After Texas Stopped Funding Planned Parenthood, Low-Income Women Had More Babies

[Fweethawt]

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85774308/

 

[Jds22]

Murica

[older]

So they can generate more "welfare queens", which they can demonize when running for office.

 

And so they can generate more customers for the for-profit private prisons where too many of the resulting kids will end up.

[duderonomy]

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income? 

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?  

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

[Fweethawt]

That'd be fine if say, the same people forcing the births weren't also destroying the education system.

[StillLooking]

That'd be fine if say, the same people forcing the births weren't also destroying the education system.

If they also support more thorough expansion of medicaid. If they support more government subsidized child care. (Iirc the current limit is ridiculously low so that a working single mom with $30k income can't have subsidized child care. With child care at $1k a month I don't think she can live decently.)

If they also support proper funding of schools. (Vouchers are only beneficial to select very few while hurting the rest.)

I can go on but those are the most essentials.

[VacuumFlux]

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income? 

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?  

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

 

Planned Parenthood also provides birth control, so these weren't just pregnancies that would have been aborted, these are conceptions that never would have happened if the low income women had access to health care. The low income part is tragic because these are women who don't have other ways to afford health care (which includes pre-natal care for wanted pregnancies), who, with access to birth control, would likely have chosen never to get pregnant because they feel like they're already too poor to take care of the kids they have. Kinda like how it's tragic that teen pregnancies go up when kids aren't taught comprehensive sex ed.

 

If there were better post-birth support for low income mothers, and better educational opportunities for the kids, I bet more low income women would choose to carry to term even when abortion is available.

 

With politics in the US, the people who tend to vote to defund all heath care for the poor, and to defund schools, also tend to be the ones who want to outlaw abortion. Which makes them sound like hypocrites who don't actually care about the value of human life.

[TheLyniezian]

My first reaction was, "you stop funding the most prominent organization to provide abortions and birth control, women have more babies? In other news, water is wet, fire burns, and the Pope is a Catholic."

 

But I think it does give the lie to a couple of possible suppositions: one, that without access to these things, people will naturally become more abstenant, secondly, that other services than Planned Parenthood are easily able to pick up the slack.

[SilentLoner]

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income?

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

Playing dumb to the fact that Planned Parenthood is the nations largest BIRTH CONTROL provider, eh? You know, the thing that prevents pregnancies from happening?

[duderonomy]

 

Why is it a bad thing that women had babies? Is it because they were low income?

 

Is it more noble to slaughter the offspring of the poor, or to support them and educate them so their generation doesn't make the same mistake and make babies they can't afford to raise?

 

Not looking for an argument, I'm just throwing my two cents out there.

Playing dumb to the fact that Planned Parenthood is the nations largest BIRTH CONTROL provider, eh? You know, the thing that prevents pregnancies from happening?

 

 

There's nowhere else in the world to get birth control?  I didn't know that.

[rjn]

Dude, that doesn't help the women living in areas devoid of such alternatives.

[StillLooking]

Apparently some politicians don't like the results of this study. This reminds me of the whole climate change research.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/2-texas-researchers-under-fire-planned-parenthood-study-172540185.html

 

 

Two state health researchers in Texas are under fire for co-authoring a study suggesting what Republican leaders have long disputed: cuts to Planned Parenthood are restricting access to women's health care.

Texas Health Commissioner Chris Traylor has not said whether the researchers, one a high-level director with more than 20 years in state government, will be disciplined. But a spokesman made it clear that the agency agrees with outraged Republicans over the researchers' contributions to a study that the GOP sees as flawed and biased.

The study was published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most prominent medical journals in the nation. It found that fewer women in Texas have obtained long-acting birth control, such as intrauterine devices, after the GOP-controlled Legislature booted the nation's largest abortion provider from a state women's health program in 2013. Births paid for under Medicaid also increased among some women.

Powerful Republican state Sen. Jane Nelson dismissed the findings as invalid, in part because the research was funded by the nonprofit Susan T. Buffet Foundation, which is a major supporter of Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups.

[duderonomy]

Dude, that doesn't help the women living in areas devoid of such alternatives.

