I'm sitting in a Pro Life meeting right now...

cincybearcat wrote:

How do they get this information? I'm guessing an interview/paperwork filled out by the individual getting the abortion.

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.

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

cincybearcat wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

VictoryGin wrote:

where have you been all these years? you could have been my partner in fighting anti-reproductive health care crime this whole time.

It's not too late; I'll be your crime-fighting partner! Do we get to wear superhero outfits?

VictoryGin wrote:

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. :(

VictoryGin wrote:

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.

Thank you for this fun fact!

scb wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

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.

know1 wrote:

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.

scb wrote:

It's not too late; I'll be your crime-fighting partner! Do we get to wear superhero outfits?

Can you say....Full body condom?

writersu wrote:

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.

SundaySilence wrote:

One of the methods by which birth control pills work is to terminate a fertilized egg.

Yes, I am aware of that...