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.
Poor people have higher birth rates than non- poor throughout the world, regardless of welfare benefits.
That's typically true of countries that don't have the comprehensive availability of contraceptive services, devices, and meds that the US has. To recap...
That's typically true of countries that don't have the comprehensive availability of contraceptive services, devices, and meds that the US has. To recap...
Only 455 Planned Parenthood facilities, nationwide. All of the thousands of the rest are either public or private clinics.
And, if you actually took the time to LOOK at the list, instead of juts going over and over the quantity, you would see that the DISTRIBUTION isn’t equal. Some states that are huge geographically may have one page (or less) of clinics. If you live in a small town in ND or MT, it might take you a few hours to get to a clinic. How is that a feasible option. Many European countries have comprehensive options that are accessible. The fact that there are hundreds of clinics in CA isn’t going to help you if you live in a rural town in Alaska.
It's about holding the father equally responsible for the resultant child. Name the father on the birth certificate, or neither you nor your child are eligible for public assistance benefits. Why on earth are we giving men a pass on irresponsibly reproducing?
In some states - the woman is NOT allowed to put the man's name on the birth certificate unless he is physically present.
That said - let's get these kids educated because SOMEONE has to pay for my Medicare.
It should be a crime for poor people to have children.
As if that would stop them. The first method of not having children is both men and women stop having sex. The next is mandatory sterilization, and that still won't do much for controlling what people do with their lives.
As if that would stop them. The first method of not having children is both men and women stop having sex. The next is mandatory sterilization, and that still won't do much for controlling what people do with their lives.
If poor women had to pay for their own child, instead of the public, they'd stop having so many.
It’s one of the best-established relationships in economics: as women’s education and income levels go up, the number of children they have goes down.
But something happened to the American family over the last three decades: that downward slope became a U-turn. Women in families in the top half of the income spectrum are having more kids than their similar-earning counterparts did 20 years ago. Women from the very richest households are now having more children than those less-well off. Less than 28% of 40- to 45-year-old women in a household in any income bracket below $500,000 per year have three or more children, according to data from the 2011-2015 US Census, while 31.3% of families earning more than $500,000 do.
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.