 

True, I suppose.  But seventy five cents can still buy a condom in most gas station restrooms, and even now PP isn't everywhere, so that kind of defeats your point. No offense. 

 

I admit that I'm softening my views on abortion anyway, and once somebody can convince me that a human with it's own unique DNA is just an inconvenient tumor that pops up after sex, and how that potential tumor magically becomes human with its first breath of air, I'm all in!  

[rjn]

Oh, I'm hardly the most liberal when it comes to abortion either (the abortion-debate a couple of weeks ago ought to have made that clear) but I still think it should be available, especially when there are serious risks involved.

[mymistake]

True, I suppose.  But seventy five cents can still buy a condom in most gas station restrooms, and even now PP isn't everywhere, so that kind of defeats your point.  

 

 

 

No it doesn't.  We are talking about Texas where buying a condom is planning to betray Jesus.  The constant brainwashing is a factor.

[Lilith666]

Lyniezian said people will "naturally become more abstinent" without access to birth control. Maybe some will, but sure as heck there will be some who won't. Why punish children and force them to grow up with poverty, crime, and poor education for their parents' decisions?

[duderonomy]

Lyniezian said people will "naturally become more abstinent" without access to birth control. Maybe some will, but sure as heck there will be some who won't. Why punish children and force them to grow up with poverty, crime, and poor education for their parents' decisions?

 

Do we take the children that are alive now and kill them if their parents make bad decisions that lead to poverty, crime and poor education?   Better to kill them than to "punish" them with a rough start? Killing them is for their own good??

 

That sounds like a plan Biblegod would come up with. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems a little wrong with that.

[Lilith666]

Bad comparison. Those children who are alive are people. They are separate from their parents, with their own lives and bodies.

[Blood]

 

Dude, that doesn't help the women living in areas devoid of such alternatives.

 

True, I suppose.  But seventy five cents can still buy a condom in most gas station restrooms, and even now PP isn't everywhere, so that kind of defeats your point. No offense. 

 

I admit that I'm softening my views on abortion anyway, and once somebody can convince me that a human with it's own unique DNA is just an inconvenient tumor that pops up after sex, and how that potential tumor magically becomes human with its first breath of air, I'm all in!  

 

 

Such high morals you have! Too bad you only apply them to unborn fetuses. 

[mymistake]

 

 

That sounds like a plan Biblegod would come up with. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems a little wrong with that.

 

 

Oh I know.  It's a ridiculous comparison you created out of mockery.

[duderonomy]

Bad comparison. Those children who are alive are people. They are separate from their parents, with their own lives and bodies.

 

The ones inside the womb are dead? When do they magically come to life? 

[duderonomy]

 

 

Dude, that doesn't help the women living in areas devoid of such alternatives.

 

True, I suppose.  But seventy five cents can still buy a condom in most gas station restrooms, and even now PP isn't everywhere, so that kind of defeats your point. No offense. 

 

I admit that I'm softening my views on abortion anyway, and once somebody can convince me that a human with it's own unique DNA is just an inconvenient tumor that pops up after sex, and how that potential tumor magically becomes human with its first breath of air, I'm all in!  

 

 

Such high morals you have! Too bad you only apply them to unborn fetuses. 

 

 

The defender of baby murder and hater of all things whitey calls me out for my morality. Priceless.  

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

That sounds like a plan Biblegod would come up with. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems a little wrong with that.

 

 

Oh I know.  It's a ridiculous comparison you created out of mockery.

 

 

I honestly (I say "honestly" because you've called me a liar) have no idea what you are trying to say here. 

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

That sounds like a plan Biblegod would come up with. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems a little wrong with that.

 

 

Oh I know.  It's a ridiculous comparison you created out of mockery.

 

 

I honestly (I say "honestly" because you've called me a liar) have no idea what you are trying to say here. 

 

 

 

You are not contributing anything to the conversation.  Mischaracterizing others or the situation doesn't make abortion wrong.  

[mymistake]

 

The ones inside the womb are dead? When do they magically come to life? 

 

 

She didn't say any of that nor imply it.  You are using the loaded question fallacy.  If you use too many fallacies you might give people the impression that your position has no legitimate foundation.