<p>Perhaps. Except that most school-based sex ed programs are NOT “abstinence-only”, and some 98% of all sexually-active women have used contraceptives at some point during their lives, so it’s not as though these women have been deprived of information.</p>
<p>claremarie–you stated, “On statistics demonstrating that low-income pregnant women have high smoking rates. Here is just one study, but a few minutes on Google will give you many more.”</p>
<p>this was to demonstrate your earlier claim that they, low income women, care more about their cigarettes than about their unborn children. </p>
<p>you demonstrated their rates of smoking are higher than non medicaid pregnant mothers, but you did nothing to illustrate that this means that they care more for cigarettes than their own children, or that they don’t care for their unborn children. you took a leap there and it sounds quite elitist imho</p>
<p>
We’ll see at election time, mini. In the archdiocese here, the POV is that this could have been done another way. Catholics voted for Obama and if enough of them are mad, it could swing the election. I wouldn’t say that you know a larger number of Catholics are happy or not. You have no idea outside of organizations. You can’t necessarily assume what members of organizations actually think. Says the republican wife of a republican Teamster. And I don’t actually disagree with you on the merits, but I find your presumption to speak for Catholics, in the same topic in which you’ve posted some incredibly hateful things about the Catholic hierarchy, to be questionable. Even though I’m not believing you on this one, I still think you’re aces!</p>
<p>sadly my kids received abstinence only education…to my dismay. Trust me I made sure my kids understood this approach was not based on scientific understanding of what teens need. The H.S. principal’s daugter became pregnant at 17, imho because it was not okay to acknowledge that one is sexually active or wants to be. Trying to adhere to the abstinence only cultural expectation of waiting til marriage is known to ill prepare our young men and women. In my home we discussed the importance of making choices based on one’s own needs, beliefs and preparing oneself if one chooses to be sexually active. I think the rhetoric surrounding abstinence only education drills into kids’ heads that it is wrong, or even sinful to engage in sex, therefore they go underground and do not admit they are going to…then they are not prepared. I think many young women who forego using BCP fall into this group…</p>
<p>What I find fascinating about this thread is how much arguing around each other is going on. Clearly, this issue is so nuanced that many things can be and are true at once. I’m very much enjoying the different perspectives, experiences and data.</p>
<p>
If they received only abstinence only education to your dismay, that’s on you. My kids had contraceptive-based education in school and they had much more education at home.</p>
<p>“you demonstrated their rates of smoking are higher than non medicaid pregnant mothers, but did nothing to illustrate that they don’t care for their unborn children. you took a leap there and it sounds quite elitist imho”</p>
<p>You’re right. Maybe they DO care for their unborn children. Let’s say instead that they fail to act in the best interests of their unborn children by continuing to smoke during their pregnancies.</p>
<p>fair enough claremarie. </p>
<p>zoos, that’s on me?? I could not influence what my state provides. my statement includes that I afforded my kids the additional perspective that their school based abstinence only education offered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kudos to you for making sure your kids got the knowledge they needed. After all, they are your kids, not the school’s.</p>
<p>I did get “the talk”, but I never did get me a pack of rubbers for security measures, need to take care of that lol…</p>
<p>
Are you implying that you have a life outside CC, Kluge? </p>
<p>
Which means that for your kids, the abstinence only education was an excellent jumping off point for your parenting. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, many of the young people who receive contraceptive based education become pregnant because they choose to do so. They want someone to love.</p>
<p>
Let’s be honest–this really is a no-brainer (assuming it’s true), unless you’re a Roman Catholic. I’m not aware of anybody else who thinks the contrary, except maybe a few people who aren’t persuaded that it saves money. Again, to a non-Catholic, the idea that the same people who believe that abortion is one of the worst evils to ever befall mankind also think contraception is evil is bizarre. I just don’t see how that contradiction can be justified outside of dogma.</p>
<p>“Let’s be honest–this really is a no-brainer (assuming it’s true), unless you’re a Roman Catholic.”</p>
<p>Yes, “assuming it’s true.” So let’s be honest – women who have “unwanted” pregnancies and abortions are NOT getting pregnant because they can’t afford the pill. Even the Guttmacher Institute does not make that claim, so it is difficult to see how this assertion is a no-brainer.</p>
<p>I have to agree with claremarie that it is not a no-brainer, because no one has provided evidence that making birth control free in the US will do any of those things. It makes logical sense that it <em>should</em> reduce abortion, unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, but where is the evidence?</p>
<p>Adding: There have been claims made that many Americans are already getting their birth control for free, so certainly we have the ability to determine whether it is in fact working to reduce abortion and unwanted pregnancy in that group.</p>
<p>
As odd as it sounds, this reminds me of something I learned as a municipal planning commissioner, studying methods for improving traffic safety.</p>
<p>There are three basic techniques for making people drive safer: Education, Engineering, and Enforcement. Let’s say you want to make people drive slower on Maple Ave. Enforcement says you increase traffic cop patrols and hand out more tickets. Education says you post more signs (maybe something about kids crossing or whatever) and do outreach to people who typically use Maple. Engineering is changing the physical layout of the road - could be something as simple as painting a wide bike lane stripe on both sides of the road which narrows the “apparent” width of the lane a foot or so. Similarly, if you want people to change their habits and start driving on Bypass Blvd. instead of Main street, you make Bypass wider, with fewer stopsigns to get in the way. Some folks will still use Main. But a significant number will change, just because the physical layout makes it easier to drive there.</p>
