Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The U.S. has a relatively high pregnancy-related mortality rate. During the 2006–2007 period, the pregnancy-related mortality ratios were—
11.0 deaths per 100,000 live births for white women.
34.8 deaths per 100,000 live births for black women.
15.7 deaths per 100,000 live births for women of other races.
In contrast the maternal mortality rate in Canada is 7.8 deaths per 100,000 deliveries, although they define their rate somewhat differently.
Does it make any sense to remove funding from family planning insitutions when we have one of the highest unwanted pregancy rates of any civilized country, who will pick up these services
Maybe the services will be picked up by someone who can do the job. If we have one of the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies after all this time of funding Unplanned Parenthood it would seem they aren't doing a very good job.
Maybe the services will be picked up by someone who can do the job. If we have one of the highest rates of unwanted pregnancies after all this time of funding Unplanned Parenthood it would seem they aren't doing a very good job.
If only there was a way to make contraception easier to get a hold of for women...you know some way where it could almost be free in some cases....you know to prevent the extra cost of burden those unwanted children have on our society.
It's just part of the GOP's war on women, and a ludicrous one at that. They could totally eliminate Planned Parenthood and it would have absolutely no meaningful effect on the federal budget.
Planned Parenthood receives roughly $300 million in federal funding—or .008 percent of the budget—that allow low-income women to access affordable birth control, cancer screenings, and STD testing and treatment, not abortions (the funds are already federally prohibited from being used for abortions).
In 2011 20 percent of the federal budget, or $718 billion went to pay for defense and security-related international activities.
You really should keep the "war on women" stuff to a minimum if you want to be taken seriously. That phrase is useless hyperbole. It's no different than the right wingers who say that Obama is a communist. It's over-the-top to the point of being ludicrous and serves to damage rather than bolster any further arguments you might make.
As to your actual argument, well, 300 million here and 300 million there and eventually it adds up to real money. Your argument can be used against any cut at all. Including cuts to defense. A 718 billion cut to defense is a big chunk, sure, but it's not a lump sum. It's arrived at by totalling up tons of smaller cuts. You could easily use the "that cut isn't significant enough to matter" on each and every one of those small cuts and end up with no cuts to the military at all.
You really should keep the "war on women" stuff to a minimum if you want to be taken seriously. That phrase is useless hyperbole. It's no different than the right wingers who say that Obama is a communist. It's over-the-top to the point of being ludicrous and serves to damage rather than bolster any further arguments you might make.
As to your actual argument, well, 300 million here and 300 million there and eventually it adds up to real money. Your argument can be used against any cut at all. Including cuts to defense. A 718 billion cut to defense is a big chunk, sure, but it's not a lump sum. It's arrived at by totalling up tons of smaller cuts. You could easily use the "that cut isn't significant enough to matter" on each and every one of those small cuts and end up with no cuts to the military at all.
Nobody LIKES the "war on woman" phrase, it's played out and tired. However, when certain groups contuinally pick at one particular area (in this case, the right to choose), when they limit it as much as possible, do end runs around it and create laws that ONLY effect that one thing, and STILL try to limit it more, and people stand up to them, it can only be described that way. There is no eliminating it completely, we have so many regulations and rules and timelines and laws in place already, there are more important things to deal with, it's a fight that cost money, time, energy and is pulls us away from other issues that we CAN do something about. The only way to describe it is "war on woman" or "completely retarded Republicans"...take your pick.
Does it make any sense to remove funding from family planning insitutions when we have one of the highest unwanted pregancy rates of any civilized country, who will pick up these services
Nobody LIKES the "war on woman" phrase, it's played out and tired. However, when certain groups contuinally pick at one particular area (in this case, the right to choose), when they limit it as much as possible, do end runs around it and create laws that ONLY effect that one thing, and STILL try to limit it more, and people stand up to them, it can only be described that way. There is no eliminating it completely, we have so many regulations and rules and timelines and laws in place already, there are more important things to deal with, it's a fight that cost money, time, energy and is pulls us away from other issues that we CAN do something about. The only way to describe it is "war on woman" or "completely retarded Republicans"...take your pick.
Well, I pick "completely retarded Republicans", because I maintain that "war on women" is useless grandstanding. I mean of course I don't agree that Republicans are completely retarded, since I am one. But I can accept that as a valid opinion. "War on women" is just ridiculous. Despite its risks, pregnancy is not the death sentence that pro choice people try to make it out to be, and so opposing abortion on demand is not a "war." It is equally absurd for the pro life side to try to call abortion "genocide" or a "holocaust" like some of them do.
Does it make any sense to remove funding from family planning insitutions when we have one of the highest unwanted pregancy rates of any civilized country, who will pick up these services
If you didn't know it, the GOP has been doing legislation like this from 2008 to present, and even going as far as to claim the bills introduced as JOBS BILLS in the HOUSE were actually bills to defund and dismantle the EPA among other things. The GOP claimed they have submitted 30 jobs bills. The link below from crooks and liars outlines and debunks their claims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
