctor and (b) his/her services and (c) how to make an appointment
3. (a) A ride to the appointment & (b) gas or bus money to pay for it
4. (a) Time off work and (b) school and (c) a babysitter so you can go to the appointment
5. The ability to get in to be seen in a timely manner
6. Money or insurance to pay for the (a) appointment and (b) prescription
7. (a) Knowledge & (b) time to (1) navigate the insurance system or (2) get on Medicaid
8. The ability to understand your birth control choices
9. (a) The ability to access services with neither the (1) clinic nor (2) the insurance company breaking your confidentiality, and (b) the knowledge of that ability
10. A nearby pharmacist who has the willingness to dispense your birth control
11. A ride to the pharmacy & gas or bus money to pay for it.... etc.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
Let's not get crazy here, we're not about to start mass mailing condoms or birth control pills to people's apartments.
Of course not.
But I think it's important to identify the realistic barriers to women trying to get birth control. One of them is that insurance companies won't let you pick up more than one pack of birth control pills at once, so you have to go back to the pharmacy every month, within a relatively narrow window of time. Add this to the fact that in poor, rural states like mine, many people must travel significant distances to the nearest pharmacy but don't have running cars or gas money. I've known more than one person who was on the pill but missed a few days (or more) before she could get back to the pharmacy and ended up getting pregnant.
For the record, transportation issues are a significant barrier to accessing healthcare in general, not just for women with unintended pregnancies. As another example, the primary hospital for our state frequently has trouble with not having enough beds for women who come in to have babies, despite the fact that we just built a whole new wing. They did a throughput study to figure out why and found that the primary reason women aren't discharged when they should be after having a baby is because they don't have reliable transportation home. Who would have thought that it's a lack of rides that's clogging up our healthcare system? Certainly not the many of us who take transportation to and from healthcare facilities for granted.
where have you been all these years? you could have been my partner in fighting anti-reproductive health care crime this whole time.
Recently an hhs bill was introduced that would make it okay for any health care provider to refuse treatment on moral grounds. This means it would be legally okay for any health care provider to refuse doing their job---like giving out/prescribing birth control.
Another fun fact: Using state-matching and federal funds, Congress spent about 1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs from 1996 to 2006. Furthermore, in FY 2007 Congress allocated 176 million for abstinence-only programs. Most of the funding for abstinence-only education goes through the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), Title V---Welfare Reform Act, and Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) programs. However, more funding for abstinence-only programs can be found in various earmarkings, such as Senator Arlen Specter’s 3 million in earmarks for Pennsylvania in 2004-2005.
cross the river to the eastside
in my experience it gets reported to the dept. of public health by the health care provider based on information from the patient. and this is exactly why women in this position should be able to go to a safe, trusted, and nonjudgmental place so she can be honest (i'm thinking planned parenthood over your local catholic hospital for example). i don't think you'd see many women lying about their medical history and reasons for abortion when they're about to undergo surgery and resolve a major life decision. also, i'm willing to bet the majority are concerned for the future of their health.
well maybe then we can just start with the schools and go from there.
cross the river to the eastside
It's not too late; I'll be your crime-fighting partner! Do we get to wear superhero outfits?
I heard about this. And I can even see where it might sound like a good idea at first, but I also know the devastating effects this could have on people's access to health care, so I've thought a lot about it. I mean, I'm sure I wouldn't want to be made by my employer to do anything to which I had a moral objection.
I was reminded of when I was in high school and college and I worked in movie theaters. I have a moral objection to movies that glorify violence, so I didn't support the fact that we showed so many of them. But what if I, as the projectionist or manager, had refused to start those movies? I would have been fired, right? Of course! I was hired to make sure all the movies were started - not just the ones I approved of. I think a similar perspective may be taken for pharmacists, etc. If you don't want to do the job you signed up for, maybe you should have signed up for a different job, ya know?