<p>Of the three methods of changing people’s behavior, by far the most effective is Engineering. The least effective is enforcement. You can nag and threaten and cajole people, but there’s always going to be a predictable number who will still behave in undesirable ways. It might be more satisfying to criticize and punish the drivers, but it’s predictably unsuccessful.</p>
<p>So how does this apply to the whole, “who pays how much for BC pills” debate? Well, one thing is simply to remove obstacles to having them. Yeah; there may be women who “can” afford the pill, but they spent all their cash on smokes. You can sneer at them and revel in how despicable they are, or, you can make sure they can get BC pills without having to forego their addiction. </p>
<p>Which approach do you think would be most effective? Surely, some will still crank out a brood of snarling single-parented brats. But not all. And there will be some young women whose nascent careers won’t be cut short by an unintended lateral transfer to the Mommy track; who will be able to achieve economic security and a stable family life before they start raising families. Not 100%, not 0%. Somewhere in between. And I see that as a net positive for the women and for society.</p>
<p>“I believe in the “rights” of the unborn child, until it is born and needs a check-up,” that is.</p>
<p>Look, I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school and know a ton of Catholics, many of whom are my very good friends, and none of them have more than 3 kids, and this didn’t happen by accident. </p>
<p>Most of the Catholics I know are completely “pro” birth control, and, as Democrats, completely for Obamacare, as well. None of us believe that healthcare is like a car or a TV set, and all of us sure as heck want to make sure that everyone gets their asthma medication and beta-blockers and all of the rest of it.</p>
<p>Some of the Catholics I know are truly horrified by abortion, and, quite frankly, are big supporters of planned parenthood, since they offer very low cost, free, in the case of poverty stricken women, birth control. The ones, like me, who don’t believe life begins in the fallopian tube? We still believe any reduction in abortion can only be a good thing.</p>
<p>The closing of planned parenthood, orchestrated much more so by fundamentalists than Catholics, is not seen as “pro-life” by any of us and is seen as “Anti-woman” by all of us. the irony is that over 90% of all sexually active women in the US have used some form of birth control and family planning, and that includes Catholic woman, and Evangelical woman, and it should be made available to poverty stricken women, as well.</p>
<p>even among my freinds who are seriously pro-life, none of them want to deny birth control to impoverished women. Not one.</p>
<p>So, I really don’t know who these “catholics” are, unless they are the allegedly celibate old men. And, you know, there aren’t a lot of priests who want to talk about this, either, from what I can see. And, I have an uncle whose a priest, and he sure as heck isn’t in the mood to go on the let’s deny birth control to the students road tour.</p>
<p>I always wonder who these people are that are surveyed.
I became pregnant twice while using birth control. Once I had an IUD & it was still implanted, the 2nd time I was using foam & a condom. ( I couldn’t take the pill)</p>
<p>While many women apparently get PG without using any birth control at all, I bet there also are women like me- who have unwanted pregnancies despite taking precautions.</p>
<p>“So how does this apply to the whole, “who pays how much for BC pills” debate? Well, one thing is simply to remove obstacles to having them.”</p>
<p>Once again, you are missing the point. The “obstacles to having them” are NOT financial. Birth control pills have never been cheaper, especially for low-income women who qualify for subsidies. But they require a relatively high level of commitment – you have to remember to take them every day, at the same time, even if your sexual activity is erratic. Women who don’t keep a regular schedule, or are in the habit of spending nights away from home, need to make special efforts to keep those pills handy. The 25% of low-income women who smoke should not be taking the pill. The pill can cause unpleasant side effects that discourage women from continuing their use. </p>
<p>It’s hard enough for educated, motivated, middle-class women to use the pill correctly. Check the failure rates.</p>
<p>No question but that Obama did rile most Catholics with the original mandate regarding bcp. However, the compromise that was subsequently structured was approved by 52% of Catholic voters, and 58% of Catholics in general. This was according to the Public Religion organization’s poll. [Survey</a> | Majority of Catholics Think Employers Should Be Required to Provide Health Care Plans that Cover Birth Control at No Cost | Public Religion Research Institute](<a href=“http://www.publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/]Survey”>http://www.publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/)</p>
<p>The Catholic Church is not a democratic organization, however. I have heard the views of a number of members of the various hierarchies, and I find it interesting that the priests seem to be unified against the Obama compromise; while members of orders of nuns came out fairly consistently in favor of it. The head of the Sisters of Charity, for instance, who run the Ascension Health System, one of the largest health systems in the country, is a strong supporter, both of the bcp compromise and of Obamacare in general. </p>
<p>So it seems that the Catholic hierarchy, while united against abortion and birth control itself, is not a monolithic group when it comes to the government’s compromise.</p>
<p>"it should be made available to poverty stricken women, as well.</p>
<p>even among my freinds who are seriously pro-life, none of them want to deny birth control to impoverished women. Not one."</p>
<p>The mandate applies to women working full-time, who are able to afford the premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance policies. It has nothing to do with the “poverty-stricken,” “impoverished” women you keep citing. Who, in any event, do not themselves cite their poverty-stricken state as the reason for any failure to use contraception.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s a concept. Let’s let the scientific and medical communities determine what is appropriate and safe treatment for xyz, instead of Jenny McCarthy and Ricki Lake.</p>