|
Post by librarylady on Jul 17, 2017 15:49:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 17, 2017 16:03:44 GMT
|
|
casii
Drama Llama

Posts: 5,588
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Jul 17, 2017 16:07:22 GMT
No surprise. At this point with the rapid rate of repulsive (like that alliteration?) elected Republican moves, I doubt I could feign polite conversation if I were to be in their presence.
Withdrawing education is not a pro-life move. Ignorance breeds babies for more than educated choices.
|
|
casii
Drama Llama

Posts: 5,588
Jun 29, 2014 14:40:44 GMT
|
Post by casii on Jul 17, 2017 16:10:44 GMT
I applaud CO's moves, but many states won't do this or don't have the funds to do this (or both).
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 17, 2017 16:20:38 GMT
I applaud CO's moves, but many states won't do this or don't have the funds to do this (or both). So we should spend $200 million "researching" what works? Poppycock. Argue that we should block grant the funds as part of Medicaid as the program literally pays for itself. Argue that some states are too stupid to do what's best which while unfortunate means that they won't do whatever the $200 million in research will say works anyway. We know what works. Spend the money where it will actually do the most good.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 17, 2017 16:21:08 GMT
Here's the full text. This whole thing is completely unbelievable to me.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jul 17, 2017 16:22:10 GMT
I applaud CO's moves, but many states won't do this or don't have the funds to do this (or both). So we should spend $200 million "researching" what works? Poppycock. Argue that we should block grant the funds as part of Medicaid as the program literally pays for itself. Argue that some states are too stupid to do what's best which while unfortunate means that they won't do whatever the $200 million in research will say works anyway. We know what works. Spend the money where it will actually do the most good. Did you actually read the article before you went spouting off? Because I don't see how you could have, and then come up with these responses.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama

Posts: 5,610
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Jul 17, 2017 16:25:53 GMT
I live in Texas. In Texas, we believe: 1. Access to birth control encourages sex before marriage. Don't give them birth control, and they won't have sex. 2. Birth control is a form of abortion. 3. Birth control doesn't really work, anyway. We also don't believe in sex ed. Abstinence only. That's the way to go. And it's been very successful. We are ranked FIFTH best in the country for teen pregnancy! Oh...wait...we are actually ranked fifth in the number of teen pregnancies. Ok...so that means there are 4 other states that are doing worse than us. Not so bad. And, we are number ONE in number of repeat teen pregnancies. So proud. Abstinence only. Yeah! (If you cannot smell the sarcasm in my post, sniff harder).
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:09:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 16:34:05 GMT
I would also add that the Colorado program is tied to Medicaid. With trump and the Republicans wanting to gut Medicaid and not just the ACA expansion but Medicaid in general I doubt very much this program would survive.
Which kind of boggles the mind because you would think for the pro life group programs like this, whether attached to Medicaid or not, would be a no brainer.
Ah but you know those tax cuts....
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 17, 2017 16:45:44 GMT
So we should spend $200 million "researching" what works? Poppycock. Argue that we should block grant the funds as part of Medicaid as the program literally pays for itself. Argue that some states are too stupid to do what's best which while unfortunate means that they won't do whatever the $200 million in research will say works anyway. We know what works. Spend the money where it will actually do the most good. Did you actually read the article before you went spouting off? Because I don't see how you could have, and then come up with these responses. I read the article and am quite sure I fundamentally disagree with WHY this administration has chosen to end funding for these programs. It doesn't mean that I don't think there are far better uses of the money than a scattershot of 81 different programs all researching what works. We know what works. Please send me the millions to see if middle school sex education or parent workshops are as effective as access to to free long term birth control.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 17, 2017 16:47:52 GMT
I would also add that the Colorado program is tied to Medicaid. With trump and the Republicans wanting to gut Medicaid and not just the ACA expansion but Medicaid in general I doubt very much this program would survive. Which kind of boggles the mind because you would think for the pro life group programs like this, whether attached to Medicaid or not, would be a no brainer. Ah but you know those tax cuts.... The Colorado program survived a year with no state money - I think it was 2015 where private funding bridged the gap. Hopefully commonsense will prevail for a program that dropped not just teen pregnancy 40% but teen abortions 35%
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 17, 2017 16:55:59 GMT
I often think some of the research we fund is wasteful. That said, many discoveries are found while researching something different.
Since education is currently based on evidenced based practices, there have to be researched studies behind implementation of programs in schools and schools is where kids are getting their sex ed.
I love Colorado's program and am glad we have it. I do not see private donors baking able to continue it is Medicaid funds are cut and I cannot see it being nation wide without funding.
What really pissed me off if that every thing that is cut is connected. Sex ed/studies on teen pregnancy, access to birth control, planned parenthood, access to abortions, medical funding for pregnant women and babies, economic aid to thise in poverty...it makes the problem even worse.