Also, my understanding is that this bill, if it became a law, would allow people who aren't even involved in direct service to play the moral objection card, and that it would extend beyond reproductive health care. So you could refuse to, say, file the paperwork of a person who has AIDS. I can't believe we live in a society where this kind of legislation is now acceptable. But people are so busy focusing their efforts on condemning others that they don't even stop to notice that these things might one day affect them too. :(
Thank you for this fun fact!
oh, most absolutely! that's part of the fun for sure.
i feel the same way---if you don't want to do the job you signed up for, maybe you should get another job, especially in regards to something as important as health care. this situation is complicated by all the barriers to access that come before this point even, as you mentioned above.
and you're right about the bill. i was just using the birth control for topic, but it extends way beyond that. and if the trend would turn out to be anything like how insurance companies operate, we'll be seeing way more refusals for birth control access and refusals to help those with AIDS than say, refusals to administer the assorted erectile dysfunction meds.
and the thing that kills me about abstinence-only is that FINALLY a federal study(!) was released (2007) that stated that overall those programs are NOT effective in preventing unintended preg and STIs. there were other studies previously (and check out rep. waxman's commissioned study of the programs in 2004 i believe) that concluded the same thing and more. so why are we still funding this crap when every other developed nation (that coincidentally does not use abstinence-only) has lower rates of unintended pregnancy and STIs? well i think you know the answer. gotta run
cross the river to the eastside
That's ridiculous! It's a lot easier to overcome those barriers to contraception listed (gas money or ride to the pharmacy??!!) then it would be to get an abortion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
What's this? You're saying abortion is not convenient as a form of birth control? Good point!
The question in a women's mind is not, "Should I find a ride to the clinic or just wait and have an abortion?" It's, "Can I find a ride to the clinic or can't I?" Sometimes they just can't. Period. End of story. Just because it's harder to get an abortion doesn't make it easier to get to the clinic.
How do you think you can even begin to sit there and judge how easy it is for Freida Windsong to make it with her 4 kids, with no car, from her hogan with no phone, where there is no bus route, to the nearest clinic 70 miles away at any given time the doctor has an appointment?! And then make it to the pharmacy 20 more miles away? And that was only after waiting 6 weeks for her Medicaid to kick in after having to make it 100 miles to the nearest Medicaid office only to wait all day and be told she has to come back again with more paperwork.
I guess ignorance really is bliss. :rolleyes:
thanks so much for the facts; I thought a little more of a curve toward the younger women, but that is a bit more 53%. I guess I just wanted to stress that the women who are more settled in their lives, perhaps older, are less likely to get themselves into these bad situations.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Your circular logic is what usually keeps me out of these debates.
No - I'm saying that one of your arguments in favor of abortion is that it's too darn difficult to get contraception!!?? That's absolutely ridiculous and I'm surprised you could even keep a straight face listing the reasons you mention to back that up.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Well I guess you misunderstand me then. I'm not arguing in favor of women having abortions. My argument is for you to leave them the fuck alone and stop judging people whose situations you can't possibily begin to understand. I am simply arguing against your (or whoever's) assertion that women who have abortions are just too irresponsible and lazy to use conctracption. I'm tyring to shed some light on the real world for you. And you can sit up in your comfortable ivory tower and judge others all you want, but clearly you don't understand the real-life barriers that prevent many people from getting healthcare. It doesn't matter whether you say from afar that women should be able to overcome these barriers. Oftentimes they can't. If you don't like those facts, maybe you should try to do something to help instead of just casting stones from afar.
I am all for better education...and available, affordable contraception...I'm unsure about giving it out at school, it just doesn't feel right to me...I don't think it's a school place to do that...but you might be able to convince me, depending on the specific of such a plan.
Can you say....Full body condom?
True.
But the flip side...an abortion is 1 round-trip.
You have to continually go back for more contraception. Just trying to see the view from the otherside.
So, as responsibilty rises, abortions decrease.
Therefore, we must find a way to raise the responsibility level of younger women and men.
