i can remember when viagra came on the market and women's libbers were pissed it was covered and bc wasn't.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Sandra Fluke Named As A Finalist In Time Magazines Person Of The Year
- Thread starter secdrl
- Start date
ED is a medical problem, trying not to get knocked up isn't
free bc would save everyone a shit ton of money. sad but true. 18 years of welfare isn't cheap and personal responsibility isn't the norm when it comes to sex. how many of you have even had an std or a pregnancy scare? easier said than done to never take a risk.
free? LOL someones always paying for other people's "free" shit.
the majority of men who take viagra do not need it. even teens are taking it.
would you rather pay for bc or 18 years of welfare? seems a simple choice and it's what it boils down to most of the time. someone pissing and moaning over the cost of bc can't afford to raise a kid.
neither. I don't support free bc nor do I support welfare.
how about people be more responsible for their actions? sounds reasonable, right?
in a perfect world.
i don't want to see what i might looking it up but i think 2 girls 1 cup, the guy that died after letting a horse anally penetrate him, and the guy w a broken jar in his butt were Americans. personally responsibility isn't common and neither is sense.
Standard Donkey
Registered
personal responsibility shouldn't have the option of being uncommon
and by this i mean - "if you fuck up.. no one is required to help you"
buuuuuuuuut then again america is a socialist country and has been for decades so i dont see this happening
you mean the whole 3% of the US population that receives direct money transfers at $400 a month for the lifetime maximum benefits of 60 months. the US Fed gov hands out 10x that amount every year in direct money transfers to billion dollar firms and banks.
social protection for the disabled, poor and indigent have been around since the Roman empire, get over it.
Where did she say that? You have a quote?
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,228
- Reaction score
- 2,259
- Points
- 113
Getting a boner isn't a requirement to live life.
neither is swallowing bc pills
Swallowing birth control pills is cheaper than paying out welfare on a child for eighteen years. A woman can't get pregnant without a man with a boner.
it's also cheaper to eliminate welfare.
You can go a long way to eliminate welfare by footing the bill for substantially cheaper birth control pills. What part of that can't you comprehend?
Find a quote from Sandra Fluke about wanting BC pills at absolutely zero cost?
I heard it on the far right msnbc network
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2011
- Messages
- 4,228
- Reaction score
- 2,259
- Points
- 113
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-is-a-natural-human-right-i-wont-be-silenced/
Notice at the end of the article she says that the "government should regulate according to the reality of our lives."
She also says, "Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school."
Notice at the end of the article she says that the "government should regulate according to the reality of our lives."
She also says, "Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, preventive care services, including contraception, will be covered by private insurance plans without co-pays or deductibles. If appropriately implemented, this important law will finally guarantee women access to contraception, regardless of the religious affiliation of their workplace or school."
The rich just moved away from all the immigrants and settled on Constantinople, leaving everyone to fend for themselves. There was money, just in the hands of few. The church gobbled up a lot of it.
Standard Donkey
Registered
That last part is also the problem with your argument. Taking bc would save everyone money. But do you have any evidence free bc would significantly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies? My guess is personal responsibility is by far and away the largest factor in unwanted pregnancies, not cost of birth control, and that taxpayer funding free bc would not decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies any significant amount.
Study: Free birth control leads to way fewer abortions - CBS News
Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage. The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost - from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives - the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert's team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The findings of the study, which ran from 2008 to 2010, come as millions of U.S. women are beginning to get access to contraception without co-pays under President Obama's health care law. Women's health specialists said the research foreshadows that policy's potential impact.
"As a society, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion rates. This study has demonstrated that having access to no-cost contraception helps us get to that goal," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
"It's just an amazing improvement," Dr. James T. Breeden, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said of the results. "I would think if you were against abortions, you would be 100 percent for contraception access."
Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage. The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost - from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives - the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert's team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The findings of the study, which ran from 2008 to 2010, come as millions of U.S. women are beginning to get access to contraception without co-pays under President Obama's health care law. Women's health specialists said the research foreshadows that policy's potential impact.
"As a society, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion rates. This study has demonstrated that having access to no-cost contraception helps us get to that goal," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
"It's just an amazing improvement," Dr. James T. Breeden, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said of the results. "I would think if you were against abortions, you would be 100 percent for contraception access."
Last edited:
family size of those in the underclasses have been to large since time immemorial. when you are poor sex is the only free activity. surprisingly the poor who are not well educated lack the understanding of the economic consequences of having to large a family on meager earnings. a more realistic "solution" would be to make birth control low cost and readily available. less monies would then have to be spent on foodstamps, etc. in the future reducing government spending. it's a no-brainer.
families with more wealth are generally smaller which increases prosperity and success for all.
Maybe you should consider the source before regurgitating whatever tripe you hear.
Maybe people should think before simply spewing whatever is the phrase of the day for whichever side they throw in with?
Which was already in Obamacare before anyone heard of Sandra Fluke.
Similar threads