Prevention is cheaper than funding the result.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 17, 2017 17:03:00 GMT
I would also add that the Colorado program is tied to Medicaid. With trump and the Republicans wanting to gut Medicaid and not just the ACA expansion but Medicaid in general I doubt very much this program would survive. Which kind of boggles the mind because you would think for the pro life group programs like this, whether attached to Medicaid or not, would be a no brainer. Ah but you know those tax cuts.... The Colorado program survived a year with no state money - I think it was 2015 where private funding bridged the gap. Hopefully commonsense will prevail for a program that dropped not just teen pregnancy 40% but teen abortions 35% Have you ever lived in a super conservative state? Texas will never, ever, ever provide free birth control to poor women. Ain't gonna happen unless the earth opens up and swallows all the Republicans in the state legislature. Why not research what else might be effective?
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 17, 2017 17:13:13 GMT
The Colorado program survived a year with no state money - I think it was 2015 where private funding bridged the gap. Hopefully commonsense will prevail for a program that dropped not just teen pregnancy 40% but teen abortions 35% Have you ever lived in a super conservative state? Texas will never, ever, ever provide free birth control to poor women. Ain't gonna happen unless the earth opens up and swallows all the Republicans in the state legislature. Why not research what else might be effective? Because anything that might actually be effective is also not going to fly in Texas. Why should we spend $200 million, because the majority of Texans keep electing imbeciles? Perhaps I'm exaggerating and they're now on board with actual information about birth control and not abstinence only education? Or ready access to condoms in school? Neither of those is as effective as actual long lasting birth control, but they don't support that either. There's no magic study that's going to reconcile reducing teen pregnancy with the Texas' legislatures belief that if they just keep telling them don't do it they'll stop.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:09:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 17:36:31 GMT
This gave me a chuckle, I must admit. There is only one scientifically valid way to avoid unwanted pregnancy. We don't need to spend $200 million to discover it.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Jul 17, 2017 17:53:55 GMT
The Colorado program survived a year with no state money - I think it was 2015 where private funding bridged the gap. Hopefully commonsense will prevail for a program that dropped not just teen pregnancy 40% but teen abortions 35% Have you ever lived in a super conservative state? Texas will never, ever, ever provide free birth control to poor women. Ain't gonna happen unless the earth opens up and swallows all the Republicans in the state legislature. Why not research what else might be effective? @merge is correct. No way Texas will provide birth control to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by librarylady on Jul 17, 2017 17:56:17 GMT
--  3 times I have tried to tag Merge in the above post. I put her name as @merge and the program changes the capital letter to a lower case "m" and she is not tagged. and now it did it in this post......  ??
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama

Posts: 5,610
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Jul 17, 2017 18:04:41 GMT
--  3 times I have tried to tag Merge in the above post. I put her name as @merge and the program changes the capital letter to a lower case "m" and she is not tagged. and now it did it in this post......  ?? I can never tag Merge, either. I think she has me blocked. 
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,652
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Jul 17, 2017 18:08:38 GMT
--  3 times I have tried to tag Merge in the above post. I put her name as @merge and the program changes the capital letter to a lower case "m" and she is not tagged. and now it did it in this post......  ?? --  3 times I have tried to tag Merge in the above post. I put her name as @merge and the program changes the capital letter to a lower case "m" and she is not tagged. and now it did it in this post......  ?? I can never tag Merge, either. I think she has me blocked. You have to tag mergeleft. Even if somebody changes their username, you have to tag them with their registered/official name. ETA: If you are on website, hover over username in a post and a popup will show you the taggable name. Not sure if it works on mobile.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 17, 2017 18:09:13 GMT
--  3 times I have tried to tag Merge in the above post. I put her name as @merge and the program changes the capital letter to a lower case "m" and she is not tagged. and now it did it in this post......  ?? I can never tag Merge, either. I think she has me blocked.  As if! Merge is my screen name as of last year; to tag me, you have to use my full username, Merge. That's true for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 17, 2017 18:19:51 GMT
I can never tag Merge, either. I think she has me blocked. As if! Merge is my screen name as of last year; to tag me, you have to use my full username, Merge . That's true for everyone. I thought you had me blocked too. LOL. Learned something new about the boards today
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 17, 2017 18:43:00 GMT
To tag merge you have to use mergeleft
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 17, 2017 18:44:52 GMT
For the record, I don't have anyone blocked!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 17, 2017 18:47:36 GMT