A 45 year old man with the [lack of] brain activity of an embryo is dead. His cells may be alive though, same as an embryo.
One of the methods by which birth control pills work is to terminate a fertilized egg.
Yes, I am aware of that...
I like it! As our first order of business, to draw attention to our cause, we should cover the Washington Monument in a giant condom!
Thank you for that.
I would say something more along the lines of: as empowerment & knowledge increase, abortion decreases.
Also, maybe it's not that older women have less unintended pregnancy per se, but just that since they are more likely to have higher-paying jobs and stable relationships/husbands they are better able to deal with a child they didn't plan for.
You're right, it's a bad thing to be so judgemental, huh?
Contraception is not as difficult to obtain as you're trying to justify. In addition, men and women don't even have to have sex if they're unprepared. All of those excuses are just a way to justify being pro-abortion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So calling you our on your stone-casting makes me a stone-caster myself, huh? I'll have to consider that.
How do you think you can know how difficult it is for another person in a completely different circumstance to obtain contraception? You just keep saying things are easy (and applying that judgement to everyone) but haven't been able to back up that claim. You can't.
Have you ever lived in a hogan with no phone, electricity, running water, or vehicle, in a location with no doctor, pharmacy, or jobs, and had 4 kids, 2 grandmas, and a niece to care for? Have you had a pair of ovaries which you had to keep from ovulating?
Nah - it was more about the ivory tower stuff. That being said, I'm not casting stones.
It is pretty easy when you drill down to the core: Don't have sex if you can't get contraception. Not too difficult - I've done it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Once again with the judgements about what's difficult and what's not for other people. Nobody cares what you've done or haven't done because that's not relevant. Stop trying to judge other people's lives through the lense of your own life. It doesn't work that way. You should at least try to see their lives through their eyes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to have any interest in doing that.
But let's just say, purely for the sake of argument, that your solution is realistic. That just brings us back to the failure rate of contraception, about which you (or someone else) will say, "They knew contraception could fail, so they shouldn't have sex unless they wanted a kid." Of course, having sex only if you want to procreate is not realistic either. I'd love see all the wives out there refuse to have sex with their husbands unless they wanted to have a child. As soon as the men stopped getting any, the attitudes & laws in this country would change real fast!
The bottom line is this: It's a complex decision based on complex, personal circumstances. So no one should purport to know or judge anyone else's situation or what they should do.
First you tell me that I can't understand anyone's situation and then when I make a correlation, you say that nobody cares about what I've done since it's not relevant. Pick a tactic and stick with it, OK?
Really though. I didn't start out judging anyone's life. When you introduced ridiculous examples of why it's apparently nearly impossible not to get pregnant, I refuted them and then suddenly became a judge...of a hypothetical person!
How about we debate this: What percentage of people having abortions would you say are women living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere with 4 kids, no car, no money, etc. etc. etc. who cannot possibly stop having sex and have no earthly way to get contraception?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
>
...a lover and a fighter.
"I'm at least half a bum" Rocky Balboa
http://www.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Message-To-American-Indians
Edmonton, AB. September 5th, 2005
Vancouver, BC. April 3rd, 2008
Calgary,AB. August 8th, 2009
because when you kill people in a war you are killing a person. with thoughts and feelings and a family and friends.
when you abort a FETUS (not a baby) you are killing a few cells that have started to multiply.
that's why it's called "abortion." You are "aborting" the process of the fetus eventually becoming a baby.
yeah, that is for sure. I have teenagers (as most people here who know me, know......17,16,14 and (not a teen YET 11), but as much as I do not want to think about any of them; boys or my daughter having sex, and as much as I will first try to tell them there is no hurry certainly, the reality is that they will desire to try and their hormones may win over me, so the truth is they need to be responsible. That is pregnancy and aids, vd, etc.
And although at first we covered the post that stated that abortion is not traumatic on your body, I will step up and say it is. No more info; none needed I am sure........it is. We also need to be teaching that our bodies; male or female are precious and need to be treated as such.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........