Have you ever lived in a super conservative state? Texas will never, ever, ever provide free birth control to poor women. Ain't gonna happen unless the earth opens up and swallows all the Republicans in the state legislature. Why not research what else might be effective? Because anything that might actually be effective is also not going to fly in Texas. Why should we spend $200 million, because the majority of Texans keep electing imbeciles? Perhaps I'm exaggerating and they're now on board with actual information about birth control and not abstinence only education? Or ready access to condoms in school? Neither of those is as effective as actual long lasting birth control, but they don't support that either. There's no magic study that's going to reconcile reducing teen pregnancy with the Texas' legislatures belief that if they just keep telling them don't do it they'll stop. Which is why sane Texans so appreciate the federal funds that allow groups in low-income areas to give birth control to teens under the auspices of a "study." Long may the "studies" live. And it benefits more than just Texas - there's no rule saying teen moms have to live here forever - they could end up in Colorado on your Medicaid roles.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 17, 2017 18:59:02 GMT
Because anything that might actually be effective is also not going to fly in Texas. Why should we spend $200 million, because the majority of Texans keep electing imbeciles? Perhaps I'm exaggerating and they're now on board with actual information about birth control and not abstinence only education? Or ready access to condoms in school? Neither of those is as effective as actual long lasting birth control, but they don't support that either. There's no magic study that's going to reconcile reducing teen pregnancy with the Texas' legislatures belief that if they just keep telling them don't do it they'll stop. Which is why sane Texans so appreciate the federal funds that allow groups in low-income areas to give birth control to teens under the auspices of a "study." Long may the "studies" live. And it benefits more than just Texas - there's no rule saying teen moms have to live here forever - they could end up in Colorado on your Medicaid roles. I'm not sure what percentage of the 81 "studies" are really backhanded access to birth control in conservative states - I doubt it's that high. I do think that it's a pretty inefficient way of using federal dollars. We have what a half dozen studies showing that comprehensive sex education lowers teen pregnancy rates but there are still 17 states without mandatory sex education. I'd rather an upfront - hey we have an epidemic of teen pregnancies in these states which do not provide sex education and limit access to birth control. We're going to provide $200 million to open clinics to provide long term contraception and education as it benefits the country as a whole by xyz. Now I may be annoyed that my tax dollars are going to a state that can't get it's shit together, but will be the primary beneficiary - but I'd support it before dubious studies that aren't really studies. But I've found that upfront and honesty is shockingly lacking in our political system.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 17, 2017 19:03:09 GMT
I have a friend who worked in a school/clinic attached to one of these studies. Teen pregnancy in that school dropped 70% during the study. That is a huge decrease and it lowered the tax burden had that drop not occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 17, 2017 19:08:26 GMT
I have a friend who worked in a school/clinic attached to one of these studies. Teen pregnancy in that school dropped 70% during the study. That is a huge decrease and it lowered the tax burden had that drop not occurred. What was the study?
|
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Jul 17, 2017 19:17:04 GMT
Which is why sane Texans so appreciate the federal funds that allow groups in low-income areas to give birth control to teens under the auspices of a "study." Long may the "studies" live. And it benefits more than just Texas - there's no rule saying teen moms have to live here forever - they could end up in Colorado on your Medicaid roles. I'm not sure what percentage of the 81 "studies" are really backhanded access to birth control in conservative states - I doubt it's that high. I do think that it's a pretty inefficient way of using federal dollars. We have what a half dozen studies showing that comprehensive sex education lowers teen pregnancy rates but there are still 17 states without mandatory sex education. I'd rather an upfront - hey we have an epidemic of teen pregnancies in these states which do not provide sex education and limit access to birth control. We're going to provide $200 million to open clinics to provide long term contraception and education as it benefits the country as a whole by xyz. Now I may be annoyed that my tax dollars are going to a state that can't get it's shit together, but will be the primary beneficiary - but I'd support it before dubious studies that aren't really studies. But I've found that upfront and honesty is shockingly lacking in our political system. And they will go the way of PP. Texas will find a way to force those clinics to close.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Jul 17, 2017 19:31:27 GMT
Hahahahahahahahaha that's funny continue or expand a successful program? Why ever would that work? ( sarcasm ) 1- FREE? You can't expect republicans to give anyone anything ( unless your mega rich ) I mean that would be helping those horrible thieves mooch off the system AND egads its birth control so it has to be a horrible sin. Only a heathenous culture would do such a thing. 2- it works - heaven forbid we take what works and use it other places. Must re-invent the wheel every time. 3- 'They' made that program so 'we' must remove it. Doesn't matter what works, only who started it. We can't have any successful programs from 'them' ( both sides )
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jul 17, 2017 19:35:06 GMT
I have a friend who worked in a school/clinic attached to one of these studies. Teen pregnancy in that school dropped 70% during the study. That is a huge decrease and it lowered the tax burden had that drop not occurred. What was the study? let me double check with her
|
|